Every single time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, someone writes a comment just like this. Every. Single. Time.
As far as I can tell, this comment is semantically identical to:
"Every time someone tries a new cancer therapy, it ends up not helping the worst cancers."
"The sting operation was a failure because it only caught low- and mid-level criminals."
"We shouldn't use automated tests because some bugs cannot be caught by it."
"Look, this bully is ten times stronger than my kid. He's gonna beat him up whether my kid wants him too or not. We should just accept that the kid is gonna get pummelled."
There are at least four flaws I can see:
1. The obvious "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument. Unless you have an alternative proposed tax that is flawless, then the comment does not get closer to a world where people pay a share of taxes commensurate with their point on the wealth continuum.
2. By framing it as "hurting" the moderately wealthy, it applies a narrative that taxes exist to punish, that the extremely wealthy deserve that morally, and that the moderately wealthy do not. Every piece of that narrative is wrong. Taxes exist to fund services, not enforce moral orders. It's not like we have a higher tax rate for convicted criminals. The moderately wealthy also have a capacity to afford taxes higher taxes without lowering their quality of life, so a tax law that hits them too has not "failed". Even if taxes were punishment, this comment presents no actual evidence that the moderately wealthy are morally purer than the ultra-wealthy.
3. Some fraction of today's moderately wealthy are tomorrow's obscenely wealthy, so applying some tax pressure on them today is a step towards preventing them from escaping that tax burden tomorrow.
4. Equating people who make 500k in a year with "the working class" is... I don't even know what to say about it.
5. Forcing the ultra-rich to do extra work to dodge this new law is a net good. Defeatism, which seems to be the counter-proposal here, makes it even easier for them to retain and acquire wealth. We should keep passing laws. Every time they find a loophole, close it. Vote out politicians that get bought. Make them keep jumping. Wear the fuckers out because eventually some will lose if you keep trying. If you let them win... well you let them win.
>In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three
>France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.
> In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three
The "Today,..." claim is is simply false (both when the article was written, and now).
Wikipedia lists examples including six countries in Europe. Belgium is listed, which created a wealth tax in 2018 - why is that missing from this article of 2019?
Tax regimes in Europe change frequently according to the political situation, so this presents little evidence as to whether any individual tax "worked" anyway. But, this claim is just badly researched (generously speaking).
I guess I could focus on it by simply quoting the article farther down?
> UC Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman, whose research helped put wealth inequality back on the American policy agenda, played a part in designing Warren's wealth tax. He says it was designed explicitly with European failures in mind.
> He argues the Warren plan is "very different than any wealth tax that has existed anywhere in the world." Unlike in the European Union, it's impossible to freely move to another country or state to escape national taxes. Existing U.S. law also taxes citizens wherever they are, so even if they do sail to a tax haven in the Caribbean, they're still on the hook. On top of that, Warren's plan includes an "exit tax," which would confiscate 40 percent of all a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship.
> Warren's tax is also only limited to the super rich, whereas in Europe the threshold was low enough to also hit the sort-of rich. This higher threshold helps it avoid problems like someone having a family business that makes them look rich on paper but, in fact, they're short on the cash needed to pay the tax.
> Also important, Zucman argues, the higher threshold means only a small group will be affected. And smaller groups have a harder time fighting for exemptions, which hurt European efforts. Some countries, for example, exempted artwork and antiques on the grounds they were hard to value. It's true, but it creates a huge loophole: Buy lots of art! Economists hate incentives like these because they distort markets. Warren's proposal calls for no exemptions.
Very good point! I thought the same thing about the original comment, but you actually analyze the entire thing improved why it is incorrect. Thank you!
As far as I can tell, this comment is semantically identical to:
"Every time someone tries a new cancer therapy, it ends up not helping the worst cancers."
"The sting operation was a failure because it only caught low- and mid-level criminals."
"We shouldn't use automated tests because some bugs cannot be caught by it."
"Look, this bully is ten times stronger than my kid. He's gonna beat him up whether my kid wants him too or not. We should just accept that the kid is gonna get pummelled."
There are at least four flaws I can see:
1. The obvious "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument. Unless you have an alternative proposed tax that is flawless, then the comment does not get closer to a world where people pay a share of taxes commensurate with their point on the wealth continuum.
2. By framing it as "hurting" the moderately wealthy, it applies a narrative that taxes exist to punish, that the extremely wealthy deserve that morally, and that the moderately wealthy do not. Every piece of that narrative is wrong. Taxes exist to fund services, not enforce moral orders. It's not like we have a higher tax rate for convicted criminals. The moderately wealthy also have a capacity to afford taxes higher taxes without lowering their quality of life, so a tax law that hits them too has not "failed". Even if taxes were punishment, this comment presents no actual evidence that the moderately wealthy are morally purer than the ultra-wealthy.
3. Some fraction of today's moderately wealthy are tomorrow's obscenely wealthy, so applying some tax pressure on them today is a step towards preventing them from escaping that tax burden tomorrow.
4. Equating people who make 500k in a year with "the working class" is... I don't even know what to say about it.
5. Forcing the ultra-rich to do extra work to dodge this new law is a net good. Defeatism, which seems to be the counter-proposal here, makes it even easier for them to retain and acquire wealth. We should keep passing laws. Every time they find a loophole, close it. Vote out politicians that get bought. Make them keep jumping. Wear the fuckers out because eventually some will lose if you keep trying. If you let them win... well you let them win.