He tries to compare a wealth tax to an income tax. But they are not comparable. If a person's gains from capital are above a certain threshhold and exceed her gains from income, then that person can afford to pay an additonal tax, not based on income.
CEO's can infamously "work" for $1/year because they do not have to rely on income (labor) to support themselves.
At a certain point, "income tax" becomes a misnomer. Thanks to the value of capital, some people do not actually have to engage in labor. Through work done by well-paid advisors, it is at this point that many of them have also reduced their income tax liability to zero, more or less.
Comparing a wealth tax to an income tax makes little sense.
If Piketty is right, in today's world gains derived from capital always exceed gains from labor (income) over the long term. That excess just keeps accumulating. The wealthy keep getting wealthier. Quite the opposite picture from Graham's, where gains from wealth dissipate over a lifetime.
I will say this, his model looks great in a text-only browser. Wide margins, a basic table; succinct. The simplicity is pleasing to the eye.
CEO's can infamously "work" for $1/year because they do not have to rely on income (labor) to support themselves.
At a certain point, "income tax" becomes a misnomer. Thanks to the value of capital, some people do not actually have to engage in labor. Through work done by well-paid advisors, it is at this point that many of them have also reduced their income tax liability to zero, more or less.
Comparing a wealth tax to an income tax makes little sense.
If Piketty is right, in today's world gains derived from capital always exceed gains from labor (income) over the long term. That excess just keeps accumulating. The wealthy keep getting wealthier. Quite the opposite picture from Graham's, where gains from wealth dissipate over a lifetime.
I will say this, his model looks great in a text-only browser. Wide margins, a basic table; succinct. The simplicity is pleasing to the eye.