Wealth hoarding matters immensely for things like land, which is why the most common wealth tax is a tax on real estate holdings.
It can also matter for other resources which are finite, but land is one of the most crucial one in our current times, and why we are seeing such ridiculously large gains in housing costs in the past few decades after a century of housing costs remaining fairly constant.
I'm also fully in favor of wealth taxes, especially since the US has weakened estate taxes and other checks that would help mitigate increasing inequality.
I started mentioning land, as it's the most clear problem of idle wealth. But hugely unequal distribution of wealth also results in slower economic growth and overall less economic activity than if there is more equal access to capital and resources. Capital strikes can be just as effective as labor strikes, and though they don't get much attention they can cause great harm.
> But hugely unequal distribution of wealth also results in slower economic growth and overall less economic activity than if there is more equal access to capital and resources
But wealth != capital. Wealth only becomes capital when it is realized/liquidated, at which point it is taxed. Before that happens, one person's wealth doesn't preclude someone else from investing or being productive because unlike land, wealth is not zero-sum.
And because that liquidation or transformation is a taxable event, and holding the wealth is not, people are far more likely to hold onto wealth rather than try to transform it.
Totally agreed that wealth is not zero-sum, and I thank you for bringing it up, because zero-sum-thinking is all too common, and the reason for so much misery when it comes to thinking about these things. (But even as a non-zero-sum, availability of capital is highly influenced by the degree of idleness of wealth hoards.)
> And because that liquidation or transformation is a taxable event, and holding the wealth is not, people are far more likely to hold onto wealth rather than try to transform it.
But if wealth is never liquidated, then how is it anything more than just a life high score? It's inconsequential to the outside world.
If it were completely inconsequential to the outside world, then others would not value it, and it wouldn't be considered wealth.
But I do agree that since wealth is not zero sum, it is completely consequential. Where it really matters is when the wealth distribution becomes more unequal, resulting in less ability to initiate new economic ventures. Extreme wealth inequality results in only a very few people controlling the economy, and in those cases wealth hoarding becomes an end in itself to concentrate economic powers away from others, and an end in itself.
> If it were completely inconsequential to the outside world, then others would not value it, and it wouldn't be considered wealth.
That makes no sense. Just because the fair market value of Elon Musk's holdings in SpaceX and Tesla is some collectively decided amount, doesn't mean that Elon Musk actually possesses that money and can do anything meaningful with it.
If he wants to do anything meaningful at all with that theoretical value,
he will have to liquidate some of it and turn it into non-theoretical money, and that is taxed already. If he just lets it wither away, then it's of no use to anyone else.
> Where it really matters is when the wealth distribution becomes more unequal, resulting in less ability to initiate new economic ventures
But this just hasn't been true at all. Just because Bezos is a 100 billionaire on paper, doesn't mean that I will have a harder time raising venture capital for my startup. Wealth isn't zero-sum. And the paper value of one's wealth isn't backed by liquid money, I.e. Bezos's 100+ billion in wealth doesn't actually lock 100 billion dollars in cash from other investments.
If you're making the argument that it's difficult to initiate a new economic venture in the same space as Amazon, that's just because Amazon is a strong company — there is nothing wrong with that.
There's a huge difference between wealth and money; having massive wealth and valuing it in dollars may seem nonsensical, and at some level it is, yet it is the way that everybody operates. The "Fair market value" is not inconsequential even if wealth is not liquid.
Regarding going to a VC to get capital: think about how this process works in one very tiny slice of the economy. You build trust with a small set of people that are the arbiters of capital and who gets the resources to start a new venture. If there was only one VC firm in the valley, it would be disastrous because they would hold all the power. It is only through the agglomeration of many potential sources of capital that really makes the system run well.
In the rest of the economy, there are few VCs, and for a lot of profitable, but smaller businesses, capital is super hard to come by. A person who sees a future in, for example, electrification retrofits of homes and has several good ideas about how to make it cheaper and more economically efficient, is going to have a really hard tome getting going. However, if their own community knew about this person's ability to scale a small business, and knew of the intelligence and grit of a person through their own personal relationship, and if that community had small amounts of capital to throw in to get the newcomer off the ground, overall wealth is increased as the new venture starts serving the needs of people.
But this requires more equal distribution of capital, and to change the arbiters of capital from a few hundred people to everybody.
I don't really hear many people talking about friends, family, and fools rounds these days because the game has changed. However if we had more people that could use their knowledge of the local lay of the land to invest more wisely, we'd have far greater wealth generation.
IMHO, the problem with inequality isn't the person with $100B, the problem is all the talented and skilled people whose ideas go to waste because they can't get the attention of the very few people that have been entrusted with the ability to allocate capital.
The more inequality there is, the closer we get to central planning, and erasure of the talents of so many people.
Haven’te we heard less of friends and family rounds because there has been an exponential increase in seed funds?
People got wealthy invested into funds or started funds and are now committing capital back.
Having a hard time raising money is an issue but that’s because 90% of companies fail. As such that is too risky for a bank to lend into so you need to go to other segments.
> having massive wealth and valuing it in dollars may seem nonsensical, and at some level it is, yet it is the way that everybody operates.
If this was true, then why is nobody talking about imposing a tax on the market capitalization of corporations? Think about how much revenue you can raise by levying a 1% tax on Microsoft's market cap. But this is absurd, because the market cap doesn't represent actual money, it represents the theoretical value on all shares outstanding.
> In the rest of the economy, there are few VCs, and for a lot of profitable, but smaller businesses, capital is super hard to come by.
This is manifestly untrue. In the last 10 years of near-negative interest rates and quantitative easing, capital has been almost too easy to come by. Everyone and their mother is lending money.
> A person who sees a future in, for example, electrification retrofits of homes and has several good ideas about how to make it cheaper and more economically efficient, is going to have a really hard tome getting going.
Not true at all. Most banks and credit unions would extend dirt cheap loans. We are arguably over-leveraged on these kinds of loans.
> I don't really hear many people talking about friends, family, and fools rounds these days because the game has changed. However if we had more people that could use their knowledge of the local lay of the land to invest more wisely, we'd have far greater wealth generation.
The reason for this has everything to do with globalization and 21st century communications technology. It is no longer sufficient to be the best electrician in your neighborhood, you now need to be the best electrician in the country or perhaps even the world, given how easy it is to reach consumers today.
To give you a sense for how the scale of globalization has made it difficult to compete locally, consider how easy it is for a new business to reach every American today. There are 330 million people in America. You just need to provide $3 of value ONE TIME to every American, and you become a billionaire. Likewise, on a global scale, there are 7.8 billion people in the world. If you can get 1% of them to pay you a penny once a year, you're making $780k/year.
"Inequality" is inevitable in this world, but again the wealth isn't zero-sum. We're not remotely close to "central planning", because the wealthiest person on the planet (on paper) only represents ~0.5% of the annual GDP of the US alone. And that's not even an apples-to-apples comparison because the paper wealth is accumulated over years, whereas the GDP occurs every year. The accumulation of Bezos' wealth over the last 20 years is about 0.05% of the accumulated gross-product of the US, alone.
Yes. The point is exactly that globalization has made competing locally hard. That's the accepted fact. Globalization has increased, not decreased (as was the original hypothesis) the distance between the top and the average wealth holders in society.
The coalescing and hoarding of wealth results in the deterioration of the average value of a human life. This is bad for a western liberal society because it demonstrates that the values upon which the society operates do not yield positive outcomes for enough people to be satisfied and hopeful. If capitalism is to remain the dominant economic system, it either has to enslave the masses and oppress them into submission (which they are currently resisting), or it has to work to continually operate in a way such that the perception of wealth is maximally shared.
I agree inequality is inevitable. Everyone has different priorities, abilities, etc. But human rights must be preserved (globally) and access to opportunity and capital, hope, must be universally available. This is the only way to justify the inequality of outcomes.
To tax wealth is really to say that socially we don't want institutions to remain in comfortable positions of perceived power without continually demonstrating utility. You build up a large estate? Great. But you must continually demonstrate its utility by actively working to distribute the wealth, not just generate goods and services. Or, have it done for you.
It doesn't seem to me that it's a problem, per say, that wealth is not tangible. Money isn't really either. Cash is simply a tool that a capitalist society uses to encourage the exchange of goods and across markets where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious how to make an exchange. Having a lot of cash does not make one wealthy, and having wealth does not imply liquidity. At any moment one can become the other or simply evaporate altogether.
It seems that the point is really about how to mitigate the tendency for institutions that have extracted much wealth from society to deploy it in efforts of self preservation. In the current state, you need a revolution to tear down entrenched institutions. In this forum and generally in the valley where we have essentially arbitrary access to capital, we prefer (or have been trained) to be a little bit disruptive all the time rather than massively disruptive a little bit of the time. We've demonstrated that this model works. And fundamental to the model is essentially arbitrary access to capital.
So I guess my question is if as you suggest access to capital is more available than it's ever been, why isn't it being deployed? Perhaps globalization has driven the bastions of wealth to build such high walls that they find themselves among the clouds?
> The coalescing and hoarding of wealth results in the deterioration of the average value of a human life.
This is not true at all. If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the wealth distribution changes dramatically, but the absolute standard of living of the existing people doesn't change at all. In fact, you could even argue that the absolute standard of living increases, since almost nobody is super-wealthy in a vacuum; they enjoy their wealth because they provide value to others via goods & services. That's the whole point behind the argument that "wealth is not zero-sum".
> access to opportunity and capital, hope, must be universally available
Again, it's not clear at all how one's theoretical net worth negatively impacts someone else's access to opportunity / capital. When my rent goes up, it's not because I'm in a bidding war with Jeff Bezos. An MRI doesn't become unaffordable because Jeff Bezos exists.
> Money isn't really either. Cash is simply a tool that a capitalist society uses to encourage the exchange of goods and across markets where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious how to make an exchange.
Money is arguably zero-sum, because there's a finite amount of it. When someone else hoards billions in cash, it means that there is a significant portion of the total money supply that is out of circulation. That's what's bad for society. When wealth turns into money, we already tax it..
> It seems that the point is really about how to mitigate the tendency for institutions that have extracted much wealth from society
Wealth isn't "extracted from society", because it isn't zero-sum. It's not like there's some finite amount of wealth, and the super-rich have taken it from everyone else.
> So I guess my question is if as you suggest access to capital is more available than it's ever been, why isn't it being deployed?
I'm not sure the premise is correct. There is more capital deployed today, per capita, than at any time in human history, even after adjusting for inflation.
Sure, wealth isn't zero-sum, but when it's built on top of people making $7.25 an hour with no benefits (or less than that as a contractor), it may as well be.
And yes, there are other options for solving problems like that beyond just a wealth tax, but maybe a wealth tax is part of the solution.
> but when it's built on top of people making $7.25 an hour with no benefits, it may as well be.
But...it's not? The only person who has concentrated an unimaginable amount of wealth for which this might be true is Jeff Bezos's Amazon, except Amazon workers all earn a $15 minimum wage, 401k matching, and are part of the same group health insurance plan as the engineers and product managers. They happen to enjoy some of the best health insurance available to an entry level job that requires no college education.
Outside of Bezos, the vast majority of the wealthy pay their workers handsomely (Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, Page/Brin/Pichai).
And even if this was somehow a pervasive truth, the solution to that is a basic income, not a wealth tax. A wealth tax wouldn't even come remotely close to funding a basic income. If you were to seize 100% of all wealth of the top Forbes 500, you would get enough money to run the current Federal government for 8 months. Not 8 months per year, 8 months ONE TIME.
Jobs don't just grow out of thin air. That $7.25 job is self-evidently better for the worker than whatever other opportunities they had available, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Taking away that opportunity won't make their life any better, just means they end up on a worse job.
Well when we have lots of labor, and seemingly not enough jobs for people, even when they could be doing productive things that build their own wealth and others' wealth (like building homes), then that $7.25 wage being the "best" option is a failure of the system, because too few people I society have been empowered with the option of starting their own businesses, or having the access to the tools that would let them create wealth. Too much inequality, not enough people with money to spend, and not enough capital movement to allow people to create new jobs.
Capitalism is a fantastic means for directing economic forces as long as everybody has enough capital to do the voting, as it were. If only a few people hold all the capital, then only a few people make decisions and will often engage in capital strikes rather than risk the chance that their position may be threatened.
I agree that people lack opportunities and that's a failure of the system, but I think the problem isn't limited capital. I think the problem is the monopoly on land ownership. If there was land freely available, people would happily use it to generate wages, wealth, etc. Obviously land is a limited resource and we can't always just have more "freely available", but a land value tax could remove the monopoly and create new opportunity for development that's otherwise hindered.
I just read Progress and Poverty by Henry George and he makes this point very clearly. I highly recommend giving this book a read if you haven't yet.
Correct, they grow out of having a middle class with purchasing power, who can buy products and services, thus creating jobs for those who provide those things. But the middle class's effective purchasing has been going down for decades, while the wealth at the top has been increasing. So something needs to be done to balance these flows of capital - the current situation is not sustainable.
I agree that a UBI will probably be needed in the future, and that a wealth tax alone won't fund it - but it could be part of it. The way I see it a wealth tax is more like a 'catch all' tax - it's a fallback in case the other taxes and regulations that should be in place to counter-act income inequality fail. Those rules are much more important, but we might as well have the wealth tax too.
It is a fallacy and ignores the benefit to the economy that having a living wage level of pay for all citizenry vs the artificial corporate welfare support of having government entitlements (food stamps, medicaid, etc) making up the difference so that corporations can pay less. Lassez faire capitalism seems to be a common fallacy promulgated on HN a lot.
In fact, the vast majority of US wealth is tied up in private companies (and, of those, in a few extremely large companies). A wealth tax would not be ruinous for the entities paying it.
> It can also matter for other resources which are finite, but land is one of the most crucial one in our current times, and why we are seeing such ridiculously large gains in housing costs in the past few decades after a century of housing costs remaining fairly constant.
If we were being restricted by land availability, we could fix that easily by putting more housing on the same amount of land. That problem was solved long ago.
> we could fix that easily by putting more housing on the same amount of land
As somebody who has been watching the process for this for years, let me tell you that it is the exact opposite of easy, and nearly impossible.
And it's nearly impossible because current wealth holders are able to stop it from being built. And in most areas where there are housing shortages, locals and local governments consider the current land "built out" meaning that the zoning does not permit more housing or more height than is already built, an the notion of changing these arbitrary restrictions is so inconceivable that it almost never happens.
This is what has really changed over the past yes decades to make housing prices soar: refusal to allow more housing to be built on existing land.
This here is the argument that will make a wealth tax face severe opposition. Most wealth is held not by the 1%, but by the next 19%, living in their nice low-density suburban areas. Today there are proposals for taxing wealth over $50 million, but it’s just a matter of time before someone comes after their homes.
While I don't doubt that this rhetoric may be raised, the 19% are already exposed to much more wealth tax than the 1% because of property tax. However emotions and rhetoric about tax make people easily fooled in the political sphere.
You just suggested that the only way to solve housing shortages is to attack the broader upper middle classes with a wealth tax that will push many more of them out of their homes than are currently pushed out by property tax defaults. Funny for you to word it so passively as “this rhetoric will be raised”.
I don't know how I could have implied anything about pushing people out of their houses with taxes. Could you be more explicit about what I said that led you to this?
Building more housing on sites when they change hands, though normal, unforced moves, when a person retires and moves to a new location, or when a person gets a new job and moves for it will provide ample land to build more housing. As long as people are allowed to.
Property taxes forcing people out of homes is a common scare tactic, but it's simple to provide homestead protections that would prevent any forced moves, and also allow the homeowner to capture the fantastic gains in wealth that accompany any land market where there is a shortage of housing. Property taxes only shift the non-resident real estate investor to make sure that they are providing what people need, rather than using idle wealth to keep people out of an area where lots of people want to live.
The vast majority of low-density housing in the US is owner occupied, and the majority of investor owned properties are already multi-unit dwellings. There is already plenty of incentive for self-interested investors to increase housing supply, the it seems implied that you’re in favour of a policy that changes the tax situation for owner-occupied homes.
Wealth tax doesn’t push people out of assets, it makes assets less valuable because of higher discount rate. Making housing cheaper sounds like a good thing.
It's not a different analysis, it's my core point. Land is valued very differently depending on what it can be used for, and what it is close to, and is completely non-fungible.
Zoning restrictions have been used as a means to massively inflate home values in the US in high demand areas, and that program really came to fruition in the 80s and 90s as areas became "built out" according to allowed zoning. Which then fueled the massive inflation in housing costs.
This restriction on allowed uses has differing effects depending on whether it's applies in small areas or large areas: downzone a single lot or single neighborhood in a city and it may prevent those parcels from becoming too valuable because they have limited use. Downzone an entire city and it causes housing values to soar because it has created a housing shortage.
In the Bay Area we have a massive shortage of land that allows more housing to be built on it, and even land for which we can build offices.
It can also matter for other resources which are finite, but land is one of the most crucial one in our current times, and why we are seeing such ridiculously large gains in housing costs in the past few decades after a century of housing costs remaining fairly constant.