Regardless of their wealth being in M1, M2, or M3, it is wealth taken off the backs of the working class and given to the hands of a few people. Taxing it is the most conservative approach to giving it back to the people who actually created that wealth; it's a solution that works within the existing political system.

Money itself is an abstraction for wealth. Sometimes, it can be a useful one. But take the abstraction away and think about the stuff it actually represents. Taxing that "unrealized wealth" may reduce GDP in a technical sense, but GDP is an abstraction built on an abstraction. Constantly rising GDP is not a good end goal in itself. Ensuring that everyone has their basic needs met is a much better one.

[–] silverhand@reddthat.com -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Lots of big words but nothing of value. Answer the question buddy, how will you tax people on money they don't have?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They will sell it.

That's why I say it's going to cause a drop in GDP, but that's only a problem if you hold tightly to the abstraction.

[–] silverhand@reddthat.com -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It won't be just a "drop in GDP". It will be investments falling apart, industries closing down, credit getting scarce, unemployment, misery, destitution and death.

Money is a very real driver of the world. It is also the realest manifestation of wealth. Only a fool would call it an abstraction.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 6 days ago

What else would it be but an abstraction? As I said, it's sometimes a useful one, but it's an abstraction. It's not dirt or concrete or computer chips or food.

Maybe we shouldn't build a whole society around an abstraction like that?