no indication that it’s about what not why to tax.
I explained both.
The article also makes no mention of logarithmic wealth taxation
I said, “we want to tax from the richest people”. That clearly means progressive taxation. In purely utilitarian terms, you want to tax from the richest person until she’s tied with the second richest person, then tax them both equally until they’re tied with the third richest person, etc. But if you tax capital that steeply, you distort incentives. Literally, Buffett and Gates might just stop working and retire. In The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, Saez and Zucman propose a top tax rate of something like 65%. So a progressive logarithmic function follows more specifically from analysis of how to balance progressivity with incentives.
…or the point at which the wealth tax kicks in.
It kicks in as a penny of course. It is mathematical illiteracy to suggest it “kick in” higher, since it should be progressive. What you want to do is debate the slope of the function. Here’s an example.
So if your untaxed wealth was 100,000$, your post-tax wealth would be 95,310$. That’s a net present value (NPV), so given a hypothetical risk-free rate of 2.55%, that translates to a yearly tax of 2500$. On the other hand, if you were worth a billion dollars, your post-tax wealth would be 6,908,754$, by way of a yearly tax bill of 176,173$.
Unless either a UBI or some genuine social security is enacted, it is unfair to tax retirees on the capital they survive on.
This is nonsensical. A progressive tax is beyond fair. You literally pay less the less wealthy you are. A “fair” tax would be a poll tax, which is extremely regressive. And to point out the obvious, the total tax burden compared to today would be lower for most people.
You toss out a number of $200,000 capital, but that will not provide a comfortable existence for 30 years, should the retiree be blessed (cursed?) with longevity.e
Their taxes would be significantly lower than today. I don’t know how much more clearly to explain that. The task of saving up for retirement would be so much easier because of having virtually no taxation until they start to get to a high net worth.
People who went without in order to put away for retirement, planning on some percentage of their pre-retirement lifestyle post-retirement, should not be punished for their foresight and thrift.
It’s not punishment. The point is not to disincentivize any behavior, it is to raise revenue to benefit society, taking it progressively from those who can most afford to pay.
That minimum wealth needs to be tied to something. I’m not sure what, since there are arguments either way for or against tying it to pre-retirement income, or amount personally invested.
I’m talking about the middle class, who then become threatened by poverty in extreme old age due to taxes on their retirement fund early in their senior years.
Those in poverty would pay virtually nothing in taxes. How many more times must I explain this?