[bengotow]

Wow, this ignores both the "floor" below which you would not be subject to the wealth tax (in the US, most recently by Elizabeth Warren, this has been discussed as $50M+), and ALSO fails to take into account that you would be growing your principal at ~3-8% a year through investment, etc.

Sure, I guess with no floor on the tax and with your money just literally sitting in a pile, the government would eventually take a lot of it.

[jschwartzi]

The problem is that as you get older you need to reduce risk in your investments in order to rely on them more. As you de-risk your rate of return goes down. The lowest risk accounts are fdic insured, and at that point you’re losing money every year. Sure if there’s a floor on it I’d support it. But with no floor I’d be watching my savings dwindle year over year.

[sroussey]

Real estate has such taxes, no floor.

[qznc]

Also, inflation currently does the modeled loss at 1-2% already without a floor. Wealthy people are still fine.

[aww_dang]

If we accept that price inflation is driven by inflation of the money supply, and that Cantillon effects send most of this new money to the financial markets, then we may conclude that this process drives asset inflation in the financial markets in which the wealthy participate.

That is to say that inflation doesn't harm the wealthy. They benefit from it. Inflation will cause the floor to creep up to everyone else.