There are contracts, and traditions, and traditions that can be viewed as contracts. There are various rents that have no firm basis in “fairness,” often a result of government action or inaction. Is Disney entitled to continued rent from A.A. Milne’s characters like Winnie-the-Pooh? (Remember, Disney never paid the Milne family.)
It is a mistake to think everything in an economy has a clear “fair” price or value. How can a resultant price be “fair” if it derives from an unfair rent?
A rich businessman can attribute some of his wealth to his schooling for which he paid tuition … and some to the highway system for which he paid taxes. If you argue that he shouldn’t need to pay taxes for the roads, do you also argue he needn’t pay for his schooling?
As another example, my understanding is that different water users pay different prices for the same water along the Colorado River. Land is bought and sold on the assumption that water will be available at that traditional price. Now, is to fair to raise the price of Mr. D’s water to make it the same as other users? Or would that be unfair — he bought the land on the assumption of a certain price. The status quo is not always best or fairest, but it is the logical default.
I mention water along the Colorado as just a simple clear example. In fact, traditional rents and benefits are ubiquitous in economies.
TL;DR: You’re correct that either your point or my point is wrong, but you failed to identify the wrong point correctly!
Average lifespan is 85 years (for a wealthy person). National median age is 38. The wealthy who would be subject to this tax own at least 40% of all of America. (all lands, bank accounts, real estate, factories, and so on). So it’s trivial math.
American is worth 120 trillion. 120 * 0.4 * (85-38) = 2.25 trillion in assets collected every year. We owe 20 trilllion + interest, so the National debt could be paid in about 10 years. The rest could go into a sovereign wealth fund to provide for the citizenry of the USA since it is predicted that we’re all going to need it (you know, all of us except trust fund kids) as automation becomes capable of performing all jobs.
Owners of the assets get 10 years to sell, otherwise the government will seize them and sell them for them. Government takes a percentage of the asset, the tax is levied as a percentage, not a sale value. Somehow, Shodan couldn’t seem to follow my showing how to work out the math if someone waits all 10 years before selling. To encourage faster sales, the government’s cut grows with the interest rate on the national debt. The inheritors of the assets have an incentive to sell for the highest price because their portion is propotional to the sale price. Buyer must be a third party with no connection to the owner.
Somehow, I’ve come up with this number of $120T and I’m going to take half of it is not “showing your math”. But Shodan did a good job of detailing the holes in your argument, such as it is, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Shodan’s counter arguments were trivially obvious bullshit that any educated adult could see through, so if you’re not going to put in the mental energy above “this guy agrees with me and this text vaguely looks legit” I’m just going to leave it at that.
It is a good plan. We don’t actually know how much it will raise. Or who it will hurt (that trust for your special needs kids? Sorry, sucker!) Or how to implement it. But working hard to advance your family just isn’t fair. So it is a good plan.
As crazy as it is such a cliff is not crazy to Democrats. They put a cliff just like that in Obamacare Subsidies. For 2018 a Family of 4 making $98,400 gets a $847 per month subsidy, get a $1 raise putting you at $98,401 and your subsidy is $0 . That $1 raise only cost you $10,164 per year. That’s real world Democrat passed into law crazy.
