[idle_zealot]

Ideally you'd spend the taxes on things that help people, but I would argue that even simply destroying the taxed wealth would be an improvement over what we have now, if only in that it would counter wealth/power disparity and enable democracy to work better. Allowing a subset of the population to accumulate power divorces their interests from the majority and represents the biggest threat to modern society.

It would be a huge waste though. We should probably spend it on food, education, and healthcare instead.

[jandrewrogers]

> destroying the taxed wealth

Wealth is farms, factories, skills, etc. How would destroying all that improve anyone's life?

Wealth isn't money. It exists independent of any currency you can use to give it notional value.

[nullocator]

I don't think I can personally farm a Yacht into existence, so not sure that holds water. Over the last several years the "value" of several of my skills has basically gone to zero as technology advanced, so I'm not sure that I buy in the modern era at least skills are a good indicator of wealth either, nor can I likely acquire a Yacht with pure skill alone.

I guess if I am a factory owner I could produce a Yacht, but as a humble employee I'd be unlikely to experience or enjoy the produced Yacht's of the factory, and it also seems like the factory owner would sell most of their produced Yacht's for money, not "farms, factories, skills"

[tormeh]

The government decides who is owed what material goods. This is known as property rights. The destruction in this case would be equivalent to transferring the ownership of some factories to the government, exchanging those factories for something flammable on the open market and then setting fire to said flammable things. It's obviously wasteful, but definitely possible, and it won't directly and measurably impact anyone's quality of life. Investor confidence in your country will nosedive, though.

[idle_zealot]

I guess I need to clarify that I don't support lighting farms on fire. Wealth is liquid, it's the abstract concept of who owns what, who has the right to compel behavior. A destructive tax is just one that doesn't have corresponding spending on the balance sheet. I'm also not even saying that's a good policy, just better than what we're doing now. There are trivial improvements, like spending it on paying off the national debt.

[gazebo2]

Wealth is also money actually -- people don't contribute farms to politicians campaigns

[pocksuppet]

If we did it today the tax would be money. It doesn't make sense for the government to seize 2% of a factory.

I think GP means we could destroy the taxed money, which would benefit everyone by either deflating their savings (the same money is worth more), or allowing more money to be printed for social programs without causing rampant inflation. This is getting pretty close to MMT.