[shmolyneaux]

There is a bit more to the story than a 1% wealth being "equivalent" to a 20% income tax. The primary difference is that unrealized gains are taxed by a wealth tax. We need a mechanism for assets to be sold by the richest in society. If those with assets keep accruing more assets the median person will suffer. When we're talking about real assets (housing, retail shops, warehouses, land) we don't need to be concerned about capital flight. The assets are still there on the ground. Reducing the cost of those assets is exactly what we need to help a local economy.

That being said, the richest are effectively _not_ paying the highest marginal tax rate considering all the tax structuring they do. Claiming that they would be paying the highest income tax in the world is misleading, for one. Secondly, the richest in the world _should be_ paying the highest income tax.

[zozbot234]

When more assets are sold than are bought, that leads to the destruction of assets on a broad scale. It's the economic equivalent of eating one's seed corn. This would not be good for the median person. You can and should tax land (meaning the land value component of real estate in general) and natural resources more generally, but that's an entirely different game: it has next to nothing to do with wealth taxes as generally understood.

[loglog]

This claim is plain malicious. Of course falling asset prices would be excellent for the median person, since they would be less extremely priced out of everywhere. This is one of the central benefits of a wealth tax.

[wyre]

> When more assets are sold than are bought

How does this make sense? If Johnny sells 5 cars, that means 5 cars were bought. How can Johnny sell more cars than are being bought? Do you mean that Johnny has more cars to sell than are being bought?

[zozbot234]

It's like a hot potato where people want to sell assets over buying them. Obviously at any given moment there are as many buyers as sellers, but this is exactly why trying to force people to sell at rock bottom prices brings widespread asset destruction.

[wyre]

Ya, but if there are way more sellers than buyers that means that prices are inflated. If prices were lower there would be more buyers, but sellers want to keep their asset prices inflated so they don't lower prices. Assets that are priced properly don't have the problem of having too many sellers. I think calling it asset destruction is slightly disingenuous. Just because the price is lower doesn't mean the asset is destroyed. Even if we are talking about a stock selling for 50% less, it is still a share in company ownership.

Who is forcing anyone to sell at rock bottom?

[jbs789]

For a given transaction after the fact that’s true.

But consider 5 people wanting to buy Richards 1 car.

I think that’s actually what they meant… although I agree w you.

[solidsnack9000]

If those with assets keep accruing more assets the median person will suffer.

How will they suffer? The people with assets, to realize a benefit from them, have to spend money. If they don't spend the money, then what's the problem?