> Also, governments are finding new and creative ways to put new taxes on already legal money.

Care to cite some? That's just a silly point. There's probably no area of regulatory theory more well travelled than taxation. Imagine a trick and someone has tried it, often thousands of years ago.

And it's even incorrect as a practical matter in the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now, even in the face of decades of deficits. It's literally the policy position of the ruling party!

>And it's even incorrect as a practical matter in the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now

Because government spending increased explosively before those 70 years. First, the government essentially took a loan from future generations through social security and second, there was an enormous war that the government mobilized the economy to fight. You would expect spending to go back down after both of them.

>> Also, governments are finding new and creative ways to put new taxes on already legal money.

In addition to the soft tax of excessive inflation mentioned by the other poster, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-tax-definition-explai...

You can agree with that or not morally, but it is by definition a tax on already legal (and taxed during income) money.

We already have estate and property taxation, though. It's not like wealth taxes don't exist, they're just levied at specific times or on specific kinds of assets.

True. Typically property taxes are to fund things at a local level though, and not sent back to the federal government for massive programs.

My biggest issue with a wealth tax on the super-wealthy is that it would quickly morph into a wealth tax on everyone above lower-middle class.

Old article but the numbers have scaled proportionately...

"If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode." [0]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stoss...

Uh... your point is about a wealth tax but your facts are about income taxation. In fact, there isn't a whole lot of net "income" reported by the very wealthy, because most of what they make is sheltered investments of various forms. Yet , they have a very large chunk of the total assets owned (like 30% of the country is billionaire assets!), completely disproportionate to the fraction they pay in tax.

Addressing that discontinuity is exactly what a wealth tax is about. I'm not completely sold on it myself (they're very hard to administer and a giant moral hazard), but don't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking it's a dumb or discredited idea. There's a real problem, and wealth taxes represent a real, if imperfect, solution.

> the modern USA, where government revenue as a share of GDP has been going steadily downward for like 70 years now

It has?

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1900_2020U...

It's not only that.

It's about building a society that can be based on assumption of honesty and trust rather than surveillance and authoritarianism. At present, our electronic monetary system has morohed into something that resembles George Orwell's 1984.