my hunch is that it would be possible for the wealthy to handle this elegantly eg: assets moved to trusts that pay out to them/descendents eg: assets distributed to descendents or trusts for these descendents well be death eg: "loans" to firms over time, firms invest
-
-
Show this thread
-
in any case the actual collection on this tax would probably be negligible, is my guess but it doesnt matter because no way in hell it passes
Show this thread -
think this checks out thohttps://twitter.com/asglidden/status/1190370677049544704?s=19 …
Show this thread -
new idea tax on human capital on one hand this is a terrible idea on the other hand it might destroy universities for good
Show this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nothing stops negative real post tax returns, yes cash is included
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Taxing wealth itself was much easier when assets were held primarily in land. X amount of land equals X amount of money owed to the state. You could tax land with out taking the land. You can’t tax wealth with out taking wealth.
-
Maybe this is only a problem for people like me who, for whatever reason, get really angery at the idea of my children not getting everything I own when I die.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Huh, I wonder if a wealth tax could increase wealth inequality? 1% wealth tax, wealthier citizens begin to tolerate more risk and invest in higher return investments to “escape” the tax. This leads to faster economic growth as bolder projects are funded. Interesting, if so.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.