[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 332 KB, 1123x833, 15357641938071163418334.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11310043 No.11310043 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Could any economic know-hows provide insight on what the consequences of a hard cap on individual wealth would be? That is, all money earned beyond X dollars by a single person goes to the government. My retard "friend" genuinely believes in doing this for billionaires. Some of my points are:
>More incentive to evade taxes and offshore shit
>Discourages rich individuals from continuing their efforts beyond the threshold
>Gives government more control and we all know how stupid the common voice can be
>Is just a retarded idea in general, have you heard of raising taxes instead of an arbitrary limit
And he wants to give spend it all on welfare since "Jeff Bezos dick rockets are a waste of money when people are starving". Billionaires bad because they are billionaires. I'm not going to even get into that, but what argument can I make that is so fundamentally strong that not even a low IQ communist can deny it?

>> No.11310046


>> No.11310048

>Economics and the impact of policy decisions aren't a science

>> No.11310052

I'm not saying it isn't retard, but OP would probably get a better response on /biz/.

>> No.11310056

/biz/ is just cryto and stock autism, and none of them have brains either. So no.

>> No.11310060
File: 9 KB, 250x241, 1562541615421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>none of them have brains either
I bet you think bitcoin is a ponzi scheme.

>> No.11310118

The major issue is “mission creep” or whatever you want to call it. The argument for such a cap is that it won’t affect many people, but this also fundamentally means it won’t have that big of an impact, certainly not over a long duration (a 100% wealth tax will generate most of its revenue from an individual as soon as its applied). To make such an idea have a big fiscal impact, the set point has to get lower and lower, at which point the negatives will start to be more pronounced as well. So yea you could take half of warren buffet’s wealth but that’s not doing shit compared to our 20T $ deficit (US example). To make a dent you need to get in to the upper middle class, even with existing unequal wealth distributions.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.