dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
This might be the best way to implement a wealth tax. Because wealth taxes are dumb and impossible to implement (regardless of whether a country thinks they have implemented one. You can't tax something on its present value. If I catch Barry Bonds' last home run, i shouldn't be taxed because I'm holding it. That means no working class person can ever hold any kind of "thing" with market value. If I buy a share of stock on Dec 30th for $1, it goes to $1,000,000 on Dec 31st before crashing to $0 on Jan 2nd, I shouldn't be taxed on the $1M value. I should be taxed when I sell it.
This, on the other hand, does seem like a better compromise. I think... But it's still kind of wonky. How would you tax someone on that same scenario if they earn $25k per year, but a $1 stock, it goes to $1B before crashing to $0? Should you tax them at the 20% rate on that $25k instead of the 0% they would probably have otherwise.
I know it's an extreme case but it illustrates the problem with how to calculate a time-variant number like wealth. Income is not time-variant between years. There's a start and an end and all income-modifying transactions have to have taken place within that single year (sort of, but that's besides the point). Then again, I don't think there's a case in recorded history where someone approaches that $1B without already being fuckin' rich to begin with. So maybe that's why this is actually a really good plan. I'm not about to shed tears because someone worth $800M gets taxed at some minimum rate because they temporarily hit $1B on Dec 31st.
This, on the other hand, does seem like a better compromise. I think... But it's still kind of wonky. How would you tax someone on that same scenario if they earn $25k per year, but a $1 stock, it goes to $1B before crashing to $0? Should you tax them at the 20% rate on that $25k instead of the 0% they would probably have otherwise.
I know it's an extreme case but it illustrates the problem with how to calculate a time-variant number like wealth. Income is not time-variant between years. There's a start and an end and all income-modifying transactions have to have taken place within that single year (sort of, but that's besides the point). Then again, I don't think there's a case in recorded history where someone approaches that $1B without already being fuckin' rich to begin with. So maybe that's why this is actually a really good plan. I'm not about to shed tears because someone worth $800M gets taxed at some minimum rate because they temporarily hit $1B on Dec 31st.
