Wouldnt it be easier just to tax all income above say $200,000 (minimum wage in SV) at 100%.

If a net worth of $2 mil is considered outrageous then surely that kind of salary would be considered equally so.

Most net worths over $2 mil are created by growth in share value, not by income/salary.

If that value is recognized in a beneficial way (such as unlocking loans against it or using it as collateral at a specific recognized amount of value) it should be taxed at the point of value recognition for the amount of benefit recognized.

Most income for high earning tech workers is in stocks and share value.

We can tax stock grants at 100%

You can also tax stocks yearly at a fixed rate, e.g. 2%.

You can also tax stocks yearly at a fixed rate, e.g. 100%.

Nope, 2% because they grow by 6% on average for the last 30 years.

If you dont have any disposible income then you wont have any investments to grow in value.

We have to reframe how taxes are viewed, by the wealthy.

There should be no wealth tax, but above a certain threshold - there should be a maintenance fee associated with the wealth. I get charged maintenance fee by my mutual funds, for example.

One of the purposes of the government is to protect and secure property... and that is what ultra wealthy are getting for a fraction of what they should be paying.

So the wealthy will do what you and I do: shop for the best rate.

That rate will not be where you and I live. It will be some tiny foreign government.

They talk the big talk, but when push comes to shove, most still want to live in places with cachet and culture, not some tax haven in the boonies.

Bombing people for more tax revenue seems like the wrong thing.

Not bombing, a threat would suffice.

So we should bully people for tax revenue?

And when some of those people say no? That seems like either a short lived con or very quickly we are bombing people.

Why not just literally put a gun to someones head and rob them then? Skip the middlemen. Bombs are expensive as is jet fuel.

> Capital gains should be taxed like income.

Arguably capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than income. But that's not going to happen, because your home's change in value is capital gains.

Homes already have giant flat exemptions for gains when sold.

The purpose of which is to encourage mobility. Sack that tax credit and watch the housing market becomes even more illiquid.

That was a better argument when lives were getting better.

Now that 'progress' is actively optimizing things in a way where large amounts of the public's lives are getting worse, you are going to have to give a better response. Because right now progress is synonymous with improved rent seeking, worse access to food (and food that is now noticeably optimized to be of poorer quality), worse access to housing, worse working conditions, and on, and on.

This is, quite literally, the silliest thing I may have ever read.

Cool, cool. Work for 30 years, save up and have say $3M to retire on, based on stock market at an all-time high. You're not a robber baron or investment banker, just someone who worked a long time and saved and invested. Govt takes $1M away from you, you have $2M now. Market drops 25%. Now you have $1.5M.

Congrats, your "plan" resulted in someone like that having HALF of everything they saved up just gone.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "if you have $1.5M you don't NEED any more money." Sounds like something that only someone with something less than $1.5M would say.

You don't "need" your iPhone, or your flat screen, or whatever. The government should not be in the business of determining what you "need" and taking the rest.

I am talking inheritance, not weatlth tax, and have actually written I'm for reducing said taxes. you truly do not need the extra million when you're dead. Maybe read my comment again with more charity and re-engage?

incentives. It's okay to be successful and enjoy the fruits of your wealth, and you want people to strive towards wealth. but transmission across generations is a true societal poison.