[Double_Cast]

One benefit of markets is price-discovery. But if you're not participating in a market, determining price is akin to shaking a magic 8 ball. It assumes a Just Price, which is a heuristic and a fiction.

Also, quality of living is determined by income, not wealth. Fresh retirees are generally wealthier than other age-groups because they've saved for retirement. But that doesn't mean they consume more. Also, consider the citizens of the Netherlands. They enjoy a comfortable existence while servicing an enormous amount of debt. If wealth were the primary determinant of quality of life, you'd think the Netherlands were as as destitute as Somalia.

[ajmadesc]

Wealth tax has nothing to do with markets and Nobody whants to tax the level of wealth for an ordinary retire silly. That's a straw man.

The American capital, legal, and tax structure collude to reduce wages, whereas the Dutch system incentivises responsible 'market based solutions'

The only people who want to live with a somali gov are gop

[Double_Cast]

The retiree example is intended to demonstrate that a wealth tax is inherently perverse, regardless of who is targeted. Savings are just deferred expenditure and debt is just expedited expenditure. When you tax wealth, you expedite consumption.

Another way of thinking about this: A wealth tax is like inflation, except assets are also devalued alongside your savings. Which means the wisest strategy is to consume now, save nothing, invest nothing.

[tim333]

The market bit comes in when you have stuff like artworks. You have a canvas with splodges on. Is that worth $0 or $1m? Who knows till you sell it?

Or startups - is your loss making one a 0 or a $1bn? You could have work arounds for tax but it complicates things.

[logifail]

> Wealth tax has nothing to do with markets [..]

(Genuine question) how would one determine the value of something for taxation purposes if there's no market involved?