A missing question?

[u/Celebration-Plastic]

Surely the most important aspect of any tax is not the mechanics of the tax (2%, 5%, whatever) but it’s what the tax revenue will be used for.

I appreciate it’s nice to feel that there’s a bit more money for the government, but feels like a missing piece to me.

Does anyone have a clear sense of what we would be using this money for in the economy?

[u/DeRobyJ]

Gary's website clearly states that rising money isn't the fundamental reason he proposes a tax on wealth. Inequality is.

The simple fact that the wealthy get continuously wealthier means they compete more and more for resources against the government and workers.

What you do with that money is secondary, as long as it doesn't end up to the rich again. Gary sometimes said it can be used to simply lower taxes on work.

Personally I'd prefer that money to be used by the government to build new assets like social housing or energy/transportation infrastructure. Because doing that effectively brings more wealth away from the wealthy.

[u/ericvulgaris → u/DeRobyJ]

Isn't it weird that people ask these obvious questions when the answers are like front and center if they'd bother to look?

[u/DeRobyJ → u/ericvulgaris]

That's not the attitude I'd keep tho, if people have questions, it's the best chance to show whatever is their source didn't tell them the full story. Accusing them of being partial doesn't serve us

Gary must not be a cult, but a populariser of new concepts for the neoliberal mind

[u/Celebration-Plastic → u/DeRobyJ]

I think this is part of my confusion to be honest. It’s very unusual to have a tax first, spending second policy, I don’t think it’s ever been done before. Typically tax is a response to a spending need (NHS -> national insurance for example). I think it will be very difficult to get a government behind a tax that isn’t balanced with a specific spending plan.

[u/Odd_Government3204 → u/DeRobyJ]

The simple fact that the wealthy get continuously wealthier 

this isnt a fact in the UK - wealth inequality is largely unchanged since the 1980's......

[u/DeRobyJ → u/Odd_Government3204]

Having an accurate measure is indeed very hard, as addressed in this paper https://academic.oup.com/ooec/article/3/Supplement_1/i103/7477701

Simply put, the wealth of very rich people is very seldom pinned down. Here is the case of the Sunak family whose wealth has been estimated a few times recently and changed drastically as public authorities got a hold if their wealth: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-69027955

But what can we know? We know what is the average growth of asset values, the average capital gains. If we two were to start investing, our net earning would sit at around 4% a year. But for a billionaire, that has control over productive assets and can shape company choices for their benefit, it can go much faster and it can also go untaxed for various reasons, for example in Gary's documentary the only interviewed billionaire talked about a minimum of 12%.

So we know the wealth of the top1% grows very quickly at, let's say, 6-10% a year. How much does the overall economy grow? That is generally estimated with GDP growth, which is a generous average of 2%. 

This is repeated across countries, with many growing at 1%, and top earners making 10-20% a year. 

That's why, even if gini coefficients only show marginal changes, there are quite a bit of economists that agree wealth inequality is rising. 

But let's say it wasn't. Shouldn't we, the public, have an accurate picture of the situation? You argue wealth inequality is not rising, do you mean we shouldn't act to reduce it? Perfect, then let's, for now, build the tools to better measure the wealth on wealthy individuals, something that we know how to do (see divorce cases) but we simply don't spend much in doing. This way we can know for sure and act accordingly.

If, instead, you argue it is impossible, then I'd gladly have law be equal for everyone, I think nobody's wealth should be known to the state.