• Snowstorm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Lets have a guillotine tax : after 1000x the average wealth you are taxed 1% of the wealth above that threshold yearly to avoid meeting with…

    That means a growing business owner sells 1-2% of his stock yearly but still grow his wealth if the business likely grow 10%. The government fund education and health and new people can vote on those stocks.

    • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      No. The point is not to raise revenue. Concentrated wealth is, in and of itself, as damaging to society as theft, murder, pandemics, and many other crimes and social ills. If you have a community where 100 people each have a wealth of $100k, and you drop in one person with a wealth of $100 billion, you have markedly decreased the quality of life of everyone in that city. You haven’t taken a penny from them, but you have harmed their lives grievously. That billionaire can now buy up every property that comes up for sale. That billionaire can now dominate local politics. The resources of the entire city skew to meet the whims of that one person.

      Billionaires are dangerous. You don’t try to keep them around and use them as a cash cow. You eliminate them. You have a hard maximum wealth cap, and anything above it is taxed 100%. It’s not about raising revenue. It’s a matter of public health and safety. Billionaires are that dangerous.