|
That doesn't seem true. Picketey's (probably misspelled) "capital in the 21st century" has a compelling argument for exactly this kind of tax. And my realization that I can't see it implemented ever, is about as chilling to me as climate change in terms of a real existential threat that we as humans see coming but will be unable to stop, because it requires cooperation that seems impossible. The basic argument is, I'm hoping I'm getting this right:
The return of capital far outstrips return of labour, that difference (if above a certain percentage) is a transfer of wealth from labourers to the capitalists. Return of labour is basically GPD growth, return of capital is income from rent/investment/interest and all of that. This increases inequality over time leads to destabilization of society, I'd argue you can see that in the USA quite well. And starts happening in rest of Europe more slowly (not quite as capitalistic as the USA but heading there nevertheless). Wealth building for the bottom 50% is extremely difficult (house prices for example) 2.5% is a significant percentage, but rate of return is around 5% or thereabouts, basically a 50% tax if you make the average and continue investing (i.e. it's presumably useful to society). Once you "sit on your money", it would reduce the wealth slowly (no longer useful to society). I.e. if you keep investing, the government will still have less wealth than the capitalists no matter how long you do it. It won't be as a significant increase in national budgets as one may assume. Also, "government owning things", the idea is that that money is redistributed to the people via benefits (unemployment, education, health care, ubi etc). |