And yet people will still look for places to store wealth. All this would do is create more complex forms of money laundering.
That's not a helpful argument because it is so general that we can bring it up against anything. I'm very certain you don't follow this principle in real life either.
> I'm very certain you don't follow
Don't say what I think for me. It's condescending, makes you look like you're more interested in cheap points, and suggests that you can't actually come up with an intellectual response.
I don't think it's a good thing; I think it's better to address the root of the problem rather than the symptom; and it's worth noting when a course of action isn't going to work. Otherwise you fall prey to the classic mockery: "we need to do something! This is something. We should do it."
All taxes are avoided to some extent but assets are actually easier to tax in many ways than income. If you want to have money and things it’s hard to hide that, whereas if you have capital you don’t even need income and can easily avoid taxes on it.
It reminds me of the new proposed tax in CA, where anyone over $N net worth has to pay M% of it per year. It'll be interesting to see if it'll help CA stay afloat, or if it contributes to the state's decline.
Isn't the whole idea behind making money to build a 'nest egg'? Seems like that counts as the small-scale version of exactly what you're describing.
Taxing wealth isn't some kind of rigid principle, where if you want to be able to tax Jeff Bezos you also have to tax Jane Millennial the same percent. We can, and should, and at least the vast majority of people talking about it want to, ignore regular people trying to save, and tax mega-wealth higher than moderate wealth.
Re the specific tax you mention the devil is in the details but it doesn’t sound great.