• ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich.

    There is a very good reason to discard the idea of assigning an arbitrary ‘maximum wealth’, two actually:

    • it’s effectively impossible to actually enforce
    • it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue

    It would be tremendously expensive resource-wise, logistically, to even reliably determine if one has reached that ceiling (net worth figures for individuals that you see in the media are guesses, not the result of actual auditing), much less calculate with any degree of certainty how far over the ceiling someone is, and that ‘research/enforcement cost’ is practically certain to completely cancel out (and then some) any potential added revenue, especially because it’s also trivially easy to circumvent by creating debt, etc.

    • LOGIC💣@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago
      • it will cost us more to try to enforce it, than we will gain in revenue

      That sounds to me like an assertion that has no basis in reality.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        That would most likely be because you are ignorant of when it has already literally happened in the past, in other nations.

        On multiple occasions in multiple countries, wealth taxes primarily aimed at the wealthiest demographic have been tried, and then repealed because overall tax revenue literally decreased as a result. There is a reason the vast majority of countries that have implemented such taxes have either since repealed them, or ‘loosened’ them such that they’re no longer primarily aimed at said demographic, and have become a much more ‘typical’ tax that the middle class pays.