[medvezhenok]

I think we're missing the forest for the trees by focusing on exactly what the tax rates are and how much is "fair".

Money at the top levels is not at all like money for the rest of us. For a middle class citizen, money is about consumption and freedom to do what you want (with enough of it).

At the top end of the distribution, money is no longer about consumption or freedom (since you can never realistically consume as much as they have, and you don't have to work after you've saved like $10M). Money at that level is a proxy for power - a group of oligarchs can basically have the power of a shadow government, but unelected. And the real question to ask is "how much power/leverage do we want an individual (or a group of rich oligarchs) to have in a democracy."

So taxing the rich is not even about spreading the wealth, necessarily - if you redistributed it directly you might get inflation by redirecting investment money into consumption. It's more about limiting the amount of power that a person can accumulate over others.

[etherael]

> It's more about limiting the amount of power that a person can accumulate over others.

Does this not beg the question why not just limit power itself rather than limiting wealth with the target side effect that the wealthy will not easily purchase power as a result?

Why is almost the entire species seemingly addicted to the idea that the power itself is not the problem? You can erect regulations on the corrosive influence of money in politics until the cows come home but as long as the ROI on lobbying is positive, it's a given that's going to be the result.

On the other hand when there's no power to buy nobody buys it by definition. Adjust above extreme observation appropriately in order to justify the minimal possible tolerable conglomeration of power availability in any given system to find whatever tolerable level the reader ends up comfortable with. Or viewed uncharitably, arrive at the conclusion that's exactly what's already happened and the human affliction of slavish devotion to power is near universal and continuously growing and there's no way to escape it short of completely opting out of modern global civilization given the observed distribution of the population constantly seeking to increase it.

[gwright]

One rationale for limited government is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the power ceded to government and the incentive to control/steer that power. By limiting the power of government you reduce the incentive to usurp or corrupt that power.

An extreme example of this would be a dictatorial regime where control of the government becomes a life-or-death concern for warring groups.

[etherael]

I agree, that's what I'm getting at. But instead contrast that idea with the more broadly accepted one that it's wealth that's the problem not power even though the former seems like a much more accurate description than the latter.

Maybe it's just a bug in humanity; control the world with this one weird trick.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

I’ve always theorised that distribution of wealth would cause inflation directly or indirectly (e.g price hikes out of line with inflation).

Are there any credible studies on what would happen?

What about if you capped everyone’s net worth at 10m? Would that impact on the economy directly (e.g destroying money)?

[eloff]

I think actually this a valid concern. A billion dollars is a ridiculous level of wealth that no person should need.

But if you implement higher taxes at the to end, past what point do those people just leave, or leave on paper. There is an inflection point where the tax would actually do more harm than good. And nobody knows where it is. I'd like to see us get closer to it though, there is room to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

A bigger problem at that level is loopholes and compliance though.