A wealth fund on its own doesn’t create wealth; like any other tax, it’s a redistribution mechanism. it’s the implementation details that matter.
Take three revenue sources:
Tariffs & VAT: extract wealth on a per purchase basis, so the primary payer is somebody who spends most of their revenue on stuff; normal people & businesses with relatively high OPEX (small business that make physical stuff rather than services) or have overseas suppliers.
Land value tax: a rent on owning land based on its value, primary payer are people and companies who own lots of expensive land; often rent-seekers themselves.
Resource revenue tax: typically large companies as they’re the only ones that can afford the scale to profitably extract resources.
And some potential expenses:
Retirement pension fund: tends to benefit pensioners (duh). Can also benefit workers, whos taxes tend to pay for the pensions of their (gran)parents. whether that actually will translate into less taxes, or those taxes just go elsewhere is another matter.
Government CAPEX: benefits are spread pretty evenly over everyone who uses govt services (depending on the purchase; a school is more useful than a cop shop). A lesser-known beneficiary are politicians; periodic infrastructure projects get more consistent positive press than e.g. a well funded pension system.
Recurring helicopter money: I won’t call it a UBI, because that would require a truly massive fund; but a stipend for every resident human would primarily benefit parents who’s wealth doesn’t normally grow when they have kids. Other than that, it’s hard to say how this would play out; will it put less pressure on low wage workers? Will it just be gobbled up by rent-seekers? A flat tax is considered a burden on the poor, so it makes some sense that what is basically a negative flat tax would have the primary beneficiary be the poorest among us. It may harm the transient, undocumented or otherwise unregistered workers by omission though.
Musk’s pocketbook: if it gets full enough surely some will trickle down, right?
One thing that it will definitely do is swell up rich people’s yacht money the stock market since that’s where it’s stored. This directly benefits capital as a means of wealth creation over labour but considering how many yachts are already there the impact wouldn’t be substantial.
A wealth fund on its own doesn’t create wealth; like any other tax, it’s a redistribution mechanism. it’s the implementation details that matter.
Take three revenue sources:
Tariffs & VAT: extract wealth on a per purchase basis, so the primary payer is somebody who spends most of their revenue on stuff; normal people & businesses with relatively high OPEX (small business that make physical stuff rather than services) or have overseas suppliers.
Land value tax: a rent on owning land based on its value, primary payer are people and companies who own lots of expensive land; often rent-seekers themselves.
Resource revenue tax: typically large companies as they’re the only ones that can afford the scale to profitably extract resources.
And some potential expenses:
Retirement pension fund: tends to benefit pensioners (duh). Can also benefit workers, whos taxes tend to pay for the pensions of their (gran)parents. whether that actually will translate into less taxes, or those taxes just go elsewhere is another matter.
Government CAPEX: benefits are spread pretty evenly over everyone who uses govt services (depending on the purchase; a school is more useful than a cop shop). A lesser-known beneficiary are politicians; periodic infrastructure projects get more consistent positive press than e.g. a well funded pension system.
Recurring helicopter money: I won’t call it a UBI, because that would require a truly massive fund; but a stipend for every resident human would primarily benefit parents who’s wealth doesn’t normally grow when they have kids. Other than that, it’s hard to say how this would play out; will it put less pressure on low wage workers? Will it just be gobbled up by rent-seekers? A flat tax is considered a burden on the poor, so it makes some sense that what is basically a negative flat tax would have the primary beneficiary be the poorest among us. It may harm the transient, undocumented or otherwise unregistered workers by omission though.
Musk’s pocketbook: if it gets full enough surely some will trickle down, right?
One thing that it will definitely do is swell up
rich people’s yacht moneythe stock market since that’s where it’s stored. This directly benefits capital as a means of wealth creation over labour but considering how many yachts are already there the impact wouldn’t be substantial.