Based on what metrics?

>If every American had healthcare and access to quality education, housing, and food, it would not matter to me how wealthy Jeff Bezos gets

These aren't mutually exclusive though...

>Snore. If you really want to reduce things to personal jabs, that's cool I guess. I was using myself as a stand-in for an average person - feel free to substitute any name that makes your heart warm.

If you're arguing on HN you're most likely not the average person. Even then, how would you quantify how much political "power" someone should/could have?

>Sever the links between money and political power. Limit private ownership of news organizations. Take away the tools that are being abused.

Sure. You're just going to run into problems trying to define "tools" and "being abused". And I'm saying that as someone that agrees there are problems with abuse of power.

>otherwise I would have linked more specifically

Yes, cause otherwise you'll link to something and when I do "ctrl+F taxes" it wouldn't lead me to something that argues against your point ;)

It doesn't say there how much revenue it generated. Do you have something you trust showing numbers for the revenue targets and how much it made? I find conflicting information.

>Slavery was propagated by the concentrated wealth of the southern aristocracy. They rebelled when they felt that their wealth was threatened. Similarly, in Europe, World War 1 was a war of prestige and conquest fought between a bunch of wealthy (largely related) families who had built huge empires.

You can have both slavery and wars without a "concentration of capital" as the driving factor. I'll say sure, its a factor. So is the "ability to own land" and half a million other things.

>You mocked me a bit and told me I should have the answers, but I didn't see any clear examples.

I linked to the wiki page detailing how a FTT pretty much destroyed swedish financial markets and did the opposite of what it intended to do.

>Talking about a Swedish wealth tax from 1990 is a joke.

...? Literally everything you have mentioned is several times older than something from 1990. Also... it was introduced in 1984, 1990 is when they reversed it because it was so bad.

Yep, I underestimated your unmitigated pendantry. I suppose shouldn't have assumed that you would know that the New Deal involved raising revenue. Concise data from the 1930s isn't super easy to come by, you are going to have to look at broader economic trends and make your own conclusions.

> Literally everything you have mentioned is several times older than something from 1990. Also... it was introduced in 1984, 1990 is when they reversed it because it was so bad.

* Sweden GDP, 1984 (2020 dollars): $108,000,000

* US GDP, 1984 (2020 dollars): $4,000,000,000,000

The U.S. also has much greater reach into the financial markets since we control a lot of them. Older is better - more time to see the long-tail effects of policy.

Regardless of whether FTT would work or not, it's a single tactic (small picture), when we already successfully tax wealth in various ways (estate, property taxes). The big picture is breaking the power of concentrated financial power, and taxation is an obvious method. Nit picking specific policies seems to be a favorite bad-faith tactic to avoid acknowledging that the issue is an issue, which would then require the nitpickers to suggest ideas themselves, instead of just criticizing.

I don't really need concise data, just some rough numbers. How much did they project the revenue act would raise, how much did it actually raise. How much did it impact investments, spending, choices etc.

Without so much as numbers its really hard to argue its impact. You could say going off the gold standard was much more impactful.

>Regardless of whether FTT would work or not, it's a single tactic (small picture), when we already successfully tax wealth in various ways (estate, property taxes).

Man... it isn't regardless. If an FTT doesn't work we're taking one step forward and several steps back.

>The big picture is breaking the power of concentrated financial power, and taxation is an obvious method.

Yea... and sometimes obvious things are not the best things.

>Nit picking specific policies seems to be a favorite bad-faith tactic to avoid acknowledging that the issue is an issue, which would then require the nitpickers to suggest ideas themselves, instead of just criticizing.

Then why would you bring up the Revenue Act? That is literally a "specific policy". Do you want me to show dozens of examples of FTTs failing? Do you simply need more?

I'm "nit picking" this because 1) I have knowledge on it as I've researched it. 2) It would personally impact me. 3) It is a ridiculous policy because it has been tried so many times and never in its history has it raised as much money as it has projected to raise. They are constantly repealed shortly after they are enacted because people realized they messed up.

Its hardly nit picking when its pretty much one of the major policies of politicians wanting to "redistribute wealth" or "fix inequality" - Bernie Sanders has talked about it at great length. Andrew Yang proposed it as one of his policies. There's nothing to nit pick. Every single time it has been tried it has been repealed after terrible results.

I'm saying I see a very high chance of the wealth tax doing the same exact thing.

You were being pedantic about how the New Deal raised revenue. Literally the only reason I linked it.

> Do you want me to show dozens of examples of FTTs failing? Do you simply need more?

If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years. Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one.

We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic. It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes.

How is it pedantic. It's completely relevant. I want to know if it was successful, where the money came from and how it got there...

Much in the same way people preach a wealth tax would bring in "billions" without realizing that probably wouldn't put a dent in anything considering the overall budget.

>If you have examples in the United States or the United Kingdom, sure I'll take a look at them. Otherwise, I don't really see the point, when no other country has had global financial controls comparable to the US/UK in the last 100 years.

ahaha man, isn't that kinda ironic though? Maybe because the US/UK has seen the consequences of an FTT and realized that maybe its not a good idea. This is like saying "I don't want to see anything unless its from the last 50 years, since so much has changed since then"

>Further, I've already said that FTT is only one approach, and not one which I have specifically advocated for at any point in this thread. You are arguing against yourself on that one.

Where did I ever say you were? I'm using FTT as an example of an "effort to tax the rich" that completely backfired because the people behind it assumed they were dealing with a vacuum.

>We already tax wealth, so it's not clear at all why you think it's so catastrophic.

Because it is a waste of energy at best and something that could have catastrophic consequences at worst.

>It sure doesn't seem like you've done real research if you haven't been able to come around on the existence (and non-apocalyptic nature of) property and estate taxes.

I'm not a fan of those either for the most part. However, there's a big difference between property tax and trying to tax something worth $50b one day and then $100b a half a year later.