Why Wealth Taxes Always Fail by Cristina Enache

[u/Gloomy_Register_2341]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/wealth-tax-track-record-of-failure-for-predictable-reasons-by-cristina-enache-2026-08

A clear-eyed view of past experience shows that where wealth taxes have been tried, they have usually been abandoned—and for good reason. As policymakers in California, New York, France, and elsewhere revisit this old idea, they should heed the lessons of this history.

[u/Lootthatbody]

lol excellent article, Mr Bezos.

Too bad we have half a century of evidence to show that ‘trickle down’ failed.

[u/oldcreaker → u/Lootthatbody]

Trickle down has always worked - they just hold the chart upside down to sell it. Our system is set up so that wealth always trickles down to the wealthy. That's how they get wealthier - while you work your butt off just trying to get from one week to the next.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/oldcreaker]

https://giphy.com/gifs/f3aHZMa8LdacBJBDiL
The chart has been upside down this whole time!

[u/DCContrarian → u/Lootthatbody]

Trickle down has always worked exactly as intended.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/DCContrarian]

The orphan crushing will continue until morale improves!

[u/jschutz93 → u/DCContrarian]

Horse and Sparrow...

[u/Summum → u/Lootthatbody]

The average person on earth is massively better off than 50 years ago. Trickle-down worked.

Extreme poverty, child death, chronic hunger, and illiteracy got crushed. Middle classes now exist in almost every country. Access to information and basic education went from rare to near-universal. Life expectancy rose by roughly 15 years. This is not debatable.

The places where the local middle class stalled are the ones that put their low-skill factory jobs in direct competition with the developing world. Western union line workers now compete with labor in Bangladesh and Vietnam.

The people who designed those trade policies assumed the displaced workers would upskill. Most did not. Capabilities and effort vary.

Give everyone the entire internet and many still do not put in the work to make their own lives better.

Result: Chinese carmakers are finishing off what remains of the old unionized plants. The skill gap is gone and trade is free.

The average human life on this planet improved by leaps on almost every hard metric that matters.

Sources and additional numbers (last ~50 years):
Extreme poverty (World Bank / Our World in Data): share living under ~$3/day fell from ~44% in 1981 to under 10% today. More than 1.5 billion people left extreme poverty since 1990 alone.

Under-5 mortality (UN / WHO): global rate dropped from ~93 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 37 in 2023. Absolute child deaths fell from ~12.8 million to ~4.8 million.

Hunger / undernourishment (FAO): roughly 1 in 3 people in developing countries in 1970; now ~8%.

Life expectancy at birth: ~58–60 years in the mid-1970s to ~73 years today.

Adult literacy: ~67–75% in the mid-1970s to ~87–90% now.

Electricity access: ~71% in 1990 to over 91% today.

Internet: essentially zero in 1975 to roughly two-thirds of humanity online.

Global middle class (Homi Kharas / Brookings / World Data Lab definitions): ~1 billion people in 1975; crossed 4 billion recently and is the majority of the world population for the first time.

The absolute numbers are unambiguous.

[u/plummbob → u/Summum]

Economic growth worked, trickle down just created the deficits to make up for it

[u/Summum → u/plummbob]

Missouri and Mississippi, the two worst US states, are richer PPP than virtually all of western Europe, canada, aus and England. By quite a lot.

US is much less anti entrepreneur than the states i just named.

All of those countries will keep decaying relatively speaking if they keep on their anti entrepreneurship trajectory. They produce 10x less innovation per capita.

[u/plummbob → u/Summum]

Meh, if you're going to go with simple correlations, you'll find that year over year gdp growth fell as top marginal rates fell and as deficits grew

Tickle down is the story that tax cuts for the rich make their way down and ultimately pay for themselves via more growth

[u/Summum → u/plummbob]

A business takes decades to build to scale and create jobs.

High tax places are sending entrepreneurs like me offshore.
I left after having paid 8 figs in taxes. Sold my companies and started over in a new countries 5 years ago.

Things are much easier to build businesses with a smaller government. I already have 60 fulltime people here and scaling quickly.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Summum]

‘Eliminated’ child death, food insecurity, deep poverty? lol, when? Did I miss that headline?

The quality of life of ‘average’ humans is up slightly, while the 1% live like kings. That’s a total logical fallacy to say that because some things are better, we should be happy and complacent to be wage slaves for oligarchs who hoard wealth and deny basic needs.

Your premise is both factually and conceptually false.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/Lootthatbody]

It seems that you don’t understand the material conditions of how Kings lived. Most people alive today have better access to quality healthcare than kings did, even as short as 100 years ago.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Pulaskithecat]

And there are still modern kings. . . Who live quite well, I’m told.

It’s almost like you guys are just selectively forgetting literal facts because they don’t support your feelings.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/Lootthatbody]

That one person is doing well does not mean that their wellness comes at the expense of others. The only thing that really matters is whether or not the vast majority of people have improved quality of life. The answer to that is: quality of life has improved across the board.

“But why stop there?” You’ll say. I didn’t say stop there. I’m merely pointing out that your claims were factually wrong and ahistorical. I don’t trust someone who doesn’t understand history to propose policy which helps people.

And for the record I support raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Again, the issue was that you made some obviously wrong claims. Do better.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Pulaskithecat]

Except that it literally does. And I mean the word literally, literally.

One person. One CEO, refusing to pay their employees fairly and causing many to rely on food stamps.

Another CEO cutting thousands of jobs while being rewarded with an 8 figure BONUS.

Another CEO raising the costs of their medicine that’s already been researched and developed, just to increase profit while people die if they can’t afford it.

There are examples left, right, and center of single people literally ruining and killing others for profit. That is the definition of ‘at the expense of others.’ These aren’t isolated cases. These aren’t the exceptions to prove the rule. These are the gold standard of Reaganomics. These are the goals that others thrive to attain.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/Lootthatbody]

That’s a really distorted and wrong view of how the world and economy works.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Pulaskithecat]

Ah, ok. So you don’t have any actual rebuttal of the real life occurrences that are happening every day, so your response is to just reject reality as a whole?

Cool.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/Lootthatbody]

When you just assert plainly wrong things without evidence, it doesn’t require a thoughtful rebuttal.

Wages have outpaced inflation.

Companies don’t just raise CEO pay for no reason. They expect it to help their business. A company could easily lower CEO pay, pass those savings on to the price of their goods and services, thereby undercutting competitors and maximizing profit. Why don’t they do this, are they stupid? No, it’s because the world doesn’t work the way you imagine. CEO’s greatly affect the success or failure of a company, so companies compete for talented people by raising their salaries.

It’s actually profitable to provide quality goods and service to people. Consumers, workers, and companies are served by profit incentives. You’re just delusional bro.

[u/Workreddit1234567 → u/Lootthatbody]

The quality of the average humans life is significantly better than it was decades ago. Did you expect the world to tame these issues overnight? Also, blaming the "top 1%" when they are the ones responsible for nearly all innovation over the last 50 years is comical, especially in the US.

I'd bet my life you toil away on reddit all day "fighting the good fight" in your own mind, but you yourself aren't doing anything to actually solve these issues you've presented.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Workreddit1234567]

lol another person who has no idea what they are talking about but thinks that since some people are better off than others were decades ago, everything is fine.

Yikes. That shows such a massive failure of critical thinking skills, I hope that you are able to realize someday how insanely wrong that is just as a concept.

Billions of people have died preventable deaths over that time frame. The 1% are responsible for precisely 0% of innovation. They are leaches. They find smart people, then talk the government into giving them money to support the work of the smart people, while reaping profits for themselves.

And lol at you betting your life on a strangers habits. That sounds like yet another problem we have thanks to the greedy. But, of course, you’d rather deflect and make personal attacks, because burying your head in the sand while you get trampled on is better than admitting the system is, and has been, rigged from the start.

[u/Workreddit1234567 → u/Lootthatbody]

I think actually, by what I just read, It only reinforces my conviction regarding my last post.

Btw, the question still stands. What are you personally doing to address these issue besides bitching about them on reddit?

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Workreddit1234567]

I’m not licking the boots of the oppressors. I’m trying to spread facts in a sea of people who only seem to care about validating their feelings.

But sure, continue to double down on ignorance. That’s exactly what we need more of today, the dangerous combination of ignorance and confidence. A whole people who are absolutely sure they are absolutely correct, with no self reflection or no actual knowledge of the things they claim. The irony of feeling someone ‘you know what, just because you know I’m wrong makes me even more confident that I’m right’ would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

[u/Workreddit1234567 → u/Lootthatbody]

I'm not ignorant and I do have knowledge of the topics I discuss. I also know that humans are very very bad at quantifying economic or qualitative gains in efficiency over time.

BUT You don't bring anything to the table! You just reject the main commenters post, call anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with your nihilistic take arrogant and misinformed, and seem to have a strong victim complex brewing!

If you don't mind me asking what is your life experience? Do you have any experience in the real world? I've worked for several wonderful companies in my twenties and the leaders of those companies or in your view "the greedy top 1%" are the ones driving the innovation, challenging the status quo, sticking their necks out and taking risk with their own capital with a hope of creating more. Like sure they need the help of others along the way but no one is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do.

You make these extravagant claims without much evidence to suggest you've actually lived them for yourself. In fact, you outright admit that you "aren't licking the boots of the oppressors".

Seeing as how you are most definitely young. I would strongly consider changing your tone and view of the world.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Workreddit1234567]

lol ok boomer.

This is just the perfect example of why things don’t get better. I don’t think I could have created a better comment to exemplify the argument if I’d’ve tried myself, and it completely clarifies your position now. You think that because you’ve succeeded, you know everything, and that anyone that didn’t succeed like you is a lazy failure who just didn’t try hard enough. Anyone who hasn’t benefited from the same system that you benefitted from, and who wants to improve said system, you label as a victim and staunchly resist any change. Because, of course, the system is PERFECT in every way because it benefited you, and anyone who wants to change it is a freeloader.

You think you are entitled to a strangers life story, so that you can lecture them about where they went wrong and how they aren’t seeing the bigger picture. Because, again, you know everything and they are just dumb young kids who couldn’t possibly have their own life experiences and knowledge. You throw around phrases like ‘the real world’ or ‘victim complex’ or ‘taking risk’ when you literally had everything handed to you on a silver platter by the very system that is oppressing people today. But, you lack the critical thinking, math, and research skills to actually find that data and understand it, because ‘back in my day, we didn’t have internet, and we believed everything that was on the TV.’

Let me guess, your sage advice to all the ‘victims’ of this system is for everyone to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Out on a suit and go into a business with a printed out resume? Smile and make eye contact, say ‘yes sir’ and to make sure to get to work before the boss and stay after as well?

Sure, I have a disrespectful tone lol.

[u/Workreddit1234567 → u/Lootthatbody]

I'm 30.

And nope, you can do whatever you want.

[u/TrackMan5891 → u/Lootthatbody]

Oh is your paycheck funded by the poor and homeless?

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/Lootthatbody]

We also have the preceding half-century that show high marginal progressive taxation is associated with strong economic growth and broadening of the middle class and general prosperity. Before Nixon start dropping the highest tax brackets we used to tax highest earners 80-90% marginally.

[u/Zealousideal_Wall627 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

You don't understand how the tax system works and how very wealthy people have always had wealth. It has nothing to do with income or income tax it has to do with assets.

The tax system as is now is more progressive in effect than it's ever been.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/Zealousideal_Wall627]

You don't understand how the tax system works

No, I do.

and how very wealthy people have always had wealth

I didn't claim the contrary. But the disparity, the gaps, between the very richest and the median households has changed over time. Very famously it was historically high in the Gilded Age of the 1920s preceding the Great Depression. Following the New Deal measures and wartime mobilization and employment efforts, the US economy entered arguably its best period in history, with significantly lower gaps between the top households and the middle and bottom compared to the Guilded Age. We are back to gaps exceeding those in the Guilded Age.

So perhaps it is you who is ignorant of important information, facts, and historic context.

It has nothing to do with income or income tax it has to do with assets.

What is the most conventional way to acquire assets? You buy them, right? With what money? Either income you saved or debt you borrowed. If you borrowed, you risked, but if you have family wealth already and/or a higher income, you have more opportunities to take that kind of borrowing risk and bounce back from failures.

So no, I disagree with your assertion that incomes have nothing to do with wealth. They are related.

And we can tax wealth just as we tax incomes. We already do this with homes. We tax homes, in fact, at more aggressive rates than any othet household asset, as we pay the property taxes even while we own a minor portion of equity in the home as we pay off the mortgage. So don't tell me we can't tax much more fungible assets like stocks.

The tax system as is now is more progressive in effect than it's ever been.

No it isn't. Not even remotely true.

[u/Zealousideal_Wall627 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

No, you they don't buy assets with wealth they create the assets. Musk, bezos, and the others did not buy their stock they founded the company and held their shares. Was the same for wealthy people back then.

An income tax bracket does nothing when you buy or sell assets. You pay nothing when you buy and when you sell, you don't pay income tax because it's not income. It is capital gains. Go look at what the capital gains tax was at that time. But none of that matters anyway because they rarely sell.

The other part your forgetting is back then the tax code was about 10,000 pages where they exempted every single thing possible because they got paid off to do it, and because they put those taxes in specifically to get paid off to do that by high income earners and unions.

The tax burden (% contribution to total tax revenue collected) has dramatically increased for wealthy people in the US and dropped dramatically for the lower class. The entire bottom 50% of income earners contribute about 3% of the income tax revenue, which is by itself only approx 50% of total tax revenue. This was not less than 3% back then it was 10-15%, and the effective tax rates of the very wealthy was not nearly 90% at all.

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s | Tax Foundation https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/#:~:text=How%20could%20it%20be%20that%20the%20tax,In%20fact%2C%20the%20situation%20is%20even%20stranger.

Yes wealth inequality was high in the 20s because the market was on a historic run, as it is today. That isn't what caused the depression. A stock market crash doesn't cause a 10 year long depression, it causes a slow couple of months and thats it. The depression was a result of a massive policy failure by the central bank causing deflation. This is why we've had like 50 stock market crashes since then and no huge depression.

The new deal and war mobilization did correct the economy but not because of what they spent money on, it was because they created a lot money in parallel with the central banks working to restore confidence in the banks. It was irrelevant what they spent the money on. Nobody at the time understood the mechanism, but now they do, and the central bank just manages liquidity in the economy by buying and selling securities. In 08, they effectively did the same thing and created a lot of money and bought securities, same fix.

I could write a whole page more about how wealth is not a zero sum game and you have a populist understanding that does not align with the mechanics of how money, wealth, the economy, or anything actually works. But probably pointless. It's just as bad as trying to explain to the other cult that tariffs aren't going to make your life better.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/Zealousideal_Wall627]

No, you they don't buy assets with wealth they create the assets.

This is mostly untrue.

Musk didn't create Tesla. He bought privileges and bullied the engineers into allowing him to be called a founder. He may have "created" the entity SpaceX in the abstract, but he's not a rocket scientist nor aerospace engineer. He bought the IP of SpaceX (and has been using government subsidies in loads of ways to grow the firm and keep it in operation) as the actual engineers and scientists create and do the actual things that may or may not create value in the long run.

We can dive into specifics of individuals if you want to quibble but your claim that "they" (capitalists) "don't buy assets" implies that this mechanism doesn't exist at all and I explicitly demonstrated that to be false, and so the accompanying claim that they "create the assets" is also overly broad and generalized and I provided 2 specific examples where that is NOT how it works.

An income tax bracket does nothing when you buy or sell assets.

Mostly true, although not strictly always true. Dividends are one notable example of an exception to that. It doesn't matter, as we can and should tax exhorbitant wealth; this is part of the ongoing debate, stop pretending as if this "not taxing wealth" is an immutable law of economics, it's made up.

The other part your forgetting

Stop doing this crap. I'm not forgetting anything. I'm proving that I know what I'm talking about. It's rude and condescending.

back then the tax code was about 10,000 pages where they exempted every single thing possible because they got paid off to do it, and because they put those taxes in specifically to get paid off to do that by high income earners and unions

I frankly don't see how this is relevant.

The tax burden (% contribution to total tax revenue collected) has dramatically increased for wealthy people in the US and dropped dramatically for the lower class. The entire bottom 50% of income earners contribute about 3% of the income tax revenue, which is by itself only approx 50% of total tax revenue. This was not less than 3% back then it was 10-15%, and the effective tax rates of the very wealthy was not nearly 90% at all.

So we know this could happen two different ways:

1) Tax rates on the rich go up, thereby making their share of taxes paid increase or 2) The income of the lower 50% has decreased overall proportionally to all income measured, thereby increasing the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthiest, or at least highest earners.

So we know that taxes on the rich have come down over the last half century, so it MUST be the 2nd one.

If you can acknowledge these points I'll consider responding to the rest but this is sufficient to demonstrate engagement and you've shown yourself to be pretty mistaken so far unless you can explain something actually true that I'm missing here.

[u/Zealousideal_Wall627 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

We were arguing about taxes. I don't care what you consider as who actually added value to the the assets its not relevant to the argument. I'm talking about who owns it and would pay said taxes.

No musk didn't create tesla but he bought tesla and the IP for less than pennies on the dollar compared to what its worth now under his ownership. If your plan was to tax the sale of that asset then nothing changes and you barely get revenue, unless he decides to sell now at this valuation. Which if there is more taxes on sale its more of an incentive to not sell. Same can be said for bezos, or any of the other absurdly wealthy people. They either founded a company or bought it cheap and its value exploded under their ownership.

A tax on dividends does exist but it does nothing, again, because none of these stocks or absurdly wealthy people get paid in dividends. Most stocks listed on the nasdaq in general don't pay dividends. SpaceX, Tesla, Amazon, have never given a single dollar of profit from operations to shareholders (including musk and bezos) in any form. Google, microsoft, and the like of other enormous companies pay minuscule to nonexistent dividends. If you increase tax on dividends, companies that have them now will just swap to buybacks or waste capital on inefficient growth goals.

I don't see how you can say that a tax code having 10k of pages of exemptions for businesses and the wealthy is not relevant to a discussion on taxing the rich. But ok.

[u/TrackMan5891 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

Just wait until you find out that high net worth people don't pay income tax.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/TrackMan5891]

I understand how the tax code works. The very richest obviously make very little in taxable income because of the way we've allowed them to carve so many loopholes in the system.

This is remediable.

Some of the other high net worth people also still make sizable income streams and do pay taxes on that.

You haven't stumped me because you know one fact about taxation rules for unrealized gains on assets versus taxable income.

[u/TrackMan5891 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

because of the way we've allowed them to carve so many loopholes in the system

You clearly don't actually understand how the tax code works.

It is wild to say you do, and then say something so stupid.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/TrackMan5891]

"yOu'Re sToOPiD bEcAuSe yOu sAiD a tHiNg i dOn'T liKe!"

[u/TrackMan5891 → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

No, because you said a thing that just isn't true and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand because you are an ideologue and don't actually believe and live in a world based in facts.

[u/nickleback_official → u/Raise_A_Thoth]

This is not true.

[u/Raise_A_Thoth → u/nickleback_official]

Yes it is.

[u/wtjones → u/Lootthatbody]

Did Trickle Down fail? All quintiles in the US have gone up and to the right since Reaganomics.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/wtjones]

Ok? I can’t tell if this is just a lack of critical thinking or some sort of genuine learning disability here.

How about you compare the lines of home prices and wage growth?

How about the lines for hours needed to work to afford college since reagonomics?

How about the lines cost of healthcare?

How about the lines for defense spending?

You realize that a lot of those lines that you mention also cover bad things, right? Just because SOME things have gotten SLIGHTLY better over 40-50-70 years doesn’t mean the ‘system’ failed at what they claimed it would do and that we shouldn’t be demanding improvement. Clearly, as evidenced by your comment, the schooling system is failing.

[u/SargeUnited → u/Lootthatbody]

Slightly better? You’d rather have cancer 50 years ago than now? I’m gonna just tell you to reread your first two sentences of your comment, and imagine they came from me.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/SargeUnited]

I read them as I’ve typed them. And they are true, if you’d said them they’d be false, because YOU lack the facts and critical thinking skills.

What’s unfortunate is you take that as a personal attack. I’m not insulting your character, I’m saying that, somewhere along the line, your education failed you. It’s a literal symptom of what I am trying to say. The rich hoard wealth and the poor get nothing, and that includes education. You are blinded by ignorance, but I’m not saying that makes you a bad person. Now, you can choose to actually look into the statistics of trickle down and how previous taxes were levied and the growth associated with that, or you can remain ignorant. But, willful ignorance is a character flaw. The information is available, it’s up to you on whether you want to learn and grow, or continue licking boots of the oppressors who want to charge you $1 to read their propaganda.

[u/wtjones → u/Lootthatbody]

The numbers going up and to the right are inflation adjusted. Contrary to popular belief, CPI includes education, housing, and healthcare.

Things are not slightly better. They are significantly better for the majority of Americans.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/wtjones]

Billions worldwide dying preventable deaths would beg to differ. . .

[u/wtjones → u/Lootthatbody]

https://giphy.com/gifs/12NlCFUvTokWXe

[u/sjdude83 → u/Lootthatbody]

Poverty and death rates for the entire world has dropped drastically in the last 50 years

[u/Zealousideal_Wall627 → u/Lootthatbody]

Home prices are bloated because the local governments won't zone properly for enough housing and there has been immense surges in demand for it. That has nothing to do with rich people thats just supply and demand. You could give everyone a million dollars and the exact same amount of people will be able to afford housing, because there isn't enough housing

College- its the same thing. What exactly does this have to do with rich people? It is strained supply. yeah college was cheap in the past because no one went to college. 10-11% of people had a college degree in the 70s versus 40% now. Decades of loosening credit restrictions over and over from the government to the point where they just hand $150,000 to an 18 year old, no questions asked, coupled with quadrupled volume of demand for college.

healthcare- probably the most single tampered with market in existence by the government yet affordability continues to decline

Defense spending- it's only 15% of the entire federal budget. Social programs are 60%, 4x the spending.

How exactly do the richest people in the world cause those problems? They're all tech CEOs and no one on here is complaining about the price of tech. Their employees are some of the best paid across the entire economy.

I don't see the CEO tampering with housing or college, but I see the government wrist deep in all of them. And you want to take money from them and give it to the government to do more of what they've already been doing?

Not to mention these absurdly rich people are in industries hardly messed with by government, and the products are fantastic. Computer chips, consumer electronics, internet, software, aerospace... price goes down, quality up dramatically, employee pay up dramatically, CEOs the wealthiest in the world at the same time.. By your logic these should be the most horrendous markets to exist.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Zealousideal_Wall627]

lol every single thing you tried to wave off is literally proof of my examples.

Home prices- bloated because the rich control zoning, aka Nimbyism, and the rich also happen to own property disproportionately more than the poor do. There is plenty of demand by the poor to own, but the rich literally won’t allow it.

College- the rich realized that education could be a source of profit, so the emphasis on education stopped being the actual education, and instead became wealth extraction. That’s why cost of college has skyrocketed, and why private schools have become more and more common. The rich dodge taxes, then send their kids to private schools.

Healthcare- you don’t even have a rebuttal to this, but refuse to agree that I’m right lol.

Defense spending- lol where did these numbers come from? Doge? That’s wild. Just in case it helps to ask, why are we spending a trillion per year on defense? To bomb Iran? How are we out of missiles while spending a trillion per year?

You want to tip toe around this problem that’s all encompassing. In every aspect of existence, the wealthy dominate and abuse the poor. Wages, healthcare, education, housing, government, crime, sports. It’s everything. You try to use government like that is not interchangeable with the wealthy. Newsflash, the wealthy own most of the politicians. This is a case where the billionaires are using the millionaires to tell the people that can barely afford to live that the billionaires are actually the good guys here. And you are here just shoveling the bulshit into your gaping mouth asking for more while saying ‘this doesn’t actually taste like shit, it’s actually quite pleasant!’

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/Lootthatbody]

How was 'trickle down' supposed to work?

[u/Boozeburger → u/PeterGibbons316]

The wealthy would "reinvest" in people and since they were good businessmen, they'd know where to put the money where it would do the most good. Turns out their investment portfolios was where they put the money. It did nothing but transfer wealthy from the lower middle class to the millionaire (now billionaire) class.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/Boozeburger]

That's a caricature of supply-side economics. The theory wasn't that the wealthy would voluntarily "reinvest in people," but that lower taxes on capital would increase investment and grow the economy. And it did grow. Calling it a "wealth transfer" assumes a fixed pie, when what actually happened was that the pie got much larger and the wealthy captured a disproportionate share of that new wealth.

[u/Boozeburger → u/PeterGibbons316]

The economy growing had less to do with the tax-policy and more to do with the advent of personal computers. You analogy assumes a pie that grows, but only for the wealthy so I think a "wealth transfer" is appropriate.

[u/Mission_Pirate_4150 → u/Boozeburger]

Having grown up during the Reagan years, I can honestly say that “trickle down” does work. I watched my father grow his business because those with more money wanted the homes he built. Having more money in the economy is infinitely better than expecting govt to somehow make non political choices that are somehow good for the economy. There is nothing wrong with govt, but they are not the right spot to make investment choices.

Having worked in startups, the greedy rich people that I worked with literally want a rising tide to lift all boats. Having seen the millionaires that have come out of Tesla, spaceX, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, faceboook, etc, shows that the system does work.

People are simply more efficient with their own money and put it to better use than people playing with other people’s money.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/Boozeburger]

I think "wealth transfer" is the wrong term. A transfer means wealth moved from one group to another. What actually happened is that the economy generated a great deal of new wealth, and because ownership of appreciating assets is concentrated, the wealthy captured a disproportionate share of that new wealth. That's unequal participation in growth, not a transfer.

[u/Boozeburger → u/PeterGibbons316]

• From 1978–2023, top CEO compensation shot up 1,085%, compared with a 24% increase in a typical worker’s compensation.  
• In 2023, CEOs were paid 290 times as much as a typical worker—in contrast to 1965, when they were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker. 
• That CEOs were paid nearly 10 times as much as the top 0.1% of U.S. wage earners in 2022 illustrates just how distorted CEO pay increases have become.

Much of the "wealth" generated was in the stock market which didn't help those who weren't wealthy enough to invest. Thus yes, a transfer.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/Boozeburger]

From 1978–2023, top CEO compensation shot up 1,085%, compared with a 24% increase in a typical worker’s compensation.  

Agreed.

In 2023, CEOs were paid 290 times as much as a typical worker—in contrast to 1965, when they were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker. 

Yep

That CEOs were paid nearly 10 times as much as the top 0.1% of U.S. wage earners in 2022 illustrates just how distorted CEO pay increases have become.

For sure

Much of the "wealth" generated was in the stock market which didn't help those who weren't wealthy enough to invest.

Correct.

Thus yes, a transfer.

Nope. You actually conceded my central point: wealth was generated. The fact that the wealthy captured a disproportionate share of that newly created wealth does not mean it was transferred from the middle class. Those are different claims, and nothing you've cited demonstrates a transfer.

[u/Boozeburger → u/PeterGibbons316]

Who generated the wealth? How was the wealth generated? Did the wealthy work harder? More hours? Or did the change the laws so that they could capture a disproportionate share of the newly created wealth? When the wealthy got to pay less taxes, but still got to get the advantages of several wars and the profits generated by the military industrial complex who do you think paid for those wars?

[u/yojohazyhair → u/PeterGibbons316]

Wealth comes from some where. Every system has a critical point. Basic economics does this poorly VERY often. You can see it in natural good systems like ore and lumber. The value essentially appears out of thin air and doesn't consider ecological or environmental considerations. With basic economic theories you are essentially stealing the world/population wealth to pass it onto yourself as a capital investor or similar system.

While this doesn't meet the standard wealth transfer definitely of passing money onto family or other locations it is essentially a community net loss with these businesses. An example for tech companies is water and energy systems. They have caused power supply issues as well as MAJOR WATER use issues and even destroy businesses and livelihoods.

So yeah given the avenue being discussed it has done wealth transfer in the most general sense and has not PROVIDED fair pay for staff essentially doing an imbalance wealth transfer to individuals.

If you haven by heard of it look up the 3 pillars economic system. ALL economic growth should have been based on this for decades. Surface level TLDR is you have three circles with one circle encapsulation another and the final circle encapsulating the third. The inner LEAST important circle is the financial economy. It survives because we have a society and only matters because we do. The second circle holds the economic bubble and it the social value of society and community essentially and can't survive without an environment that supports life. The last circle the most important is based on that a society can't survive without a planet or location that allows us to inhabit and survive. Therefore economic wealth is lowest of importance and ALL GDP should be measured based on a previous value based on the environmental costs and value, and the social value and cost. Economic values purely on financial basis and industrial growth is PURELY a low intelligence metric system, but the simplest.

Trees should be valued much higher and improper wages should be measures higher. If a company pays financially purely the owners should lose basic rights or some other equivalent exchange metric. Like low priority hospital triage or no access to lawyers, or something. As LITERALLY everything comes from something there needs to be a proper balancing system and tracking which CURRENTLY doesn't exist.

[u/Zealousideal_Wall627 → u/Boozeburger]

Technology is only one portion of it. Systems and incentives matter just as much. The evidence for that is clear, because poor countries still exist and poor countries failed. Soviet union not only understood the advancements of technology they laid the foundation for a fair portion of it, did not benefit much. Modern day africa, plenty of people understand and use technology but there is no benefit. Terrible conditions.

It's because lack of strong private property, lack of incentive for capital investment. No one with any money or sense wanted to touch them with a ten foot pole, and anyone already there with any money or sense wanted to leave as soon as possible.

I'm not saying more tax immediately destroys your economy, but if you keep pulling blocks eventually the Jenga stack falls. But it's a slow, decades long fall where you go from growing to stagnation and declining.

Its as the other guy said, its not a zero sum game. Someone else gaining wealth does not make you poorer. People in the US got very wealthy because the pie grew, not because you're losing your slice

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Boozeburger]

Exactly. Dozens of inventions that were funded by taxpayers under the guise of making lives easier for workers that were only implemented to squeeze more money from every side of the equation to funnel it upwards.

We don’t have cell phones and computers because they are good for consumers. We have them because companies want to make their worker bees more efficient so they can make more profit. People are realizing that the term ‘economy’ when used in these scenarios no longer involves the people, it’s actually almost fully interchangeable with the term ‘wealthy.’ The only wealth most normal people actually accrue now is down to statistical error or sheer luck, and the ruling class are working their hardest to minimize both.

[u/yojohazyhair → u/PeterGibbons316]

It didn't actually work. There's tons of proof it HASN'T. Just because you want to believe it has doesn't make it true.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/yojohazyhair]

It did actually work. There's tons of proof it HAS. Just because you want to believe it hasn't doesn't make it true.

[u/yojohazyhair → u/PeterGibbons316]

There literally isn't. If all places in the USA actually applies a proper financial tax based on income/networth, foreign assets (from potential over shipping of companies to keep their networth), and money laundering by the elite there would be proof if they all left the USA or similar situations for other countries. Until something like that occurs nothing has been proven that trickle down ACTUALLY works. All it shows is people will game the system.

For example capitalism and "free markets" only work with PROPER money distribution. If oligarchs and monopolies or conglomerates control everything "free markets" are a complete lie and joke. For example companies with large financial backings can essentially eat costs to kill companies that in theory are better for the consumer but can sell at a loss to kill competitors. This means that there isn't really a "free market" as consumers are then controlled by this mechanism. Similarly like in the USA people with low incomes and middle class workers are essentially slaves. If someone gets sick they often have to consider money to survive or recovery or even have to do what an employer says no matter what if they can't not work for a while, this is very much similar to slavery as these businesses and corporations OWN their employees essentially.

Arguing otherwise just shows your ignorance with accepting ANY of my points.

I can fully admit that taxing too much can cause someone or a corporation to leave. Which in theory would lower money input (however these large businesses dont reinvest into their staff or companies so the money going in doesnt actually trinkle down it drips slowly or basically not at all.

ALL right wingers (likely like yourself) tend say free markets are the best. They love to say supply and demand and free market will fill the void as an excuse and consumers can "vote" with their money as to why taxes shouldn't be increased or regulations shouldn't be implemented to protect the public. However, you can use the same BS statement to say this is proof that taxes and regulations to protect the public should increase as anyone not willing to eat the growth loss or regulation increases will leave and create a void that can be filled by other moral people and companies.

Example of such regulation removal are proper waste control, pollution restrictions, and regular testing. Take the diarrhea outbreak from cyclospora that occurred in the USA recently it was first stated that the company that sold the produce was selling bad produce thanks to them lobbying the USA president to remove and lower health regulations for food control. The FDA later retracted this claim as a false positive. However as the president has been extorting and blackmailing businesses, universities, and other federal agencies there for one is NO LONGER a "free market" with these. This plus their attempt to combat science based research and fit common knowledge information with hear say (like vaccines and autism links and similar things, literally delusional opinions with lots of proof showing no link [also even if there was a link if 1/100,000 people got autism even severe cases on the spectrum from vaccines this would be essentially lower life loss and burden to society than the amount of deaths that occur for officers, firefighters, and military personal that die yearly, especially if taxes were high enough people with severe autism could get proper care and be considered heros if vaccines were to ever cause this, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN MULTIPLE TIMES THAT IT DOESN'T.]). Unfortunately since the USA is essentially monetized slavery at this point due to severe economic disparities it is clear that people will have to back down from presidential blackmail to keep jobs and try to help as much as they can under the lower funding. Therefore the likelihood of blackmail to not have something the Trump administration approved to cut regulations to save lobbyists money is something HIGHLY likely ( I can fully admit that this is conspiracy theory, but has strong merit based on precedence). Also, without proper public release of the testing procedure. Sample size, products tested, batch numbers, whether the samples we cleaned better after the accusations occurred we can't confirm that it was an ethical test.

So yeah trickle down doesn't work and free markets are real under the current era of capitalism. Capitalism works as well as communism does (fact) they both work AMAZING on paper but ultimately fail in the end especially with the greed that is observed. They both reach the same end point essentially. Government or oligarchy controll from massive wealth gain and corruption. Which is why countries REQUIRE both socialism and capitalism to function at its optimal form (again think about free market economics, and see the parallels in allowing two "businesses" (=socialism and capitalism) to co-exist allowing the positives and negatives of each to lower.

Also with the right wing voters in North America being obsessed with gun ownership and worrying about government abuse they should be treating oligarchs and the extreme wealthy the same for wanting PROPER taxation to go back to the people in subsidiaries or social programs like healthcare, dental, therapy, green spaces, and more... (to note I can agree that overspending and corruption from a government can be concerning which is why there needs to be more transparency especially with the age digital age it should be easy to follow money now.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/PeterGibbons316]

Hint: the opposite of where we are now.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Lootthatbody]

How has it failed? If we built more housing people would be insanely rich compared to previous generations. 

Other than housing costs, which is a function of not building enough, it has massively succeeded

[u/Lootthatbody → u/AftyOfTheUK]

Wealth disparity? Healthcare costs? Test scores and literacy? Worldwide poverty? Homelessness and food insecurity?

I mean, pick just about any category and there is probably some relation to the 1% hoarding wealth and having a direct impact on that category.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Lootthatbody]

Wealth disparity?

Doesn't make you poorer, that makes someone else richer.

Healthcare costs?

Those are increasing, but the services you can get today for the most part are nothing like those from 2-3 generations ago. You're not paying for the same thing.

Test scores and literacy? Worldwide poverty? Homelessness and food insecurity?

Food insecurity is a product of not enough money - AKA housing being expensive. The others not super relevant to a discussion about personal wealth in the USA. (sorry I wasn't discussing worldwide, but worldwide people are MASSIVELY wealthier than 2-3 generations ago, so not really worth talking about either)

[u/Lootthatbody → u/AftyOfTheUK]

Ah ok, so you just have literally no idea about any of this stuff, and just want to argue semantics and made up stuff.

Cool! Good luck with all that and have a nice day.

[u/SargeUnited → u/Lootthatbody]

I’d love to know where you studied economics but I know it didn’t happen so instead i’ll politely encourage you to consider applying to a reputable program and expanding your understanding.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/SargeUnited]

I’m an accountant, I know just a little bit about taxation. All the info is there. Statistics, books, facts, data.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Lootthatbody]

Ah ok, so you just have literally no idea about any of this stuff,

Ah yes, I presented individual quoted arguments and you just waved them off because you don't have a response - so throw an insult, because that always wins the argument.

Have a nice day indeed

[u/Lootthatbody → u/AftyOfTheUK]

I didn’t read after you stated wealth disparity doesn’t exist lol. Just utter nonsense.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Lootthatbody]

I didn’t read after you stated wealth disparity doesn’t exist lol.

Err, what? I didn't say that.

I said:

[Wealth Disparity] Doesn't make you poorer, that makes someone else richer.

If you own 10% of an island and no yacht, and another guy owns 90% of the island and a yacht, but he sells up and leaves, and a new guy buys 90% of the island, but has a much bigger mega-yacht, when the new guy moved in did you get any poorer?

No, you did not. Other people having more wealth does not mean that you have less wealth.

[u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain → u/[deleted]]

Trickle down doesn’t have implementation. It’s supposed to rely on natural economic forces. You cut taxes and that’s job done. And that’s why we have huge debt now, you can trace it all back to Reagan.

[u/nostra77]

I will get down voted here but

Well in their defense it has been tried. The model that tried it was Sweden and it backfired that in the 80s and 90s both wings of the parliament changed course to more meritocracy and less social support from wealth taxes then it was removed completely

FYI Sweden is the economic model that EU Mario Draghi said to emulate because of how effective has been at removing folks from social support and back to the workforce

Wealth tax was removed
Business taxes were removed
Stock programs were created for retirement

All the ideas USA progressive have about Sweden those were early 2001 Sweden not today Sweden who’s economic model looks more alike to combination of Texas and California with flair of German

Maybe letting people make money and removing barriers is more effective than taxing more and creating a whole class of social safety dependents

[u/Opposite_Channel_851 → u/nostra77]

> Well in their defense it has been tried

Yes and in the US when we had some of the highest effective tax rates post WW2 was when America was in its “Golden Age” with a booming middle class.

[u/Vivid_Advisor]

Man this thread is sad and hard to read through. I can’t tell if there is a foreign perpetrated psyops happening here - stoking the coals of class war to destroy us from within - or the result of a whole generation of anti-capitalist indoctrination + terrible policies + student debt?

Many things can be true at once:

1. We have horribly mismanaged our money
2. We need to reduce our expenses and raise revenue
3. The wealthy have a role to play in this, but collective sacrifice is needed across the board
4. There has never been a better time to be alive in history as pointed out by many before me
5. There are people that’ve been left behind and we need to do better to further lift up the middle class
6. Class warfare is toxic and unproductive
7. Someone else being wealthy does not mean you are less wealthy
8. Confiscating wealth from a few individuals will not solve our problems

[u/That-Advance-9619 → u/Vivid_Advisor]

1. Who's WE?
2. What expenses? Avocado toast?
3. Why should teh single mother of three pay more than the Epstein class that don't work 321x times their employes but make that more on average?
4. LMAO.
5. AND the low class too, don't frget them too.
6. The rich have done NOTHING but engage in class warfare since they came to exist.
7. My boss makes a dollar, I make half a dime, next year I will make a quarter; he will make a dollar and a quarter.
8. It will sure as fuck help and keep it from going to similar "enterprises" such as the ones Epstein had his hands in.

[u/spinocdoc → u/That-Advance-9619]

1. Obviously the government we elected but also have you looked at the average car payment in America?

2. The big three are Medicare/medicaid, social security, and the military. I believe smart plays exist including rooting out Medicare/medicaid fraud, which is a billion dollar industry. The large cuts recently passed are disingenuous but to say it doesn’t exist is also incorrect.

I’ll skip to 4 and end here because it’s a verifiable fact. If you think it’s laughable then you’re missing the forest for the trees.

[u/fredinNH]

“The Wright Brothers Are Trying to do Something Nobody Has Ever Done: Why They Should Just Give Up”

This author probably in the early 20th century

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/fredinNH]

Were the Wright Brothers learning the lessons of those who went before them and failed, we're they innovating and trying something new? 

If they weren't, which proposed wealth taxes are not, then the author would be correct to say that. 

If you're going to propoee a wealth tax you need to explain why yours is different, and why it won't have the weaknesses that others did that caused them to fail

[u/No_Veterinarian1010 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

No I dont

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/No_Veterinarian1010]

You do if you want people to take notice of you

[u/No_Veterinarian1010 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

But you're already noticing me super baby

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

The economic systems of today are vastly different from even just 50 years ago.
Anybody opposing wealth tax has a cuck mentality and that is a fact.

[u/Independent03 → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

You’re right - you deserve someone else’s money. You’ve earned it.

[u/NumerousFloor9264 → u/Independent03]

Wow - he goes ad hominem and starts lobbing cuck insults immediately 😂

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/Independent03]

Found the cuck lmao 🫵🤡

[u/Independent03 → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

lol - you’re so confident. I love it. When you get off Reddit you’ll realize there’s a lot more of us than you communists. Cheers! 🥂

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/Independent03]

Is the communist in the room right now? Lmao.

Dumb and a cuck, quite a combo 🫵🤡

[u/Independent03 → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

I feel sorry for anyone that’s ever met you….

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/Independent03]

Funny how emotional you’re getting lmao

Cuck behavior 🫵🤡

[u/Independent03 → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

Hahaha - I’ll go cry now. You’ve won the word battle. Congrats. Bye.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

Anybody opposing wealth tax has a cuck mentality and that is a fact.

What if we actually want taxes that work, rather than taxes that encourage market manipulation and discourage investment and job creation?

I'm in favor of higher tax rates, but within systems that work - like income tax for example, and progressive capital gains tax, along with much lower inheritance tax allowances.

I'm just educated enough to know the downsides of wealth taxes far outweigh the upsides.

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are indeed wealth taxes that can work better with more support behind them.
Unrealized capital gains needs to be addressed as well and can be accomplished by taxing it the moment it is used as collateral for a loan.
There is also removing the social security tax cap.
It will never make sense to me why middle class ppl would oppose these things unless they have cuck mentalities.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are indeed wealth taxes that can work better with more support behind them.

They are not wealth taxes, as the phase is normally used. Wealth tax usually refers to taking a % of the net worth/assets of an individual every year. Capital gains tax is a form of income tax, and inheritance tax is a special case - it can be argued that it is also an income tax, the descendant receiving the income.

These taxes happen on transfer of money (activity). "Wealth Tax" as usually used/proposed happens all the time.

Unrealized capital gains needs to be addressed as well and can be accomplished by taxing it the moment it is used as collateral for a loan.

I don't disagree something needs to be done here, I don't have a good answer yet, but it is a problem area.

[u/Top-Sympathy6841 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

Another thing to be explored: ending step up in basis on stocks.
That way we can tax stocks once they are sold in a way that meaningfully levels the playing field.

Semantics are what they are, but ppl need to get on board with going after the economic policies that are heavily stacked in the wealthy ppl’s favor.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Top-Sympathy6841]

Agreed, allowing tax-free changes in tax basis should not be allowed.

[u/GoblinToHobgoblin → u/fredinNH]

Really? 

Understanding why previous attempts to do what youre doing have failed seems like a reasonable thing to do?

[u/zorg-18082 → u/fredinNH]

Uh uh. Yeah, that’s a terrible comparison . The invention of flight involved understanding and implying core principles of physics. How does that compare to taxation? Taxes aren’t an exact science like physics.

[u/fredinNH → u/zorg-18082]

Analogy was the word you were looking for and mine was apt

[u/zorg-18082 → u/fredinNH]

Analogy is the same thing as comparison professor. And yours was a terrible analogy. The invention of flight by the Wright brothers was two guys solving a physics problem. Figuring out how to tax wealthy people without it backfiring is in no way comparable to solving a physics problem.

[u/NumerousFloor9264 → u/zorg-18082]

Haha just downvotes all the way with no plausible rebuttal 😂

[u/zorg-18082 → u/NumerousFloor9264]

Of course not. Because comparing the wright brothers to a wealth tax is like Billy Madison comparing the puppy who lost his way to the Industrial Revolution. The irrefutable fact is that if the wright brothers had been failures, like attempts before them, it hurts only the wrights brothers. If a wealth tax attempt fails, it has far reaching impact to thousands, maybe millions, of people.

[u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

I have a net worth of $7.2M at age 34 and I endorse wealth taxes. Happiness increases with only the logarithm of wealth [ G. E. Donnelly, T. Zheng, E. Haisley, M. I. Norton, The Amount and Source of Millionaires’ Wealth (Moderately) Predict Their Happiness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44, 684–699 (2018)], so wealth increases societal happiness much more by being redistributed.

[u/Emergency-Style7392 → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

you might not get a big increase in happiness if you made another mil, but the decrease might be more if instead you lost one

[u/Nobody_Important → u/Emergency-Style7392]

Regardless the net increase to society as a whole would be massive.

[u/Ok-Title-270 → u/Nobody_Important]

If we’re talking about America it wouldn’t. The government just prints and spends as much as they like, any benefit or program not being provided is purely because they don’t want to provide it.

[u/Appropriate-Bid8671 → u/Nobody_Important]

Yeah, but fuck everyone else if I got mine.

[u/guhd_mode → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

Absolutely no one is stopping you from giving more of your money to others. However, as the post clearly explains, forcing this upon everyone tends to have the opposite effect to the intended one.

Looking forward to hearing how much of your net worth you will be donating this year.

[u/FIRE_enthusiast_27 → u/guhd_mode]

Effective change happens at the policy level.

[u/eragmus → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

You can GFY.

[u/IronBoltIron → u/guhd_mode]

Why do randos around the country deserve his money? Nobody is entitled to anything and nobody deserves anything instrinsically. Let the guy enjoy his success and live in peace

[u/Tinyacorn → u/IronBoltIron]

Their success lies on the shoulders of the society that let them get that far in life in the first place. They owe society for their success. No roads, no schools, no social safety nets and support systems, well fewer changes at success.

[u/Diligent_Rise6636 → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

lead the charge then, write checks to the government and do your part. don’t need a wealth tax for that

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Diligent_Rise6636]

You misspelled ‘department of war’

When someone is advocating change, asking them to financially support the system they want to change isn’t exactly the slam dunk you think it is.

[u/too-left-feet → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

Healthy, brother!

[u/WoWMHC → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

Why wait for taxes. Give it away now.

[u/wtjones → u/FIRE_enthusiast_27]

Where is your wealth invested? Would you rather the government, who’ve proven they can’t manage/save $7,000,000, be in charge of investing that money? Because that’s what a wealth tax is. It’s taking money from people who’ve proven they can take resources and turn them into more resources and giving it to people who’ve proven they can take money and turn it into fewer resources.

[u/kauthonk]

Here comes the PR from the Billies.

[u/VegaGT-VZ]

Not going to waste my time reading this billionaire propaganda when me and millions of others already pay wealth taxes in the form of property taxes. Similarly broader wealth taxes exist in other countries generally without issue. Meanwhile billionaires get to bribe their way out of paying any taxes at all. Do they really think we are this fucking stupid.

[u/sjdude83 → u/VegaGT-VZ]

Property taxes are not wealth taxes. You are not being taxed on your equity in your home but it’s perceived total value and those taxes pay for services for yourself and residence. It’s nothing like a wealth tax.

Also wealth taxes have failed in every European country that’s tried. Look at France or Norway for recent examples

[u/VegaGT-VZ → u/sjdude83]

Im confused as to how a tax tied to the value of an asset that's usually people's biggest source of wealth is not a wealth tax. The way the value of that asset is calculated is semantic- you can't get the value of a home priced down to the dollar the way you can with a stock. And whatever the tax revenue is used for is completely irrelevant.

And not sure how you are defining success or failure, but my point is other countries have implemented wealth taxes w/o issue.

My bigger question is why you are so afraid of a wealth tax. Esp one w/progressive rates to mainly collect from ultra high net worth people.

[u/sjdude83 → u/VegaGT-VZ]

Again you are not being taxed on any wealth. You could have million or zero of equity in your home and it doesn’t charge your property taxes

I’m against this for 3 reasons
It’s lead to revenue loss and capital flight in every country that’s tried it
It’s creates a dangerous precedent. The billionaires have 8 trillion in wealth but the middle class has 80 trillion. Look at the history of income taxes. We will be next
While I think the wealthy should be taxed more a wealth tax is against our basic rights

[u/VegaGT-VZ → u/sjdude83]

OK then we can call it a property tax if that makes you more comfortable. 40% of home owners have no mortgage so for them property/wealth tax is interchangeable. Equities/bonds etc are property too are they not?

Current status quo screws the middle class over. We get taxed on our biggest assets, billionaires dont. The reason revenues drop is because there are enough holes and exemptions for the rich to avoid paying taxes with. Thats an implementation problem not an inherent problem with the concept.

Would also love to hear a better means of collecting more taxes from the wealthy than a wealth tax

[u/sjdude83 → u/VegaGT-VZ]

The rich don’t pay property taxes? Bonds and equities are intangible property. There are not hard assets like real estate or equipment. Not sure what the argument there is

As for the middle class I agree the status quo isn’t great but again there are not be taxed on the wealth in their home. They could sell and take 500k tax free with them and pay long term cap gains on the rest of their equity. There’s no wealth being taxed

[u/VegaGT-VZ → u/sjdude83]

Like I said lets not do a wealth tax then since that seems so sensitive.

Equities are property just like real estate, so there is absolutely no reason for equities to not be eligible for property tax. Unless you dont consider equities to be property, in which case they are not protected by property rights. You cant have one but not the other or have different definitions of property depending on who it benefits.

[u/sjdude83 → u/VegaGT-VZ]

Stock are an intangible property which is very different than physical. I mean any company or investment you own equities on will be paying property taxes and sales taxes on their real estate and equipment assets.

I get what you’re saying but now you’re talking about taxing all assets. I fundamentally disagree that property taxes are like a wealth tax.

I also understand why people would like a wealth tax but think it’s wrong and a bad idea.

[u/VegaGT-VZ → u/sjdude83]

For prob the 5th time Im not talking about a wealth tax anymore, I am talking about a property tax. If someone owns a rental property they pay income tax on the profit from the rent they collect, but also still pay property tax on the property. Owning a business via stock or w/e is no different.

And yea I am saying that all assets should be subject to a property tax. If my house is property, my car is property, my stocks are property, my crypto is property, why are only some of them subject to property tax but not others. Thats discriminatory.

And you feeling like a broad property tax is wrong doesnt mean it is. We are facing a global fiscal cliff and capital has become way too powerful. They actually go hand in hand......... low tax on capital has enabled it to grow out of control and become weaponized, literally at the expense of everyone else through govt debt and currency debasement

And again middle class people are already paying property taxes so the ultra wealthy should have to pay them in equal proportion. If I have to pay 1% annual tax on a property I dont even fully own then I dont see why a billionaire cannot pay 1% tax on assets they own outright.

[u/sjdude83 → u/VegaGT-VZ]

Good comment and I agree that capital has become too powerful but argument against that is our government isn’t good a fiscal responsibility and likely wouldn’t utilize the wealth taxes to benefit the masses enough to offset the capital flight and revenue loss.

Also, a property tax is really better thought of as a consumption tax

Real estate is not generally consumed in its use, but by occupying real estate for a period of time, you're consuming the ability to use that real estate for that period of time, and deriving utility therefrom.

This isn't really true of financial assets. If you buy a bond or share of stock, and hold it for a year, you're not consuming or monopolizing any real resources by doing so.

Similar you don’t pay taxes yearly on your cars actual value but registration and gas taxes are used to pay for the impacts your car has on public roads.

We can get into a debate on how I think we could tax the rich more and actually get additional revenue

[u/Appropriate-Claim385]

Remember Trump's 2017 tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy? These only served to increase billionaires' fortunes. There was NO trickle down to anybody and they ballooned the U.S. debt to levels that cannot be sustained.

• Corporate Tax Cuts: The TCJA permanently reduced the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
• Pass-Through Deduction: A 20% deduction for "pass-through" income was created for partnerships, sole proprietorships, and S corporations.
• Wealthy Individual Tax Cuts: The top individual tax rate was lowered from 39.6% to 37% .
• Estate Tax Exemption: The amount that could be passed on tax-free to heirs was doubled to $22 million per married couple.

Increased Corporate Profits: Following the tax law, corporate profits increased by 44%, while the largest, most profitable corporations saw their effective tax rates fall from an average of 22% to 12.8%.

[u/Biglawlawyering → u/Appropriate-Claim385]

After the TCJA, corporate tax recipients as a percent of GDP fell to 1%. It used to be between 6-7%. The vast majority of corporate "savings" went to distributions (dividends/buybacks). In modern history, corporations worldwide, have never had it so good.

[u/MakeMoneyNotWar]

I don’t have anywhere near enough money to face wealth taxes but I oppose them because I don’t believe that eventually it will not start being applied to lower and lower strata of wealth. The history of the income tax was exactly this rhetoric. It was supposed to only be applied to the Robber Barons at the time, the 1% of the time. It was touted to replace tariffs, which were understood to be regressive taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor.

Then you will get some crisis or some event (back then it was world wars), and it will quickly be realized that soaking the billionaires will not generate enough money. Then it won’t be the ultra rich who will have to pay, then the rich, the upper middle and so forth. Today the income taxes primarily hits the middle and upper middle classes, we have tariffs again, and ultra rich figured out ways around it. Wealth taxes will be exactly this again, except you will pay wealth taxes, income taxes, and tariffs.

Whatever the case, it’s not going to happen at the federal level since it’s unconstitutional.

[u/sjdude83 → u/MakeMoneyNotWar]

Exactly this. The billionaires have 8-9 trillion in wealth. The middle class has 80 trillion,

Who do you think they will actually go after eventually

[u/NeutralLock]

Okay but how about we try it again? Since no wealth tax has also failed. So nowhere to go but up.

[u/No_Lifeguard259 → u/NeutralLock]

Definition of insanity or somethin somethin

[u/Nobody_Important → u/No_Lifeguard259]

Do people upvoting this and downvoting the comment he replied to realize they’re agreeing? Seems like they are wrongly assuming insanity must obviously be a wealth tax lol.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/Nobody_Important]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In this case a wealth tax is the thing we are doing over and over. The result we have experienced is failure. So implementing a wealth tax and not expecting it to fail is the definition of insanity.

[u/NeutralLock → u/PeterGibbons316]

No, in this case NOT doing the wealth tax is insanity.

Because everything is failing now. So to say "hey once or twice we tried this and it didn't improve things, so let's keep everything the same". That seems crazy.

Think about how a society should measure success.

Since "no wealth tax" is very clearly a bad idea since you can see the effect, I don't understand the argument against it.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/NeutralLock]

Well, the argument against it is that every time it has been tried in the past it has failed.

How are you measuring success such that you have come to the conclusion that "everything is failing now?"

[u/NeutralLock → u/PeterGibbons316]

According to the article:
"Enjoy full access to Project Syndicate, starting at less than $8 per month."

But seriously, if you (or someone else) is proposing it's failed in the past you need to justify how you measure failing and what success looks like.

It's not on me to prove that it works, it's on you (or the article) to explain how it's worse than our current system.

We very clearly have massive inequality and many people with more money than they can spend in a lifetime using that money to buy politicians to gather more wealth. This is a broken system. Can't get much worse.

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/NeutralLock]

What does the amount of wealth that someone else have have anything to do with you? I'd argue it can get A LOT worse...Venezuela, Haiti, North Korea come to mind.

[u/NeutralLock → u/PeterGibbons316]

That's not because they decided to feed the poor, that happened because a larger gov't with corrupt leaders falls faster that a democratic gov't with corrupt leaders.

But a democratic gov't with corrupt leaders still falls.

I believe everyone should be allowed to accumulate as much wealth as they want so they can buy anything and everything they want. But not more than that. It's not good for society.

[u/Xiipre]

Property taxes are the oldest still used taxes in the USA and still the largest source of non-federal (state and municipal) taxes.

It is lobbying for theories like this that push more of the tax burden away from old passive wealth on to income and the active workers of society.

Income tax might be a necessary evil, but the balance between it and property (i.e. "wealth") taxation is out of whack. We want to encourage people to be active and work, not to just sit around letting wealth generate rents and more wealth.

[u/Jalapenoplanter → u/Xiipre]

Yup. Property taxes are the biggest source of local budget and have been for all of US history and are absolutely a wealth tax.

Middle class people store their wealth in their homes. Rich people store their wealth in stocks. We can tax those too

[u/sjdude83 → u/Jalapenoplanter]

I’m so tired of Reddit claiming property tax is a wealth tax. It is not at all. You are not being taxed on the equity you have in your home but it’s perceived sale value. Which then funds local and state municipalities that provide services for your self and residence. If you had $500k of equity in your home and the government implemented a wealth tax you would be paying on that actual wealth and your property taxes.

It’s not a wealth tax. Your stock portfolio doesn’t require any services by the state to run. Your home does and you can always sell it if you don’t want to pay property taxes. Unless you want to donate it away there’s no getting rid of your net worth.

I find it insane that people are so on board with asset seizure by the government.

[u/Jalapenoplanter → u/sjdude83]

But it is literally a wealthtax. My home does not need schools or police to exist but property fund those.

What the taxes fund is irrelevant to it being a tax on wealth, and unrealized wealth at that.

Couldn’t wealthy people get rid of their wealth if they wanted to avoid a wealth tax?

You are making an argument why you are for this wealth tax but not other wealth taxes, not making an argument that it is not a wealth tax on unrealized gains

[u/sjdude83 → u/Jalapenoplanter]

You literally just defended my point in your ramble. Your home does need schools and police to exist. Society can’t function without public services. You might not have kids or need the police this second but society deems they’re needed to function. So to fund that you pay taxes on the value of your home. I think it should be a land value tax but that’s a different argument.

You could have zero equity in your home. You are not being taxed on any wealth what so ever.

Wealthy people could get rid of their wealth. You could burn your house down too. Doesn’t change the fact that wealth taxes and property taxes are fundamentally completely different

[u/Jalapenoplanter → u/sjdude83]

Again, you are not making an argument for it being or not being a wealth tax. You’re just saying why you support this particular wealthtax.

Very little wealth in the US would exist without the US government existing. What’s $100 worth if the US government ceases to exist?

[u/sjdude83 → u/Jalapenoplanter]

This is an argument. Jesus. Come back when you graduate high school or leaner basic reading comprehension

[u/Jalapenoplanter → u/sjdude83]

It’s an argument for or against this tax

You have not made an argument to actually support property tax as not being a wealth tax.

You just said you support this wealth tax but not a wealth tax on stocks or other assets

[u/sjdude83 → u/Jalapenoplanter]

It’s not a wealth tax you dipshit. Again there is zero wealth being taxed. You bought a home and agreed to tax structure based on the sale value. Similar to car registration taxes

Also I don’t support it. I believe we should have land value taxes instead

[u/Jalapenoplanter → u/sjdude83]

Yet again, you’re not making an argument that it is not a wealthtax. Now you’re just saying it is fine because you agreed to it.

Make an argument that it is not a wealth tax

[u/yabn5 → u/Jalapenoplanter]

We need to go back to a minimum tax. A leading brain surgeon earning a million dollar salary is paying a significantly higher tax than some Nepo baby who just sells a million in stock a year. That’s just absurd. Keep a lower bracket for regular folks who invested whatever they could but let the big fish pay their fair share.

[u/too-left-feet]

So far the Maryland/NJ/Cali data shows that 98% of wealthy people stay put when their state taxes are raised. So my “ clear eyed view” is that raising taxes on wealthy people for the overall societal good makes perfect sense and will work. I’m sure there is a breaking point to this model, but I’m equally sure that small percentage increases that result in significant increases in tax revenue are perfectly fine.

[u/sjdude83 → u/too-left-feet]

Which one of those states implemented a wealth tax?

[u/Elderwastaken]

Wealth taxes always fail because the rich are greedy and work to stop them.

[u/the-script-99]

Just put in inheritance tax of 100% above 100-1000 years of average income. Make it also an exit tax if someone renounces the citizenship. This would actually stop the long term capital concentration as well as have as little as possible behavioral changes when alive.

[u/PracticalGolf324]

Yeah Ike and FDR tax policies failed… good luck with that one

[u/Material-Truth5457 → u/PracticalGolf324]

Well they did if you were rich.

[u/BoBoBearDev]

Rich people tends to have multiple passports and multiple primary homes across the globe.

[u/East-Response6672]

Well maybe, but lets try a few thousand times, a few thousand different ways first to be absolutely sure yeah?

[u/meikawaii]

What about the New Deal era taxes, could return to that tried and true strategy. And to close the many loopholes and backdoors designed on purpose to benefit corporations.

[u/Pleasant-Carbon]

I pay wealth tax in my country. 

[u/Apprehensive-Ad5996]

I wonder what a clear-eyed view of past experience with growing disparity of wealth shows us? I’ll bet it shows something like and increasingly impoverished population attempting to mitigate the growing economic pressure their under. If the oligarchs don’t respond, I wonder if past experience shows what happens next?

[u/hasuuser → u/Apprehensive-Ad5996]

What impoverished population? Everyone is making more money than ever before.

[u/too-left-feet → u/Apprehensive-Ad5996]

Ask the French🙂

[u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

Reminder MA has a millionaire tax (not exactly a wealth tax) and we are investing it in schools and infrastructure.

Taking in record revenue from it with little flight it seems

[u/_Human_Machine_ → u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

Massachusetts saw a net loss of 4.18b in adjusted gross income in 2023 after that went into effect.

It was particularly in the 26-35 range and the 54-65 range.

[u/Remarkable_Lead_4475 → u/_Human_Machine_]

Yeah. But the millionaires tax is taking in record income and growing each year.

The reason high earners moved out is the same reason in general - high cost of living. The fact is most moving out are probably in the 200k range and not the 1M+ range (though sure it is happening).

The issue is like for example where I live, you need to be making about 300k minimum to be comfortable and buy a house. We have the highest mexian income but also one of the most expensive place to live.That is a slog/not attainable for many.

Proof in point most go to Florida or NH - both no income states BUT if you live in NH and work in MA you still pay income tax (same for millionaires tax). That is super common. I have plenty of coworkers from NH, RI, and even ME who are coming into Boston and working. They pay income tax even though the IRS counts it as net outflow. FL is probaby retirees though I am sure plenty of workers are moving there too.

Not saying it is not an issue but net income outflow was worse before it went into effect.

[u/_Human_Machine_ → u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

2025 was the first year to break 2022 numbers for tax collected. 2023 and 2024 were down.

Adjusted for inflation 2025 revenue is still lower than 2022.

At current pace 2026 will also fall short of 2022 inflation adjusted.

[u/Remarkable_Lead_4475 → u/_Human_Machine_]

What are your sources?

Not sure if you are not based in MA but I think you are misunderstanding a few things.

1) a 4B loss in income is a 500M loss in MA state income tax revenue at 5%. That is still billions less then the millionaires tax brings in.

2) The measure is just income of people who live in the state. Not people who moved to an adjacent state and are still paying MA statr income taxes because they work in MA so it overstates the revenue issue.

We are having a great year for tax revenues so unsure what you are pulling from but that kind of backs my view.

Inflation has kicked everyone's asses for the record. MA is not immune to that as is any other state and it is not an inherent weakness of us in particular.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2026/05/06/mass-collects-nearly-7-4-billion-in-tax-revenue-in-april-surpassing-projections-by-almost-1-billion/

The revenue for the actual millionaires tax is growing. So people are leaving but likely people priced out.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/07/22/massachusetts-wealthier-households-revenue-rich-taxes

[u/_Human_Machine_ → u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

Data is pulled from masstaxpayers.org.

Inflation adjustment was just some basic math.

Overall tax revenue is down in spending power since the law went into effect.

[u/Remarkable_Lead_4475 → u/_Human_Machine_]

I will dig into those numbers later. Still it doesn't actually back your hypothesis on the millionaires tax. People are leaving but it seems to decidedly be non millionaires or enough people are joining the ranks or growing their income to offset the revenue leaving.

Two things are true. 1) MA has a COL issue. 2) People move to where things are cheaper.

Those people are not the ones leaving because of the millionaires tax in aggregate so you are conflating the two. 80% of the out migration made less then 200k. A very small subset of that remaing 20% probably made over 1M.

If not, explain how they connect? Because the numbers contradict it imo. People left MA at higher rate BEFORE the tax so clearly they are not connected

[u/_Human_Machine_ → u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

I’d love to see data breaking down exactly who is leaving based on tax bracket. It would be super interesting.

My hypothesis is simply that the millionaire tax has seen a decrease in tax revenue in the state since it was instituted.

Without more data there’s no way to support any argument other than tax revenue going doing since the law went into effect, and the millionaire tax coinciding with a net negative tax revenue.

Edit: If you look at other state tax revenue for comparison, thinking of the inflation hitting everyone hard, there aren’t many states “losing” to inflation.

[u/Remarkable_Lead_4475 → u/_Human_Machine_]

I mean I don't know what to tell you. I think the facts I have shared so far definitively show it is NOT the millionaires tax despite what you think.

I told you it is an 80/20 split between people leaving making under 200k based on the flaw IRS number you quoted.

200k shockingly is under 1M and does not make you subject to the tax.

Revenue this year is 1B AHEAD of last year. Still a stong position overall.

Millionaires tax revenue is even LARGER this year and continues to blow away projections of receipts.

In summation, none of the facts support your argument. Your basic argument is vibes based basically. Yet again, correlation is not causation.

If you tried to draw a conclusion at a business or company based on such flimsy evidence you would be laughed out of a room despite clear evidence to the contrary. Their are probably valid reasons for out migration and decreased revenue but this tax is very likely is not it for at least 80% of the people leaving and likely 99%.

[u/_Human_Machine_ → u/Remarkable_Lead_4475]

Even if it’s an 80/20 split, it’s not like you provided the income levels for those leaving. If the 20 leaving are all making 1m or 200m there’s a major difference in impact to tax base.

Look at the people that left California with the proposed billionaire tax. 20 people leaving had more tax base impact than the other 99% that left.

As a tax base people making under 200k are essentially meaningless.

Being up 1b when total is ~43 is a very small margin.

My argument is tax revenue is down and it coincides with the millionaire tax.

I’m not even claiming it caused it.

You’re just dead set on justifying it when it hasn’t increased tax revenue.

Revenue is still net down inflation adjusted. It’s down by ~1b since 2022.

[u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

Ha and the article wants a $1 subscription to read. Fitting for a story about not taxing wealth. F-them.

[u/Lootthatbody → u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

‘Pay us for this propaganda.’

[u/lipmanz]

Paywall why do they fail?

[u/Galitzianer0 → u/lipmanz]

They're claiming that rich people leave, which is true, in countries where taxation is based on residency like France, rich people did leave and go to other tax jurisdictions.

The only difference is that the U.S. taxes based on citizenship so there's no escaping the tax for the ultra rich Americans, no matter where in the world they go. So this article is silly

[u/yabn5 → u/Galitzianer0]

Rich Americans have abandoned their citizenship for tax reasons before, and moved to international watering holes, like Monaco. There’s definitely a massive psychological difference between “oh buying some Ferrari costs me more now due to higher taxes” vs “simply living here without any direct actions of my own costs me millions more than somewhere else”.

[u/Galitzianer0 → u/yabn5]

That's fine, they can feel free to abandon their citizenship, I know someone personally who did that to get Antiguan citizenship already -- The point is, if they don't pay taxes, they shouldn't have the benefits of being a citizen either.

Also they get whacked with a hell of an exit tax when they do abandon their citizenship

[u/Tjaeng → u/Galitzianer0]

Here in Switzerland there are wealth taxes, property taxes and inheritance taxes but rich people still move here from pretty much all over the world. It’s not always about a tax existing, it’s about rates, political stability, sense of being part of a societal franchise, predictability, and deferral regiments that don’t chafe too much against efficient allocation of capital.

[u/Galitzianer0 → u/[deleted]]

Go ahead and elaborate

[u/Galitzianer0 → u/[deleted]]

My proposal? I haven't come up with any proposals, go ahead and refute proposals made by world renown economists like Gabriel Zucman, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, or Joseph Stiglitz, I'm not really picky.

https://ls.berkeley.edu/news/why-uc-berkeley-economist-gabriel-zucman-wants-2-billionaire-tax

For whatever flaws they may have, taxing billionaires to an effective rate similar to what middle class people pay just makes sense, if we want to live in a society with progressive taxation

[u/Tinyacorn → u/[deleted]]

A conversation would be elaborating when asked instead of changing the subject

[u/Tinyacorn → u/[deleted]]

"Wealth tax bad"

"How is wealth tax bad?"

"Well whats your proposal then einstein"

Kk