Anyway, talk of UBI in the US is pretty silly when you look at how many people would rather not have the government do things like help people access health care.
Trust capitalism, but not capitalists.
They've been repealed in countries like Sweden and Austria, not because they were disasters, but because exceedingly wealthy people have a lot of influence. That's the only story.
As such your claim that no such taxes exist is wrong; and your claim that they've been a disaster is also fallacious.
p.s. your "ready for downvotes" nonsense is such immature nonsense. You said an untrue thing that HN audiences wish were true, and then pretended you're being brave. You're a joke.
Near as I can tell Europe has lagged way behind the U.S. in economic growth since the 1980s. I remember back in the 90s when catching up to the U.S. was stated goal of the incipient EU. How did that go? How does that relate to overall tax rates, public spending as a proportion of GDP? Are fertility rates artificially lowered by a high tax burden? Are they improved by the welfare state? Or is something else the matter with Europe?
I think "disaster" is an appropriate adjective for wealth taxes.
Two hours before saying that, you said:
> ...every time it's been tried anywhere it's been a disaster for the overall economy: capital (and wealthy people) flees.
And whence the money for the share? Taxes. So this is just a UBI.
This, like all UBI proposals, seems like a way to dress up a massive tax hike: "but you'll be getting your share of GDP!". The only way to get me to like a UBI is to have UBI replace absolutely all (and I do mean all) welfare programs so that we can just haggle at every election over one headline UBI number + necessary taxes. And the initial UBI and tax rates would have to be no more burdensome than the current total of welfare it would replace, and preferably significantly less burdensome than that. Many UBI proponents, of course, would not mind this because they'll aim to ratchet up the UBI and taxes for it in a way that becomes culturally irreversible -- and that's a reason to be against UBI.
And incidentally, all instances of "soak the rich" in American history have actually been "soak those who aren't rich but have high incomes". The truly wealthy have no income as such -- instead they have capital. And why don't we just tax capital? Well, because every time it's been tried anywhere it's been a disaster for the overall economy: capital (and wealthy people) flees.
I'm ready for the downvotes, by the way.