> Putting a very high tax on wealth would have the benefits of a one-time infusion of tax revenues, AND a future disincentive for the ultrawealthy to seek to enrich themselves infinitely using business practices that take money from everyone else.
This point relies on a false premise. The ultra-wealthy aren't taking money from you. They're mostly creating wealth that didn't previously exist.
Yes, most of the wealth of the ultra-wealthy comes from the growth of share prices. But that growth didn't just materialize out of thin air.
It comes from other wealthy people and institutions (primarily the large banks) gambling on how successful the corporations the ultra-wealth own and run are going to be at generating profits.
Profits are the difference in the cost to produce goods and services and the revenues generated in selling them.
The production costs are a combination of the machines necessary to produce them and the labor necessary to run those machines - in a physical factory setting. In a knowledge setting, it is almost entirely the labor of the knowledge workers.
Notice how most of the billionaires come from the knowledge economy?
That wealth is literally generated by wealthy people and institutions judging that the ultra-wealthy will be ultra-successful at squeezing profits out of the people who did the work of creating their companies products by paying them less to create those products than they can generate by selling said products. And by squeezing money out of the rest of us by charging us more to use said products than it cost to create them.
It is literally generated by taking money from everyone else involved. That's what "profit" is and it's profit, or the expectation of future profit, that generates the wealth.
Most of that analysis is correct. Except you made a logical leap at the end from "profit" to "taking money from everyone else". That leap doesn't actually follow, at least, not from the argument that you made.
If I am a shoe maker and I make one shoe per day, and you invent a new process that makes 10 shoes per day, and my customers start buying shoes from you instead of me, have you "taken" my money? What about all the value you've created for your customers? Economists call this factor a 'consumer surplus', and it's much larger than the amount that I have lost, so the net wealth creation in the world is positive when you invent your 10-shoes-per-day process.
>> If I am a shoe maker and I make one shoe per day, and you invent a new process that makes 10 shoes per day, and my customers start buying shoes from you instead of me, have you "taken" my money?
No. But if you are a shoe-maker who employs 10 people to make shoes, and you pay them less than their skills are worth or take money for yourself beyond what is required to run the business, you are taking their money.
If you get a machine to make the shoes and fire the workers, and continue to charge me the same price for the shoes which now cost you less to make, now you are taking my money.
> No. But if you are a shoe-maker who employs 10 people to make shoes, and you pay them less than their skills are worth or take money for yourself beyond what is required to run the business, you are taking their money.
How do we determine what someone's skills are 'worth'? You seem to be espousing something called the Labor Theory of Value. The labor theory of value has a ton of problems, that you can read about here:
Almost no economists believe it in anymore, although it was popular a long time ago. It just isn't consistent with a lot of real world problems.
> If you get a machine to make the shoes and fire the workers, and continue to charge me the same price for the shoes which now cost you less to make, now you are taking my money.
How, exactly? Are you entitled to my shoes at their marginal cost of production? Where in that interaction does the 'taking' happen?
It’s true they may create wealth but that doesn’t necessarily mean it corresponds to the actual share of the money supply they are taking.
For example let’s consider a hypothetical world where I control the food supply due to some artificial monopoly and there is $100 in circulation.
Food is required for everyone to survive so I could more or less charge what I want, up until there is incentive for insurrection.
Now the “value” I provide is really just extortion by using my power to control the food supply rather than purely positively providing “value” in way such as just making the food.
So your false assumption is that everyone is using their power to create value when in reality some people leverage their power to simply get a bigger share of money.
> It’s true they may create wealth but that doesn’t necessarily mean it corresponds to the actual share of the money supply they are taking.
You're right. They only take a small fraction of the wealth that they create.
> For example let’s consider a hypothetical world where I control the food supply due to some artificial monopoly and there is $100 in circulation.
Sure, these are called monopoly profits. This is a well known and well understood problem that mostly doesn't apply to the billionaires of today. The billionaires of today mostly exploit a more subtle thing: network effects and returns to scale.
We are still trying to figure out how exactly to regulate this form of rent extraction, and I don't think we have good answers yet, because traditionally our standard has been "consumer harm", but it's not clear that consumers are being materially harmed in this context.
> So your false assumption is that everyone is using their power to create value when in reality some people leverage their power to simply get a bigger share of money.
I realize that some people get rich via rent extraction, but the people being discussed in this thread are mostly tech billionaires. Those people made their money primarily by creating wealth that didn't previously exist.
This point relies on a false premise. The ultra-wealthy aren't taking money from you. They're mostly creating wealth that didn't previously exist.