[greenwich26]

Sounds pretty authoritarian.

> Except the uber wealthy who can afford to lose money to pay taxes for the infrastructure that has enabled their explosive asset growth.

Federal income tax almost never gets used for infrastructure. Infrastructure is mostly built by state and local governments, which receive most of their income from sales tax and property tax, and other taxes, which are already almost entirely paid by businesses. So, they are already paying for the infrastructure that enabled their growth.

[sokoloff]

A great many state projects are 50-90% funded by federal grants. Interstate highway projects and airport projects in particular are often 90% federal (and are self-evidently infrastructure).

[jessaustin]

So you're not opposed to property tax? That's just what we're considering here, for securities rather than real property.

[greenwich26]

Various levels of local governments provide many services and benefits for my physical property located in their jurisdictions, so I do not oppose a reasonable property tax. But the federal government provides no services or benefits to the securities in my vault, so a general federal wealth tax on them is altogether different, and I oppose it.

[igorlev]

The government very clearly provides for support for the equities in many ways (which I’m sure you’re aware of) How do the following not count as benefits to the equities in your vault?:

1. Maintaining a navy that reduces piracy enough to have global JIT delivery networks that reduce costs for corps

2. Protects corp interests abroad allowing a larger market and higher profits

3. Enforces regulations that attract a larger than otherwise likely share of people to put their money in the stock market, increasing the value of your equities.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

4. Pumps millions/billions/trillions into failed financial corporations to prevent the financial system itself from collapsing.

[greenwich26]

US federal spending 2020: $7 trillion

The entire budget of #1 is about 3% of that, and #2 and #3 around 1%.

What a terrible deal.

[jessaustin]

The federal government has spent several trillion dollars fighting several disastrously stupid wars over the last several decades. Please don't try to pretend all that death and destruction wasn't good for the securities in your vault.

[simondotau]

Or if that’s too abstract for you, think about how the securities in your vault would fair in the absence of government maintaining basic law and order; honouring and enforcing otherwise fictional property such as copyright, trademarks and patents; some degree of redress in a court system; and some degree of stability of regulation of markets.

So much of the wealth on this planet relies on Governments for it to exist and to persist.

[greenwich26]

These sort of administrative and bureaucratic activities are less than 1% of federal spending though. So your argument makes no sense.

[simondotau]

I disagree that you can compartmentalise Government in that way. To the extent that there's aspects of Government which don't directly prop up the value of assets, many of them still play an important role in maintaining the social license required for Government to govern—and thus provide whatever it is you imagine is in your "1%" bucket.

The fact that a lot of unrelated money transits through Government to pay for social services is completely irrelevant to the point.

[cableshaft]

Military spending is 54% of the federal discretionary budget, though (the discretionary budget is about 1/3rd of the total budget). That all contributes to its security, if not all directly.