Maybe perhaps.
But the people under discussion here have all made vast fortunes on the sweat of thousands other people's brows. They should be expected to have some tax burden. And income tax is clearly not working as is.
But the people under discussion here have all made vast fortunes on the sweat of thousands other people's brows. They should be expected to have some tax burden. And income tax is clearly not working as is.
This is a great point, and I think lends itself to a better solution than taxes. Why give all the excess to the government, who will do who knows what with it? (actually it's pretty clear where the majority of it goes, and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't spend it the same way as the government).
If someone attained their wealth with the help of others, why can't we enact regulations saying that the wealth must be divided amongst all of them? Sure you can have some differences for those at the top, but it shouldn't be orders of magnitude difference.
Then each of those individuals would be both better off individually as well as spreading that wealth farther across the economy instead of concentrated to a few individuals.
I'm probably too naive in my thinking here though.
If we just say that the extremely well off have some burden, but maybe it's not entirely up to them & maybe people under them should have some day where that money goes: that creates perverse incentives where the rich person might shape who stays employed and who falls inline. Or even if not explicit pressure, maybe the rich person sets up various programs which obviously clearly benefit employees more so than others. It creates endless hard to read quid-pro-quo and other self dealing situations.
Rather than give the mega wealthy control over some societal obligation, it seems like governments can and should be in charge. If you disbelieve in government, I think there's a strong and high obligation to state how and where you think things are going astray, and I think there's a strong obligation to seek reform and improvement. Tearing down the United States & state governments or supplanting them with exterior powers is an act that, to me, seems blankety awful, with little clear advisement for it.
I like the state and don't think we should undermine it and I think should expect the ultra-richer to carry some burden, which they have so far escaped. I don't think we need to revamp the structure of government when we decide rich people should pay some burden too, which for the last ~4 decades they hasnt been the case.
They will only increase in value if a wealth tax is passed.
Heck, if you have the PM if Iceland hiding stuff in Panama, what will happen when they get serious??
You're maybe not wrong that the accountants & tax people could become more valuable at helping wealthy dodge the intended laws & avoiding the clear intent.
But that, to me, doesn't mean the effort should be given up on. The wealthy are at war against having any tax burden, and yes, this game will iterate, the ultra wealthy will continue to try to avoid having any tax burden on them, with whatever ridiculous farce they can cook up.
But that does not, to me, mean giving up. That does not, to me, mean fatalism that they will forever avoid being socially contributive. The premise that they will forever find better people to help them cheat is a dastardly seditious & low nihilism, that excuses us from ever trying, premises around them always forever being able to get the upper hand and contribute nothing.
We should have a premise better than forever losing to the uktrarich when we consider how society ought be structured, how it ought function. We should try to govern & make sensible structures. If the structures aren't working, we should alter our structures to make the ultra wealthy have some tax burden.