[robswc]

Why is this fallacy used EVERY single time someone points out the absurdity of liquidating every billionaire.

I would make the same claim. I'm not rich. I just don't want people with "good intentions" creating "bad consequences" because they don't understand fundamentals.

[pydry]

The bad economic consequences you vaguely alluded to would presumably apply to the 1950s when the US and its middle classes grew the fastest and top rates of tax were ~98%.

[robswc]

No. But I'm glad you seem to be familiar with this.

So its funny you left out the countless proposed, failed and later repealed attempts at wealth taxes in Europe.

If you want a very simple example, just look at how Sweden killed their markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_...

Countless business lost, lives damaged and millions lost, just because someone wanted to introduce a "tax" with "good intentions" without thinking.

[pydry]

>So its funny you left out the countless proposed, failed and later repealed attempts at wealth taxes in Europe.

I do remember when news media outlets owned by the very wealthy claimed the French wealth tax failed because Gerard Depardieu left.

>If you want a very simple example, just look at how Sweden killed their markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_...

A simple example of what? This was not a wealth tax it was a transaction tax on securities.

[robswc]

>I do remember when news media outlets owned by the very wealthy claimed the French wealth tax failed because Gerard Depardieu left.

Why are you listening to news media outlets? You just have to look at the reality of the situation. Wealth taxes failed. They had consequences that outweighed the benefits.

>A simple example of what?

A "simple" tax that had popular support and planning but failed miserably.

If you want an example of a wealth tax that didn't work, just throw a dart at Europe and google when it was repealed in that country.

>This was not a wealth tax it was a transaction tax on securities.

Sure. Its comically the same exact tax (down to the %) that Bernie Sanders (a serious politician) is proposing though... but I suppose we're getting a bit off topic with that one.

[pydry]

>Why are you listening to news media outlets? You just have to look at the reality of the situation. Wealth taxes failed.

This is indeed the prognosis you would assume consuming from those outlets. They might use subtle misdirection in order to achieve this.

>A "simple" tax that had popular support

It didn't sound like it was either one of those things, not that that would even be relevant even so since it wasn't a wealth tax.

>Sure. Its comically the same exact tax (down to the %) that Bernie Sanders (a serious politician) is proposing though

That was ~0.005%, not 0.5%. It was attacked vehemently by the financial industry/media on the basis that it wouldn't raise much in the way of money even though, of course, it wasn't supposed to (nice bit of misdirection). It was designed to kill off the largely parasitic HFT industry and leave regular old securities trading intact (unlike sweden's tax). It was a very well designed tax, actually, which is why a variant is used by Singapore and Hong Kong.

None of this, of course, has much to do with the 98% tax rates of the 1950s, which presaged some of the highest levels of economic growth America has ever seen, fomenting the true birth of the modern middle class - a class with money in its pocket. Or, a socialist/communist that wrecked the economy for decades to come. Depending on whom you ask.