How about a progressive Capital Acquisitions Tax?

[NoRegretsCoyote]

You all seem to be obsessed with collecting more tax, you never look at how the money is being used.

It's a threat about tax!

 

[ClubMan]

It's a threat ...

Freudian slip?

 

[Purple]

You can't create wealth without encouraging wealth creation if its subsequently going to be taxed. Why bother creating it in the first place.

Taxing the creation of wealth i.e. work, is more of a discouragement than taxing wealth retention.

 

[T McGibney]

Taxing the creation of wealth i.e. work, is more of a discouragement than taxing wealth retention.

Why should wealth retention be discouraged? Is it not the bedrock of prosperity?

 

[Purple]

Why should wealth retention be discouraged? Is it not the bedrock of prosperity?

It shouldn't be discouraged. There's nothing wrong with wealth retention, but it should be taxed so that wealth isn't concentrated in one group. Taxing labour heavily and not taxing wealth at all makes for a more unequal society with less equality of opportunity.
If you have a high income would a tripling of the current property tax cause you to not buy the house you can afford? If the property tax is increased but income tax in lower you can work harder to earn the money to pay the property tax, thus creating more net wealth in the economy. Higher taxes on labour just discourage work so less wealth is created.

 

[T McGibney]

It shouldn't be discouraged. There's nothing wrong with wealth retention, but it should be taxed so that wealth isn't concentrated in one group. Taxing labour heavily and not taxing wealth at all makes for a more unequal society with less equality of opportunity.
If you have a high income would a tripling of the current property tax cause you to not buy the house you can afford? If the property tax is increased but income tax in lower you can work harder to earn the money to pay the property tax, thus creating more net wealth in the economy. Higher taxes on labour just discourage work so less wealth is created.

Sorry, I genuinely don't see the logic in having this as an objective?

It can just as easily be argued that taxation of wealth just ends up with the government mis-spending more money than it otherwise would, and serves merely to destroy wealth. And if I work harder to pay a higher property tax that is wasted by the government, how have I created more net wealth?

Of course the more wealth we destroy, the more equal a society we have. But it'll be a very miserable society.

 

[Baby boomer]

......
€600m only sounds like a lot of money. If that is all we are going to raise from it, then scrap it and raise that with higher Income Tax.

Better still, scrap it and cut spending by €600 million. A mere 1% of government spending. Unless of course, we're sure there's no inefficiencies and waste left that couldn't be eliminated with a bit of effort and resolve.

 

[Purple]

Sorry, I genuinely don't see the logic in having this as an objective?

Okay.

It can just as easily be argued that taxation of wealth just ends up with the government mis-spending more money than it otherwise would, and serves merely to destroy wealth.

No it can't. That's complete nonsense.

And if I work harder to pay a higher property tax that is wasted by the government, how have I created more net wealth?

Wealth is created through the trading of manufactured good and services. Inflating the value of assets through speculation isn't real wealth creation. Taxation is wealth redistribution. It never creates wealth.

Of course the more wealth we destroy, the more equal a society we have. But it'll be a very miserable society.

Taxation doesn't destroy wealth. That's complete nonsense too.

 

[The Horseman]

Taxing the creation of wealth i.e. work, is more of a discouragement than taxing wealth retention.

You need to create wealth before you can tax it. Working creates wealth and people work to create wealth as a result of working. If you tax wealth you remove the incentive to create wealth in the first instance. You refer to wealth increasing and they don't create any economic activity, they do or at least they did in the first instance to create this wealth.

If people have property, pensions these as a result of working in the first instance. If you remove the incentive to "enjoy the fruits of your labour" you remove the desire to create wealth and with it the very nature of investment needed for economic activity and by extension to create work.

For example why do you think pension companies invest pension funds in company shares? if pension funds did not invest in company shares where would these company's source funds for expansion?

 

[T McGibney]

Okay.

No it can't. That's complete nonsense.

Wealth is created through the trading of manufactured good and services. Inflating the value of assets through speculation isn't real wealth creation. Taxation is wealth redistribution. It never creates wealth.

Taxation doesn't destroy wealth. That's complete nonsense too.

"That's complete nonsense.... That's complete nonsense too"
Looks like I hit a nerve. But we'll battle on.

"Wealth is created through the trading of manufactured good and services"
No, that's income. Income can also be created through non-trading activities such as rents, investment etc.

Wealth is essentially accumulated income that isn't diminished or spent in the meantime on taxation, living costs and discretionary (leisure) costs.

"Taxation doesn't destroy wealth."
If taxation is levied on wealth, it axiomatically diminishes that wealth. And if it's successively diminished without being replenished, of course it will be eventually destroyed.

Even if you quibble or disagree with this truism, it's a bit much to dismiss it out of hand as "complete nonsense" except perhaps as an attempt to divert from my earlier question?

 

[Purple]

You need to create wealth before you can tax it. Working creates wealth and people work to create wealth as a result of working. If you tax wealth you remove the incentive to create wealth in the first instance.

Yes, taxing wealth creation reduces the incentive to create it in the first place. I agree. Those taxes are called income taxes.
Taxing wealth retention also reduces the incentive to create wealth if they are very high.
Currently we don't tax wealth retention at all but we tax wealth creation at a marginal rate of over 50%.

There's a balance to be struck and we aren't striking it.

 

[Purple]

"Wealth is created through the trading of manufactured good and services"
No, that's income. Income can also be created through non-trading activities such as rents, investment etc.

Income can be created through non trading activities but wealth can't. Wealth can be transferred through non trading activities and make an individual richer but that isn't wealth creation.

Wealth is essentially accumulated income that isn't diminished or spent in the meantime on taxation, living costs and discretionary (leisure) costs.

That's wealth transfer, not wealth creation.

"Taxation doesn't destroy wealth."
If taxation is levied on wealth, it axiomatically diminishes that wealth.

No, it transfers the wealth, it doesn't destroy it.

And if it's successively diminished without being replenished, of course it will be eventually destroyed.

If you have 10 bicycles and I take one then you have 9 bicycles and I have 1 bicycle but there's still 10 bicycles.
You can invest in a company making bicycles and you can trade bicycles and accumulate more bicycles that way but the only person actually creating bicycles is the person making them.
You are confusing wealth transfer and asset price inflation with wealth creation.

Even if you quibble or disagree with this truism, it's a bit much to dismiss it out of hand as "complete nonsense" except perhaps as an attempt to divert from my earlier question?

What earlier question.

 

[T McGibney]

Income can be created through non trading activities but wealth can't. Wealth can be transferred through non trading activities and make an individual richer but that isn't wealth creation.

That's wealth transfer, not wealth creation.

No, it transfers the wealth, it doesn't destroy it.

If you have 10 bicycles and I take one then you have 9 bicycles and I have 1 bicycle but there's still 10 bicycles.
You can invest in a company making bicycles and you can trade bicycles and accumulate more bicycles that way but the only person actually creating bicycles is the person making them.

We're talking about creating wealth, not creating bicycles. If I'm currently keeping sheep on the best site in the world for creating bicycles, and if a bicycle manufacturer can make more, better and more profitable bicycles there than anywhere else and thus pays me a correspondingly enhanced rent or purchase price for the site, of course I have created wealth for both myself and the manufacturer by agreeing to the deal.

What earlier question.

If I work harder to pay a higher property tax that is wasted by the government, how have I created more net wealth?

 

[Purple]

We're talking about creating wealth, not creating bicycles. If I'm currently keeping sheep on the best site in the world for creating bicycles, and if a bicycle manufacturer can make more, better and more profitable bicycles there than anywhere else and thus pays me a correspondingly enhanced rent or purchase price for the site, of course I have created wealth for both myself and the manufacturer by agreeing to the deal.

No, the bicycle manufacturer would be creating the wealth. You're be getting some of that wealth up front by agreeing to the deal. You'd be like the government but they'd be getting a cut in taxes after the wealth was created.

If I work harder to pay a higher property tax that is wasted by the government, how have I created more net wealth?

Because you don't retain all of the wealth you create. Some of it goes in taxes, some in retained by your employer. That's assuming that you are not part of the rentier economy. If you are then you don't create any wealth at all.

 

[T McGibney]

No, the bicycle manufacturer would be creating the wealth. You're be getting some of that wealth up front by agreeing to the deal. You'd be like the government but they'd be getting a cut in taxes after the wealth was created.

But if I facilitate the manufacturer to create more wealth than they would otherwise have been capable to achieve without my facilitation, hasn't my facilitation de facto created a portion of that wealth, which I can enjoy in the form of enhanced rents or sale proceeds?

Because you don't retain all of the wealth you create. Some of it goes in taxes, some in retained by your employer. That's assuming that you are not part of the rentier economy. If you are then you don't create any wealth at all.

A man spends a day digging a hole and then refilling it. He bills the government €200 for his day's work. He's €200 wealthier, the fruits of his traded labour. The government levies a tax on someone else to finance the payment of the €200. That second person is now €200 poorer. No wealth is created by the trade.

 

[Purple]

But if I facilitate the manufacturer to create more wealth than they would otherwise have been capable to achieve without my facilitation, hasn't my facilitation de facto created a portion of that wealth, which I can enjoy in the form of enhanced rents or sale proceeds?

No. As best you are facilitating the creation of wealth by other people. The State also does that through taxation when they fund the building of the road to the new bicycle factory. In fact they are doing much more to facilitate the wealth creation than you are.

A man spends a day digging a hole and then refilling it. He bills the government €200 for his day's work. He's €200 wealthier, the fruits of his traded labour. The government levies a tax on someone else to finance the payment of the €200. That second person is now €200 poorer. No wealth is created by the trade.

Ture. I didn't say that all labour or all manufacture and trade of goods and services create wealth. I said that only manufacture and trade of goods and services creates wealth.

 

[T McGibney]

No. As best you are facilitating the creation of wealth by other people. The State also does that through taxation when they fund the building of the road to the new bicycle factory. In fact they are doing much more to facilitate the wealth creation than you are.

No, the building of a road that facilitates future wealth creation clearly creates wealth, as measured by the enhanced open market value of the newly-accessible property after the road is built. Ditto a rezoning decision to the same effect.

Ture. I didn't say that all labour or all manufacture and trade of goods and services create wealth. I said that only manufacture and trade of goods and services creates wealth.

You may have meant that, but you said, without qualification...

Wealth is created through the trading of manufactured good and services.

Note how I chose to have you clarify that rather than dismiss it out of hand as "complete nonsense".

 

[The Horseman]

Yes, taxing wealth creation reduces the incentive to create it in the first place. I agree. Those taxes are called income taxes.
Taxing wealth retention also reduces the incentive to create wealth if they are very high.
Currently we don't tax wealth retention at all but we tax wealth creation at a marginal rate of over 50%.

There's a balance to be struck and we aren't striking it.

Lets look at this further so.

Why accumulate wealth if you are going to be taxed on it? Spend what you earn and don't invest for the future (either via a pension or any other investment). So something happens that you can't earn an income and you have no resources to fall back on. What happens then?

You reach retirement and rely on the state pension only as you decided it was not worth accumulating wealth because of the tax imposed on it. Who finances your state pension? we have a ticking pensions time bomb and it keeps getting kicked down the road. Currently state pensions are paid for from current tax income.

So you impose a higher wealth tax and people can't pay out of their income (assume they are retired and their only income is the state pension but their house is worth 400k for arguments sake). They say I can't afford the tax so let it come out of my estate when I die (like the property tax). Then again lets assume that the person needs to go into a nursing home under the fair deal scheme.

The fair deal scheme takes its share of the estate when the person passes away.

Lets look at the financial collapse and the individuals who invested in bank shares as their pensions and the value of their shares were wiped out. So in your scenario these people who tried to look after their future rather than relying on the state to do so may end up with a large tax bill from their estate potentially leaving little or nothing to family despite creating wealth by sacrificing some lifestyle choices.

How exactly is that fair?

 

[Purple]

No, the building of a road that facilitates future wealth creation clearly creates wealth, as measured by the enhanced open market value of the newly-accessible property after the road is built. Ditto a rezoning decision to the same effect.

No, it creates an environment in which wealth can be created. It facilitates the creation of wealth but it doesn't create it.

You may have meant that, but you said, without qualification...

Yes. Not all bicycles are cycled but all bicycling is done on bicycles.
Not all traded goods and services create wealth but all wealth is created by the trading of goods and services.

Note how I chose to have you clarify that rather than dismiss it out of hand as "complete nonsense".

That's because it's not complete nonsense, it's the truth.

 

[Purple]

Lets look at this further so.

Why accumulate wealth if you are going to be taxed on it? Spend what you earn and don't invest for the future (either via a pension or any other investment). So something happens that you can't earn an income and you have no resources to fall back on. What happens then?

You reach retirement and rely on the state pension only as you decided it was not worth accumulating wealth because of the tax imposed on it. Who finances your state pension? we have a ticking pensions time bomb and it keeps getting kicked down the road. Currently state pensions are paid for from current tax income.

So you impose a higher wealth tax and people can't pay out of their income (assume they are retired and their only income is the state pension but their house is worth 400k for arguments sake). They say I can't afford the tax so let it come out of my estate when I die (like the property tax). Then again lets assume that the person needs to go into a nursing home under the fair deal scheme.

The fair deal scheme takes its share of the estate when the person passes away.

Lets look at the financial collapse and the individuals who invested in bank shares as their pensions and the value of their shares were wiped out. So in your scenario these people who tried to look after their future rather than relying on the state to do so may end up with a large tax bill from their estate potentially leaving little or nothing to family despite creating wealth by sacrificing some lifestyle choices.

How exactly is that fair?

Do you think a 0.5% or 1% tax on retained wealth is a bigger disincentive to wealth creation than a 50% tax on the wealth creation itself?
There's a balance to be struck but suggesting that people won't accumulate wealth because there's a small tax on it doesn't make sense.
We already have a wealth tax. It's called property tax. I don't see any evidence that people aren't buying houses because of that property tax. Do you think people will stop buying houses if property tax was doubled or tripled?