The only reason why we are talking about this is because the normal ‘wealth tax’ has been suppressed for so long:
In effect, Inflation is a wealth transfer from lenders to debtors. But monetary policy plus the rise of the Chinese Economy has caused inflation to all but disappear.
It is not unreasonable to seek an alternative way to re-balance the inequality.
Learn to pronounce
noun: confiscation; plural noun: confiscations
the action of taking or seizing someone’s property with authority; seizure.
“a court ordered the confiscation of her property”
Using the above definition, there is a sense in which taxation of income is not confiscation, while any taxation of wealth is confiscation. That is because the taxation of income can be interpreted to legally occur at the time the income is generated (earned) and thereby before it has actually become property of the receiver of the income.
I don’t think this should matter much to the main discussion. The term confiscation has emotional connotations of unfairness, specifically an abuse of authority in the sense of the above definition. As such, its use is an emotion-begging rhetorical device, despite its semantic accuracy. Using another term with less emotional baggage would not be a complete remedy, because the substitute term could be considered rhetorically euphemistic.
Hence why I am asking for this clarification.
My clarification question is if you are considering taxation to be confiscation. This is specific language that carries with it specific connotations.
When the government sent a tax bill in 2019, was that “confiscating” income? Yes or no.
If no, why are you using “confiscating” in reference to the wealth tax, but not income tax? Because I don’t understand the difference right now, and if I don’t understand the difference you are trying to convey, then I cannot give you a good answer (since we aren’t agreeing on terms, my answer would NOT convey to you what I meant).
The government already collects taxes under threat of force. If you want to debate that concept, that would be a different thread.
Use any synonym you prefer, or any definition of tax you prefer. The main reason I used “confiscation” was some vague idea that taxes are usually paid in money, whereas confiscation doesn’t have to be. Under the present system, tax on real estate is paid in money, not in real estate. If one’s wealth is in non-monetary assets like real estate, the term “confiscation” covers the case while “tax” seems awkward. Like you say, confiscation has negative connotations. It’s really irrelevant. Use whichever terms you prefer.
When the government passes a tax bill, it isn’t confiscating anything. It’s giving itself the authority to do so in a certain manner.
Okay, if the question is “do I think the government can tax wealth”... then I literally answered that in the first post of this thread.
Essentially, your question is “do you agree with the premise of the thread that you started?” If I haven’t made that clear… which I think I have… I apologize.
Yes, I think it’s okay if the government taxes wealth, I do not have an issue with this premise.
To be honest, I find it very good that government taxes almost everything as it helps the economy grow. Even I, a simple gambling player, pay taxes and I am very glad that I am able to do that. And I have never tried to get rid of them or to avoid them as I think it is something normal.
As the saying goes, taxes are the price of a civilized society.