The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.
The "money" the very wealthy have is not cash sitting in a checking account but usually shares in some corporation. That absolutely has utility if you want to continue having a say in how your company is run. Besides, should the government come around and check for any property that it deems you're not sufficiently utilizing and confiscate it from you? It seems like that policy could be abused.
The government already controls a budget in the trillions of dollars - several orders of magnitude more than any private entity - and so far has not used it to meet basic needs like housing. What is the evidence that giving them additional money will solve the problem? It doesn't cost anything to relax zoning laws and let people build more housing.
> The "money" the very wealthy have is not cash sitting in a checking account but usually shares in some corporation. That absolutely has utility if you want to continue having a say in how your company is run.
So what? That’s the cost of of going public. That the wealthy found a way to abuse it (share classes) means they’ve made the stock market less useful for everyone else.
> Besides, should the government come around and check for any property that it deems you're not sufficiently utilizing and confiscate it from you? It seems like that policy could be abused.
You’re jumping the gun here but…
The government is already involved in property rights. There is no concept of ownership without a government supported legal framework.
A government is expected to be involved with limited resources, and discourage undesirable outcomes while encouraging good ones. My government does this through tax benefits and tax penalties.
I don’t see most people asking for more than this.
> A government is expected to be involved with limited resources, and discourage undesirable outcomes while encouraging good ones. My government does this through tax benefits and tax penalties.
You mean like offering a tax break to incentivize investment in certain areas?
I don't think someone being able to continue owning a portion of a company they created is a undesirable outcome, do you?
The wealthy and the government are generally rather intertwined wouldn't you agree? It's not a matter of budget but of sharing a scarce resource, something the wealthy and powerful, (and so by extension the government) are historically not so inclined to do. Taxation is a means of systematising the sharing of resources.
