[tyg13]

> Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms.

The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income. Your complaint isn't relevant to the discussion of wealth vs income taxes.

[thunky]

> The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income

Derived is not the same thing. Not even close.

Then why stop at 1%? Why not fork over half of your possessions to the government every year and let them spend it for you, if you trust them so much?

And by the way we already have a wealth tax. Its called inflation.

[AnimalMuppet]

Inflation is only a wealth tax if you invest in cash. If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation.

[thunky]

> If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation

Aka put your wealth at risk or watch it disappear.

And the larger point is that runaway govt spending makes it disappear faster.

[tyg13]

Why not eliminate tax entirely, then? Is that a conclusion you'd support?

[thunky]

If the choice is between giving the govt an portion of my net worth, a portion of my income, or nothing, I'll choose nothing. But that's not really an option is it?