The Vermont senator, along with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, unveiled a bill on Monday that would enact a 5% annual wealth tax on America's billionaires, which Sanders's office estimates to be 938 people.
This time though, they are just admitting that it's a redistribution play:
So what do Sanders and Khanna want to do with all of that money?
The flashiest proposal is a one-time, $3,000 direct payment to each American in households making $150,000 annually or less — meaning $12,000 for a family of four.
What are the mental hyjinx you have to get up to in order to believe that you should take someone else's money and give it to other people?
We're list making a country where rich people spend lots of money on accountants and lawyers and governments keep on printing.
'What are the mental hyjinx you have to get up to in order to believe that you should take someone else's money and give it to other people?'
Its very simple and well established economic logic at least since Adam Smith- here it is since you seem to have missed it- wealthy people have generally benefited more from the economic opportunities that collective human organised groups (nation states) render to their citizens.
It is entirely rational to redistribute wealth from the most wealthy to the least as it both stimulates consumption and increases the overall well being of the populace.
The wealth and income distribution in the USA today is huge and creates significant economic and social tension- wealth redistribution is a logical response.
I am relatively wealthy but recognise that the taxes I pay play a part in maintaining a civil society and funding the infrastructure and governance that makes life worthwhile and supports my wealth and security, and that of other citizens.
The neoliberal nonsense that you may have been breastfed on has perhaps clouded your judgement - humans work best in groups and taxes are an important part of the way of maximising the potential of human groups.
Why does this seem to only happen to some people? For instance, Amjad Masad, the guy who started Replit, did not come from a wealthy family. However, now he is, I assume, much wealthier than me. What happened that made it so he benefited from the economic opportunities that collective human organized groups render to their citizens?
Some people create things that other members of humanity want to use more than others.
Being a citizen of a nation where there is a strong economy and rule of law improves your chances of this happening.
Even someone who works as a labourer in a wealthy nation tends to earn more and enjoy a better standard of living than a labourer in a poverty stricken hellhole.
Get it yet?
Yes. I'm of a mind that such people should get to keep the profit they make for doing this.
I suppose you would say a person's success is more dependent on their circumstances than on their choices. But wealthy nations do not exist because of magic, they exist because they are the product of "some people creating things that other members of humanity want to use."
Now before you get angry, wealthy nations also exist because they waged war and stolen things from others. I can see how this makes for the argument that such nations should redistribute their wealth to those who are poor. However, the evidence I see and have learned from history is that such efforts are always worse than the sickness.
'I suppose you would say a person's success is more dependent on their circumstances than on their choices.'
You suppose wrong.I never said that. The monetary success of people is a combination of factors- luck, hard work, and circumstances- but circumstances certainly include the structure of law and order and security that taxes enable.
Yes this is true of nations too although any study of history shows that some nations have exerted considerable power projection over other nations and hegemony over those weaker nations enabling the dominant nations and their citizens to enjoy significantly more opportunity and wealth than the nations who are subjugated.
But considering the notion of wealth taxes, especially in the context of the USA which is both globally the dominant power and where within the US there is huge inequality a wealth tax is highly justified as it would both recognise the significant advantage people have in the USA to achieve exceptional levels of wealth and the very high rate of inequality.
You assert that wealth redistribution does not work- it all depends on how it is done of course but in the Nordic countries for example there are high rates of tax and welfare support and most citizens accept this as it minimizes inequality. If you think inequality is not a problem then you have a different perspective-perhaps you have never experienced real poverty and the debilitating effect it can have on people. Personally I have lived in both a very egalitarian society (New Zealand of the 1970s) and a much less egalitarian society- New Zealand today- and I would say I much prefer the former. There are pros and cons but imo a highly unequal wealth distribution is both dangerous and unhealthy- and history shows this- high levels of inequality are highly correlated to civil unrest, corruption and economic and social decline.
As a relatively wealthy person I would much prefer a more egalitarian society as there is in my experience less societal tension and more utilisation of human capital.
The liquidations involved in paying these taxes would be insane.
And I imagine people would figure out all kinds of games to lower valuations.
Lower valuations and hide wealth or distribute it in ways that minimize the tax hit.
"What's happening to my retirement portfolio??"
They never fail to consider the Constitutional issues this would face via the Direct Tax Clause. I do not see how it would be able to address the fact that certain states would suffer disproportionate implications.
Why don't we just kill 1 of them an divide up their assets among everyone else. It would only affect 1 person.
Utilitarianism!