A 1.5% annual stock dilution tax on corporations with revenue over $100M would raise over $1.4 trillion a year — enough to send every American about $365 a month, automatically.
Personally, I’d like to abolish the stock market altogether. But this is an attractive, actionable policy
Of course not. It’s the internet. Unless it includes all asset classes and deals with stewardship of imagined entities that own things (corporations, charities, non profits etc), I have doubts. Especially if the ppl most prolific at evading community accountability are not thrown in prison and barred from wielding power.
If your perspective is “Anything less than perfect isn’t even worth considering” then this might not be the community for you. It’s not that I disagree with your underlying sentiment of desiring actual meaningful change, but that’s not what this community is about.
There’s a difference between perfect and effective. Less than perfectly effective is still effective. Less than perfectly effective, when perfect is presently unobtainable, is what this community is about. This is less than perfectly effective.
It’s not perfectly effective. It accomplishes something.
Some of us don’t want to live our lives on standby until the rules of the game change. Sure, we should change them, but that’s a multi-generational task.
When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don’t see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn’t be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn’t relevant.
Of course not. It’s the internet. Unless it includes all asset classes and deals with stewardship of imagined entities that own things (corporations, charities, non profits etc), I have doubts. Especially if the ppl most prolific at evading community accountability are not thrown in prison and barred from wielding power.
If your perspective is “Anything less than perfect isn’t even worth considering” then this might not be the community for you. It’s not that I disagree with your underlying sentiment of desiring actual meaningful change, but that’s not what this community is about.
Anything less than effective isn’t worth doing.
There’s a difference between perfect and effective. Less than perfectly effective is still effective. Less than perfectly effective, when perfect is presently unobtainable, is what this community is about. This is less than perfectly effective.
So long as the players can keep playing, changing the rules of the game isn’t an effective solution.
It’s not perfectly effective. It accomplishes something.
Some of us don’t want to live our lives on standby until the rules of the game change. Sure, we should change them, but that’s a multi-generational task.
It isn’t effective enough to be worth doing. I’m not chasing perfection, as you keep insisting, just recognizing history.
When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don’t see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn’t be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn’t relevant.
When has seizing assets ever been tried? Constantly.