If wealth is accreting is individuals… but is it really?
When you have a nice job in a company, then as a matter of accounting, the shareholders have wealth. As I see it, that's just a matter of accounting. The first sentence of this paragraph says "you have a nice job" and IMO that description is closer to reality. The wealth actually is your skills and their integration into an organisation.
It follows from this view that "some shareholders accrete too much wealth" is more a complaint about accounting practices than about how goods are distributed in society. You do have that nice job, right? A few million nice jobs may be accounted for as one person's wealth, but the millions do have the jobs.
And indirectly that if you shape taxation based on accounting rather than reality, its effect on reality will be haphazard.
Nobody in the tax brackets we're talking about has wealth because of a job they. They have it because of ownership stakes.
The only way to value ownership stakes is via accounting.
Otherwise, we'll have the current system, where it's trivial for the ultra wealthy to both (a) have exclusive control over things and (b) not own them in a tax incurring sense.
Ergo, the solution is to flow tax liability along the same thing they want -- control.
When you have a nice job in a company, then as a matter of accounting, the shareholders have wealth. As I see it, that's just a matter of accounting. The first sentence of this paragraph says "you have a nice job" and IMO that description is closer to reality. The wealth actually is your skills and their integration into an organisation.
It follows from this view that "some shareholders accrete too much wealth" is more a complaint about accounting practices than about how goods are distributed in society. You do have that nice job, right? A few million nice jobs may be accounted for as one person's wealth, but the millions do have the jobs.
And indirectly that if you shape taxation based on accounting rather than reality, its effect on reality will be haphazard.