> If you're holding stocks that never increase in value, I don't think this is a credible assumption.
Then you are not making any income. You have a locked investment that is not performing. So why should you be taxed for that? If anything, you are losing by keeping the investment locked. Even opening a fixed-deposit in the bank will get you from 2% to 15% depending on your location. Money not growing or in circulation is dead money.
By the way, that investment was only possible if it had already been taxed in the first place. You don't get a million dollars to invest in some stocks without it being income that was already taxed. No one is giving free money here.
> No, I'm indicating that the avoidance of an income is specifically to avoid tax, not because of an inability to produce an income.
Can you explain with a concrete example? What you are saying here is not making any sense to me.
> Both Norway and Switzerland has a wealth tax still. The only reason other countries rolled it back was just a bidding war for perceived investments, in other words tragedy of the commons.
Both have really tiny % (0.65% to 0.75% in Norway and 0.1% to 1% in Switzerland) which is what I explained here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50275757
If you are charging that low wealth tax might as well just increase corporate tax as you will get much more revenue that way.
In fact, the revenue generated by wealth tax was so less that Switzerland tried to introduce a really draconian wealth tax that was rejected by the voters just last year: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-rejects-50pc-weal...
Then you are not making any income. You have a locked investment that is not performing. So why should you be taxed for that? If anything, you are losing by keeping the investment locked. Even opening a fixed-deposit in the bank will get you from 2% to 15% depending on your location. Money not growing or in circulation is dead money.
By the way, that investment was only possible if it had already been taxed in the first place. You don't get a million dollars to invest in some stocks without it being income that was already taxed. No one is giving free money here.
> No, I'm indicating that the avoidance of an income is specifically to avoid tax, not because of an inability to produce an income.
Can you explain with a concrete example? What you are saying here is not making any sense to me.
> Both Norway and Switzerland has a wealth tax still. The only reason other countries rolled it back was just a bidding war for perceived investments, in other words tragedy of the commons.
Both have really tiny % (0.65% to 0.75% in Norway and 0.1% to 1% in Switzerland) which is what I explained here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50275757
If you are charging that low wealth tax might as well just increase corporate tax as you will get much more revenue that way.
In fact, the revenue generated by wealth tax was so less that Switzerland tried to introduce a really draconian wealth tax that was rejected by the voters just last year: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-rejects-50pc-weal...