• pingveno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Okay, and how is that a rebuttal? Wealth taxes cost a large amount to administer and don’t provide much revenue. Any tax should be weighed against its side effects. If a type of tax has a history of being mainly performative with little revenue, what’s the case for swallowing the side effects?

    Again, it’s much easier to tax wealth as it moves because typically that movement involves putting a value on it. Estate taxes also require appraising the value of assets, but they are literally once in a lifetime.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not rebutting that wealth taxes don’t really work. I’m saying that even this performative measure is not palatable to the oligarchs, then obviously any serious measure won’t be either.

      • pingveno
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If they won’t accept bloodletting to release the bad humors, then surely they won’t accept acetaminophen for a headache?

        It’s bad policy. Many countries have experimented with it and given up. Others like the UK looked at it and couldn’t find a way to make it worth the administration cost to begin with. There is simply no excuse for enacting known bad policy, and no amount of blaming things on oligarchies is going to get around that.