> It could certainly be done in a regressive way, but I don't see that as innevitable or any worse than the status quo, since income taxes can be raised just as easily.
I am not (here) worried about it being regressive: I am worried about it being yet another mechanism for the state to take a larger fraction of GDP (about 2½% in 1900; almost 20% at the height of the Second World War; about 17% now, according to Wikipedia).
> Either way - I think we fundamtally agree that there needs to be more tax on the rich, be it investments, wealth tax, inheritance, or that sort of thing.
I certainly don't! I agree that we need a government; I agree that we need taxes to fund the government (I disagree with those who think that we can fund the government on a voluntary basis); I agree that taxes need to be fair in some sense.
I suspect that fairer taxes would be higher for the middle classes, to be honest. Certainly the countries with effective welfare states seem to have more taxes on the middle than the U.S. does.
I am not (here) worried about it being regressive: I am worried about it being yet another mechanism for the state to take a larger fraction of GDP (about 2½% in 1900; almost 20% at the height of the Second World War; about 17% now, according to Wikipedia).
> Either way - I think we fundamtally agree that there needs to be more tax on the rich, be it investments, wealth tax, inheritance, or that sort of thing.
I certainly don't! I agree that we need a government; I agree that we need taxes to fund the government (I disagree with those who think that we can fund the government on a voluntary basis); I agree that taxes need to be fair in some sense.
I suspect that fairer taxes would be higher for the middle classes, to be honest. Certainly the countries with effective welfare states seem to have more taxes on the middle than the U.S. does.