Comrades! The sum a wealth tax would raise is immaterial, is it not? It would be redistributive! That is its glorious purpose. But, comrades, for now, we must be the crouching tiger. Be still; let our Labour comrades work in the shadows.
You could also draw on Mirrlees' insistence that we consider tax, and progressivity, as a system.
See Swiss cantons. A relatively small wealth or property tax, down around the 0.1 or 0.2pc level, in a system of (1) no stamp duty (2) very low income taxes (3) no inheritance tax....is a hell of a different proposition compared to "I know, let's have 0.5-2pc wealth tax AND take 10% of your house when you buy it AND 86pc marginal tax rates AND 40pc IHT."
Since income is used by most to acquire wealth, isn’t income tax de facto a tax on wealth?
How about instead of shuffling taxes, move Government activities (back) into the private and voluntary sectors, and abolish the welfare-state thereby reducing the number of bureaucrats and other public sector employees on the State payroll, significantly reducing the expense and requirement to tax?
“… and then a few environmental ones for cutting pollution.“
Why? Oh yes - Pigou Taxes, the externalities malarkey, supposed to change behaviour. Who decides what “pollution is? CO2 is defined as “pollution” - the naturally occurring, trace gas upon which nearly all life depends.
At what level to set the tax? Too high it reduces economic activity; too low it fails in its purpose. The tax should be revenue neutral to prevent economic harm. The tax must also not affect some citizens more than others.
Environmental taxes are ideological taxes to placate zealots, but a great excuse to raise taxes for fiscally incontinent Governments.
Comrades! The sum a wealth tax would raise is immaterial, is it not? It would be redistributive! That is its glorious purpose. But, comrades, for now, we must be the crouching tiger. Be still; let our Labour comrades work in the shadows.
Very good.
You could also draw on Mirrlees' insistence that we consider tax, and progressivity, as a system.
See Swiss cantons. A relatively small wealth or property tax, down around the 0.1 or 0.2pc level, in a system of (1) no stamp duty (2) very low income taxes (3) no inheritance tax....is a hell of a different proposition compared to "I know, let's have 0.5-2pc wealth tax AND take 10% of your house when you buy it AND 86pc marginal tax rates AND 40pc IHT."
I think the problem is in how we frame the problem.
The standard concept is “Wealth Tax” - within the existing framework. But that framework wasn’t designed for this concept.
So I started to examine the question… https://climatefortress.substack.com/p/the-richest-people-on-earth-have?r=6zqf74&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
After looking at the problem, I proposed a solution: https://climatefortress.substack.com/p/the-commons-access-fee?r=6zqf74&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Since income is used by most to acquire wealth, isn’t income tax de facto a tax on wealth?
How about instead of shuffling taxes, move Government activities (back) into the private and voluntary sectors, and abolish the welfare-state thereby reducing the number of bureaucrats and other public sector employees on the State payroll, significantly reducing the expense and requirement to tax?
“… and then a few environmental ones for cutting pollution.“
Why? Oh yes - Pigou Taxes, the externalities malarkey, supposed to change behaviour. Who decides what “pollution is? CO2 is defined as “pollution” - the naturally occurring, trace gas upon which nearly all life depends.
At what level to set the tax? Too high it reduces economic activity; too low it fails in its purpose. The tax should be revenue neutral to prevent economic harm. The tax must also not affect some citizens more than others.
Environmental taxes are ideological taxes to placate zealots, but a great excuse to raise taxes for fiscally incontinent Governments.