[Eddy_Viscosity2]

This approach is the perfect "the richer get richer" inequality engine that would run things even faster than our current system (which works pretty well already). Even the most consumerist of the super-rich spend that tiniest fraction on taxable consumables compared with any given salaried employee. Which means they have more to invest to increase their wealth (and gap between them and everyone else) even faster.

[rayiner]

The key insight is that wealth that’s not spent has no effect on anyone else. It’s just a number on paper.

[skt5]

Wealth could be invested (impacts those borrowing), used on consumables (impacts businesses), or hidden under the mattress or equivalent (reduces the supply of money so acts deflationary).

I would argue that those 3 are the main downstream effects of having wealth -- and they all impact people at large enough values.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Would political contributions count as taxable spending?

[TimorousBestie]

> This approach is the perfect "the richer get richer" inequality engine that would run things even faster than our current system (which works pretty well already).

That’s the idea. Lawyers accustomed to the patronage of wealthy clients need more of them to maintain their lifestyle.

[rayiner]

No, I'm just another third worlder who escaped a socialist country.

[TimorousBestie]

As you remind us all once or twice a day. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive, of course.

[rayiner]

Yet you continue to make ad hominem arguments based on imagined motivations.