| True enough, but it doesn't address the motivation or the issues presented by California's proposed wealth tax. It's a big democracy red flag when a majority wants to take a lot from a tiny minority; the moral hazard of the unfairness is that it's unclear where this ends. (Saying "one-time" and "1%" are trying to limit that risk) It's a democracy red flag when an unpopular minority is vilified as the cause of society's problems. It short-circuits real policy making and distracts from real issues. The bargain of private wealth is that it's better at innovation that should spread widely -- if it's subject to competition and does not export costs. One problem is that one of the best investments is to change the law to reduce competition, increase market power, and export costs -- i.e., to weaken politics. Another is that wealth used to mostly invest locally (information and transaction costs), so locals would see some benefit. No longer. Finally, as an accelerant, enterprises are made of legions of managers and experts, who now compete more than ever; they would lose that competition by supporting less extractive policies or gentler politics. Net result is that wealth seems not productive but extractive, and there is no negative feedback to reduce that. Once the grand gambit of goodwill is lost, it cannot be recovered for at least a generation, but there's no real feedback to prevent that. The political viability of something like a wealth tax is just an early indicator. |