Comments by "Zach B" (@zachb1706) on "Tax The Rich?" video.

  1. 1. A global wealth tax is completely infeasible. 2. Some taxes have larger drawbacks than others. A wealth tax in the long run hurts economic growth. Using it to cut income taxes would help workers in the short term, but in the long term they'd end up making less money 3. Every country who has tried a wealth tax has started to move away from it, because it's just a garbage tax. It brings in such a tiny amount of revenue, causes capital flight, and directly draws money away from productive sectors. 4. What? 5. Short term happiness shouldn't be the goal of economic policy. Future economic prosperity should. 6. The thing is rich people will buy a yacht regardless. High taxes just mean they will buy it from somewhere else.
    2
  2. In the US taxes for most people are below 25%. European countries tax their citizens to shit
    2
  3. The marginal benefit is nil? The consumer will be the judge of that
    1
  4.  @Rory20uk  that's a false dilemma. No one is choosing between living in a house or buying a new album. And you may go "well we could tax that money instead and use it for public housing", but when someone buys that song where does the money go to? The musician, who will use it to provide their basic needs. The money isn't lost.
    1
  5. Well that's how it works in the US, but the reasons are... Dividends: - Dividends are double taxed (taxed at the corporate level and then the personal level), so get a favourable tax rate to offset that Stocks: - Stocks held more than 1 year get a favourable tax rate to encourage long term investing (less volatility, more stability) - It encourages more investment which is beneficial in the long run - It accounts for long term inflation
    1
  6. In other countries it works differently. In Australia you get "Franking Credits" which offsets the taxes you pay on dividends by the amount the company pays, which is more complicated but also more fair
    1
  7. You just look at the money they have, you don't see the benefits they've provided. Jeff Bezos is insanely rich but the world would be considerably worse off without him. And most of their money is in an asset, it's already being put to use. Even if they liquidated their portfolio and put in a bank, the bank would use their money to hand out loans to people and businesses.
    1
  8. You can just spend less...
    1
  9. If everyone got more money, prices of everything would just go up to meet it. Getting more money doesn't make houses more affordable, more houses makes houses more affordable!
    1
  10. "Trickle-down economics" is used by people who don't support those policies, so of course he won't use that name. The real name is supply-side economics
    1
  11. Yes he did. And he was a massive part in building them up
    1
  12. He said Bezos was.
    1
  13. Is that bad? Does it hurt anyone when Jeff Bezos has $200b? No, actually the business he built has considerably improved the world. You don't want to live in 1950s America
    1
  14. Better transport is really not that expensive. Most government money actually goes to funding welfare programs which is a drag on the economy.
    1