undefined

[-]

YC is always talking about how important SF is (due to hand waiving reasons like "innovation environment," I would find it highly ironic if a wealth tax was all it took to get top YC people to abandon the state.

by kadabra93 hours ago|

[-]

Everyone loves deciding what their "fair share" of other people's net worth (not even income!) is.

Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.

It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.

by bhouston3 hours ago|

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

[-]

Your statement is ignoring the systematic growing inequality in the US between the ultra wealthy and everyone else. And the use of those funds to influence politics (because of Citizens United, etc) to create polices that benefit themselves - it is for the ultra wealthy a virtuous circle:

This is not a normal state of affairs.

by kadabra93 hours ago|

[-]

This tax would do effectively nothing to address growing inequality between billionaires and everyone else.

by mjamesaustin2 hours ago|

[-]

I see, so you're suggesting 5% is not enough? I'm listening...

by kadabra91 hours ago|

[-]

You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year. It is and always will be a government spending issue, the government can’t help itself but to just steal more from the taxpayers to support their bloat.

by shimman54 minutes ago|

[-]

I do agree it is a spending issue, for far too long corporate welfare has flourished in America. None of these rich people would exist with out the federal teat they suckle from, truly pathetic. Remove their bloat, take their money, and fund programs that will enable REAL economic value like medicare for all, universal childcare, free school lunches, public jobs programs, and universal education.

by kadabra926 minutes ago|

[-]

And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land in 8 months after the government runs out of money and we’ve already stolen all the billionaires assets?

Should we move on to anyone with a net worth over $1M and start stealing their assets too?

by zozbot2342 hours ago|

[-]

A wealth tax is a great idea if your goal is to make everyone a whole lot poorer especially in the longer term, and not very much otherwise. It's pretty much saying that you want pure populist envy to be the priority, over and to the detriment of long-term prosperity.

by RobotToaster2 hours ago|

[-]

Has anyone checked the Epstein files for his name?

by learingsci3 hours ago|

[-]

A wealth tax is not an obviously great idea. It’s worth having a better public debate on that topic.

by bhouston2 hours ago|

[-]

I bet Garry Tan will find that going after him for the wealth tax won’t poll well so he will find a different angle. Thus it won’t be a debate about a wealth tax, it will just be the standard make your opponent look bad in order to unseat him.

For example: https://nypost.com/2026/02/01/us-news/stunning-number-of-cal...

[-]

Ok, so what is the problem here? Why can't Gary Tan engage in standard political activity like anybody else? This is his fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.

by bhouston2 hours ago|

[-]

The issue is unlimited spending. Rich people can tilt the political system to benefit themselves by their ability to spend unlimited and then push for things that enrich themselves like lower taxes that doesn’t benefit society at large.

The biggest example of this in the US is the health system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes than other countries. There is a huge and growing gap in the us between ultra wealthy and the rest of the population and it is a virtuous circle for the ultra wealthy with their ability to spend unlimited in politics.

by amarcheschi2 hours ago|

[-]

The more money you have, the more means you have to engage in political activity not like anybody else but with a weight which far exceeds one

[-]

So what? The constitution guarantees you equal rights under the law and an equal vote in each election. It does not guarantee you equal political influence. Same as you have the right to freedom of speech and of the press, but you are not guaranteed an audience.

by amarcheschi2 hours ago|

[-]

So some people might feel slightly annoyed by this.

I don't know if you don't find this absurd, but a bunch of pedophile protecting people have shaped the actual presidency and are continuing to do so. Feeling slightly annoyed is the least offensive way I could put it

by terminalshort1 hours ago|

[-]

And you have every right to express that annoyance without fear of prosecution. I find the Epstein affair to be very underwhelming. Running a prostitution ring is criminal, and rich men (or poor men) fucking a 17 year old (or 18 year old) prostitute is gross, but not particularly surprising, and isn't even pedophilia. If Epstein had been in Nevada and not the US Virgin Islands and his youngest girls were a year older, it wouldn't even be illegal.

by amarcheschi1 hours ago|

[-]

The files I'm referring to aren't talking about 17yo people, and you know this very well

Edit and I'm not referring to prostitution, you know this as well

by toraway2 hours ago|

[-]

Who's stopping him? Are we all required to be cheering him on for it too?

[-]

No one is stopping him, but they would be if the people in this comment section had their way. You are absolutely not required to cheer him on, and in fact you have the right to oppose him. But that isn't happening here. Nobody in these comments is exercising their first amendment rights to argue against any of his political opinions. They are using their first amendment rights to argue that the government should use its monopoly to restrict Gary Tan's right to make his argument at all.

by toraway2 hours ago|

[-]

I am not seeing that anywhere from the OP in the chain of comments you replied to.

by sa-code2 hours ago|

[-]

I’ve heard about a borrowing tax as an alternative, because that’s when paper money becomes spending money

I would love to see that discussed

[-]

I want to do some improvements on my house. So I take out a home equity loan. Oops! Actually since my house is worth $500K more than when I bought it, now I have to pay $100K to the government since the gain is now realized by using the asset as collateral!

by pbreit2 hours ago|

[-]

The only reasonable argument I can think of is that the fantastic wealth accumulated at the top was substantially driven by the $37 trillion of debt the USA finds itself in. And it needs to be clawed back somehow.

[-]

It's actually much simpler than that. We need to pay down the debt, and because the rich have most of the money they are going to need to do most of the paying down whether or not they directly are responsible for it or benefited from it. It's simple math. But what does this have to do with a wealth tax? The entire concept is stupid. Income an capital gains rates can be increased.

by asveikau2 hours ago|

[-]

I feel like public discussion of this has been outgoing since around 12 years ago when Thomas Piketty's book came out.

by mattmanser2 hours ago|

[-]

I don't really see any other solution, can you explain it?

The ultra-rich are taking too great a share of every nations wealth. And they keep taking more.

Taxes are the only option to redistribute wealth.

Or are you talking about enabling strong unions and anti-monopoly laws with teeth to reverse the growth?

As I doubt Garry's in favour of that either.

[-]

Taking? From who? They got this money by appropriation and not by mutually agreed upon transactions?

by 8note3 hours ago|

[-]

[flagged]

by 3 hours ago|