I'm generally in favour of a <2% land tax because it is basically confiscatory - over the course of a lifetime (~20 years not owning land, 50 years owning land, 100% tax). That forces people to store their wealth in deprecating assets and means over time the economy orients towards competent asset managers having all the wealth as opposed to the usual equilibrium of forming a landed aristocracy. It also can't be escaped because the land can't be destroyed, not created or moved.
So I don't know much about the French situation being more than a continent away, but in principle a 2% wealth tax can't fix a budget hole. It is also confiscatory, making it ultimately a tool of social engineering rather than revenue raising. It is a policy to eliminate large pools of assets. Things that get eliminated can't be taxed sustainably.
It is basically an inflation brake, it allows the government to spend and equalize the money supply against a specifically targeted class rather than dumping it wholesale on the economy as inflation (there's a lot more to inflation than direct government spending but it is a cause).
Whether you agree with it or not will vary greatly depending on the effectiveness of your country's government, the wealth gap, your country's currency purchasing power, your general political alignment, and a whole slew of other factors.
> ...against a specifically targeted class rather than dumping it wholesale on the economy as inflation...
I doubt it. Taxing high asset people:
- Doesn't create more stuff.
- Doesn't cause them to consume less stuff.
With that in mind, in terms of inflation it's just going to express itself as less investment leading eventually to higher prices. If the government is dumping money into the system it isn't causing the ultra-wealthy to be less competitive using it to buy consumer goods. There'll maybe be an early bump as the seeds of future prosperity get consumed instead of planted but the net long term effect is not going to be wealthy people eating any of the costs of inflation.
First, it's an abuse of "voting" because the class that is being regulated is not represented equally in the vote.
Second, In the USA, our federal government would have a 0-star rating on charity navigator. Nearly all taxes simply go to pay down bad business deals or provide bailouts for billionaires and is largely a wealth transfer system to the 1%ers, meanwhile a massive campaign is ran that paying taxes is actually doing something. I can't speak to the French situation.
You're "good" with a wealth tax, or with it being voted against?
I'm in favor of a wealth tax, say 1% on wealth over $10M. To see historical rates in the US and to play with possible taxes, see
https://taxjusticenow.org
I'm generally in favour of a <2% land tax because it is basically confiscatory - over the course of a lifetime (~20 years not owning land, 50 years owning land, 100% tax). That forces people to store their wealth in deprecating assets and means over time the economy orients towards competent asset managers having all the wealth as opposed to the usual equilibrium of forming a landed aristocracy. It also can't be escaped because the land can't be destroyed, not created or moved.
So I don't know much about the French situation being more than a continent away, but in principle a 2% wealth tax can't fix a budget hole. It is also confiscatory, making it ultimately a tool of social engineering rather than revenue raising. It is a policy to eliminate large pools of assets. Things that get eliminated can't be taxed sustainably.
It is basically an inflation brake, it allows the government to spend and equalize the money supply against a specifically targeted class rather than dumping it wholesale on the economy as inflation (there's a lot more to inflation than direct government spending but it is a cause).
Whether you agree with it or not will vary greatly depending on the effectiveness of your country's government, the wealth gap, your country's currency purchasing power, your general political alignment, and a whole slew of other factors.
> ...against a specifically targeted class rather than dumping it wholesale on the economy as inflation...
I doubt it. Taxing high asset people:
- Doesn't create more stuff.
- Doesn't cause them to consume less stuff.
With that in mind, in terms of inflation it's just going to express itself as less investment leading eventually to higher prices. If the government is dumping money into the system it isn't causing the ultra-wealthy to be less competitive using it to buy consumer goods. There'll maybe be an early bump as the seeds of future prosperity get consumed instead of planted but the net long term effect is not going to be wealthy people eating any of the costs of inflation.
Or simply rich get richer as you put no brake on the wealth.
You'd love Henry George.
I'm good with this for a few reasons:
First, it's an abuse of "voting" because the class that is being regulated is not represented equally in the vote.
Second, In the USA, our federal government would have a 0-star rating on charity navigator. Nearly all taxes simply go to pay down bad business deals or provide bailouts for billionaires and is largely a wealth transfer system to the 1%ers, meanwhile a massive campaign is ran that paying taxes is actually doing something. I can't speak to the French situation.
> I'm good with this...
You're "good" with a wealth tax, or with it being voted against?
I'm in favor of a wealth tax, say 1% on wealth over $10M. To see historical rates in the US and to play with possible taxes, see https://taxjusticenow.org
Of course.