This is a cool idea and a good point. I think it could work, and maybe we could get folks to invest in civilization voluntarily, but I think it would be more secure to make it mandatory. I don't think anyone should be allowed to be a billionaire in the first place for the same reason I don't want anyone in America to become a King. It's a threat to the freedom of the rest of us. Still, I feel like it would be easier to get billionaires to invest willingly in civilization than to get everyone to vote to change the tax codes. So, how do we do it?
The inescapability of death combined with the threat of a inheritance tax that leaves only a couple million to biological heirs will get most billionaires to spend their money before they die.
Some will take no action and lose their money to the government. But that looming "waste," will induce most to think about legacy. There's a vast playground of societal "art" that entrepreneurial billionaires can play in that no one else can. I think most will want to paint a grand picture displaying their own aspirations, and society will likely benefit. Some might build new cities or renovate old ones. Some might fund innovative social welfare programs. Some might become Renaissance-style patrons to talented artists.
Will some spurge on playthings and hedonia? Sure. But that too injects money into the economy, and the government takes the remainder after they're dead.
While they live, society should want them to have capital so they can continue to form new companies and innovate. We all benefit from this. But after they're dead that money must cycle.
This is my thought as of right now. I'm open to other options. But most of the alternatives I see either strip working capital from entrepreneurs or rely on coercion that would not hold up in court.
Interesting and thought-provoking piece. The problem with the comparison between American and Roman elites are many. First, I would question how accurate accounting was back then and if we can really say for certain Roman Elites were more generous than their American counterparts.
Also, Rome has 1,000 years of history to consider. Much of that wealth and dynamism was generated under the Roman Republic when it was a relatively "inclusive" society. But the Republic fell and gave way to the Empire, an extractive regime, that drew wealth and power away from the masses and toward elites. Indeed, above all, that is why it slowly crumbled.
You correctly note that wealth taxes, as attractive as they are on the surface, are terrible policy. They are difficult to enforce, easy to evade, and generally self-defeating. The goal of the tax system should be, first and foremost, not to arbitrarily tax wealth, but to tax "unearned wealth."
We don't want to discourage or punish people from working, producing, innovating...etc. We do, however, want to prevent them from reaping the benefits of that which they didn't create. A Land Value Tax is the ultimate tool in this regard. As I discussed here, its a wealth tax that actually does work: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land
I find Greece to be a good example of how Roman GDP/wealth levels changed over time, in that we have solid estimates from the Classical era, the Hellenistic period, the late Roman Republic, the "golden age," under the "five good emperors", and the late empire.
Ober's "Rise and Fall of Ancient Greece" explores this in detail, and we see a peak in wealth while Greece was free and decentralized, a freeze of growth during the early imperial period, or perhaps a slight retrenchment, and then ever-decreasing wealth and GDP as the late Roman emperors first inflated the currency and then imposed price controls and other restrictions (and horrible plagues and wars took their toll).
Rome's economic policies were ok for the period, but not as ideal as the patchwork of competition Greece provided.
I agree that the data on Roman giving is not as in-depth as we'd like, but having looked over what we have for some time, I feel comfortable with the idea that the scale of patronage/philanthropy was far greater than the minuscule giving we see today (in terms of net worth, not total dollar amount, which is obviously far greater given the vast wealth generated by capitalism).
Geoge's Land Value Tax may certainly be wise, and there are several countries/city states that use it to good effect, though usually in a limited capacity. However, while the scale or government reach makes it ideal for addressing problems private citizens cannot, I'm not convinced that feeding it with ever-more tax revenue leads to that money being spent well. But that's another discussion.
This is a cool idea and a good point. I think it could work, and maybe we could get folks to invest in civilization voluntarily, but I think it would be more secure to make it mandatory. I don't think anyone should be allowed to be a billionaire in the first place for the same reason I don't want anyone in America to become a King. It's a threat to the freedom of the rest of us. Still, I feel like it would be easier to get billionaires to invest willingly in civilization than to get everyone to vote to change the tax codes. So, how do we do it?
The inescapability of death combined with the threat of a inheritance tax that leaves only a couple million to biological heirs will get most billionaires to spend their money before they die.
Some will take no action and lose their money to the government. But that looming "waste," will induce most to think about legacy. There's a vast playground of societal "art" that entrepreneurial billionaires can play in that no one else can. I think most will want to paint a grand picture displaying their own aspirations, and society will likely benefit. Some might build new cities or renovate old ones. Some might fund innovative social welfare programs. Some might become Renaissance-style patrons to talented artists.
Will some spurge on playthings and hedonia? Sure. But that too injects money into the economy, and the government takes the remainder after they're dead.
While they live, society should want them to have capital so they can continue to form new companies and innovate. We all benefit from this. But after they're dead that money must cycle.
This is my thought as of right now. I'm open to other options. But most of the alternatives I see either strip working capital from entrepreneurs or rely on coercion that would not hold up in court.
Interesting and thought-provoking piece. The problem with the comparison between American and Roman elites are many. First, I would question how accurate accounting was back then and if we can really say for certain Roman Elites were more generous than their American counterparts.
Also, Rome has 1,000 years of history to consider. Much of that wealth and dynamism was generated under the Roman Republic when it was a relatively "inclusive" society. But the Republic fell and gave way to the Empire, an extractive regime, that drew wealth and power away from the masses and toward elites. Indeed, above all, that is why it slowly crumbled.
You correctly note that wealth taxes, as attractive as they are on the surface, are terrible policy. They are difficult to enforce, easy to evade, and generally self-defeating. The goal of the tax system should be, first and foremost, not to arbitrarily tax wealth, but to tax "unearned wealth."
We don't want to discourage or punish people from working, producing, innovating...etc. We do, however, want to prevent them from reaping the benefits of that which they didn't create. A Land Value Tax is the ultimate tool in this regard. As I discussed here, its a wealth tax that actually does work: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land
I find Greece to be a good example of how Roman GDP/wealth levels changed over time, in that we have solid estimates from the Classical era, the Hellenistic period, the late Roman Republic, the "golden age," under the "five good emperors", and the late empire.
Ober's "Rise and Fall of Ancient Greece" explores this in detail, and we see a peak in wealth while Greece was free and decentralized, a freeze of growth during the early imperial period, or perhaps a slight retrenchment, and then ever-decreasing wealth and GDP as the late Roman emperors first inflated the currency and then imposed price controls and other restrictions (and horrible plagues and wars took their toll).
Rome's economic policies were ok for the period, but not as ideal as the patchwork of competition Greece provided.
I agree that the data on Roman giving is not as in-depth as we'd like, but having looked over what we have for some time, I feel comfortable with the idea that the scale of patronage/philanthropy was far greater than the minuscule giving we see today (in terms of net worth, not total dollar amount, which is obviously far greater given the vast wealth generated by capitalism).
Geoge's Land Value Tax may certainly be wise, and there are several countries/city states that use it to good effect, though usually in a limited capacity. However, while the scale or government reach makes it ideal for addressing problems private citizens cannot, I'm not convinced that feeding it with ever-more tax revenue leads to that money being spent well. But that's another discussion.
Thanks for reading!