this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
280 points (99.0% liked)
Inventing Reality
552 readers
522 users here now
When the media decides who you are rooting for.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A big problem with wealth tax is that not all wealthy are what you think of as rich. Old grandma maybe lives in a nice house in a good area that her now dead husband bought for 2 pennies 60 years ago. Now that house is worth millions. That grandma is a multi millionaire, but she may have a very minimal pension. Wealth tax that house and she may have a larger wealth tax than her entire pension income and be forced to move out of her own home.
Another example would be many farmers. Most small farmers don't earn a lot. Some even go minus some years. But the land and machinery they own are worth extreme amounts of money if sold. Wealth tax them and they will go bankrupt.
So a wealth tax is a very uneven tax. It benefits those who don't save and those who own business which are not capital intensive. Why should a farmer pay a lot more tax than a work from home freelancer even though both may have the same income?
There are so many weird things that can happen. Imagine you own a small property of land. Then they discover oil on your property. Suddenly you are wealth taxed for an extreme amount of money even though you don't even want to let anyone drill for oil on that land. Maybe you will even be forced out of that land because suddenly you can't pay the wealth tax on it.
proceeds to describe the rich
Like, not disgustingly, 1% rich, but rich nonetheless. You don't have to have a linear scale. We're not even proposing implementations, interesting how just the idea of taxing wealth is unacceptable to you.
Then sell the house, pay off your tax, and buy a smaller house or apartment?
This literally happens with inheritances all the time. Someone gets their parents' house, can't afford the tax on it, and have to sell it. You deserve a house to live in, but not a single specific house.
It's almost like the capitalist model of housing as investment assets is broken or something.
Farmers get more money from the government than basically anyone else. That work from home freelancer is almost certainly funding the farmer, not the other way around.
Yet, as we've seen in times like the COVID pandemic, tons of them would literally destroy their food to keep the prices and by extension their profits up than give out surplus food for free or at cost.
It's almost like the capitalist model of food production is broken or something.
Personal wealth and commercial assets are different things. But yeah, our paradigm of how businesses work are, again, broken.
Forced out of that land but with a couple extra zeros in your account? Look, I'm not saying I have no sympathy for them, but people, like Indigenous people, get forced out of their land with fuck all to show for it when someone discovers resources they themselves don't want to extract. So your hypothetical oil baron is pretty low on the sympathy scale.
Again, it's almost like....
TL;DR: I agree with you that a wealth tax would be broken and would fix very little. But because it's attempting to work within the bounds of a thoroughly broken system that cannot be fixed, period. Get rid of rule by capital.
YAWN.
This is repeated frequently, and it's hauled out to mislead people every time this discussion pops up.
It's repeated frequently because it's true. A wealth tax that hits the truly rich is only a good tax if it doesn't have side casualties. If you have a suggestion how to make a wealth tax that also doesn't affect the examples I have mentioned I'm interested to hear it.
I think that instead of a basic wealth tax, a tax on rental properties and a tax on stocks and corporate ownership is more reasonable. The corporate ownership tax would also have to exclude small companies in which you are a worker yourself so as not to overly tax farms or other small capital heavy small businesses. I personally work with farmers and I know even a 1% tax on the total value of their farms would totally kill most of their profit. I personally know a farm near the city limits which is worth over 12 million dollars just because of the near-city land he owns and farms on. But his income is only average in the region. Yes he could theoretically sell the land to a real estate developer who could build over a hundred houses. But he only wants to farm so he doesn't. I don't think it's fair to tax him on the 12 million, it would kill his business.
Turn housing into a human right instead of a commodity.
Stuff like primary residences and farms have never been what the people proposing a wealth tax have been talking about, so bringing it up is damn near a strawman argument.
How do you design the wealth tax in order that only the"right people" are affected. And if income tax is totally abolished like the post above is proposing, how do we make sure that high income workers pay tax? One could theoretically have a high income but strategically keep ones wealth low by keeping spending and expenses the same. For example by renting a mega yacht instead of owning a mega yacht. Or leasing a luxury car instead of owning a luxury car.
Adding exceptions for residences and farms will just make those the most attractive places to store ones wealth and we don't want mega rich buying up all the farms or houses. None are more skilled at finding loopholes than the extremely wealthy.
I'm interested to hear suggestions.
Tax cash flows, financialization of assets, etc. Tax the use of collateral for loans and make it work like an advance in capital gains tax (I would be fine with an exception for direct reinvestment in the asset like home renovation loans). Tax the things which create purchasing power.
Dude, you're mixing up asset and wealth. Also, this might be a shock to you, wealth tax can be progressive
Wealth = Total Assets - Total Liabilities
Say I own a farm and I have a tractor worth 500 thousand dollars but I also have a 400 thousand dollars loan on it. Then yes I have 500 thousand in assets but only 100 thousand in wealth contribution. However say I own farmland for 12 million dollars and I have no loans on that farmland (as is quite common if the farm was inherited) then for that 12 million worth of farmland, asset = wealth. Same is true for the grandma example if she doesn't have a loan on the house.
A progressive wealth tax is a good idea however I agree.
For the grandma you tax the latest known value of the house that is the sell price 60 years ago.
For the farmer you subtract the debt they took to buy the equipment before you apply the tax.
It's not that hard.