Give 2.5% of their wealth, each year, not just give 2.5% of their income. There’s a huge difference.
Wealth gets taxed every year, unlike income which gets taxed only once. So in 20 years, the wealth tax is roughly 20*2.5% which is 50%. And in 30 years it’s closer to 75%.
2.5% of his wealth is nothing, he quite easily gains or loses ten times that in a year
Set a maximum amount of wealth per person each year. Anything you earn over that automatically goes into a 100% bracket.
There literally is no reason why one person should be allowed to have a billion dollars in wealth, whilst another person is homeless and needs to waddle into crime to be able to feed themselves
10 million total wealth. That sounds like a reasonably sane maximum anyone should ever have the power over. Anything above that, taxes.
You seem to be misreading.
Give 2.5% of their wealth, each year, not just give 2.5% of their income. There’s a huge difference.
Wealth gets taxed every year, unlike income which gets taxed only once. So in 20 years, the wealth tax is roughly 20*2.5% which is 50%. And in 30 years it’s closer to 75%.
That is exactly what I’m saying.
2.5% of his wealth is nothing, he quite easily gains or loses ten times that in a year
Set a maximum amount of wealth per person each year. Anything you earn over that automatically goes into a 100% bracket.
There literally is no reason why one person should be allowed to have a billion dollars in wealth, whilst another person is homeless and needs to waddle into crime to be able to feed themselves
10 million total wealth. That sounds like a reasonably sane maximum anyone should ever have the power over. Anything above that, taxes.
sounds reasonable IMO
But it is not 0.025*50. It is 0.975^20.
is roughly the same
the first results in 0.5, the second one in ~0.6.
but you’re right, from an analysis point of view.