Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.
Next question.
Godort@lemm.ee 3 days ago
Is it because the people that we need to worry about don’t get paid massive wages? Instead they leverage their massive stock ownership as collateral for loans. And stock bonuses are not regulated or taxed in the same way as real wages.
MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I’d be fully supportive of a “maximum wealth” limit.
Atropos@lemmy.world 3 days ago
What we need to do is implement “prestige wealth”. Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.
Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.
thomas@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Yeah, we can also make it fun. One someone has amassed a certain quantity of wealth, make a big ceremony, where the guy is given a trophy that says “I won capitalism”. After that, every dollar he makes past the limit is taxed 100%
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 days ago
How does that work though? Let’s say the maximum wealth limit is one billion dollars and you own $750M of stock in the company you founded. Your wealth could go above and below that $1B limit multiple times in a day. What happens then?
ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Absolutely, even at something like 100 * min wage. Still a hell of a lot less than what’s happening today.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 days ago
They borrow against their stocks tax free. The system they have created is perverse and should be illegal l.