[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.