I tweeted: How do you morph a $200 million Picasso hanging on a wall of a wealthy into real purchasing power for the poor?
I answered: "If you buy it for $200m then you used $200m you could have otherwise given the poor"
And I answered: "And if you tax it 1/2% year... how many will then want to own a $200m Picasso?"
Then someone answered (I think): “You mortgage that painting and invest that money into some job generating venture”
And I answered: "That's perhaps a great idea, if I make a really good job-generating investment. But, what if the markets get nervous about too much art being mortgaged at banks? Then the price of art might come down, or interest rates for banks go up… and then we might sort of be getting back to square one."
And I thought, if you hit especially at art wealth, will that not affect the expectations of art being worth more? And if so, will not the price for the paintings of the current painters go down… and so painters have less chance to make it?
And so I am getting closer and closer to conclude: In essence, he who hangs a $200m Picasso painting on the wall, has paid a $200m wealth tax.
I am a bit at loss. Do you have some arguments that could shed light on this issue?
Or clearer yet: He who has agreed to freeze $200m of his purchasing power, hanging a Picasso on a wall, and so therefore does not to compete with other's purchasing powers, has he not already paid a $200m wealth tax?
Do you have another idea on this? Then email me
“The wealth of 62 richest equals that of 3.6 billion poorest” That‘s a deviously false odiously divisive argument.
"Panama Papers" Don't let redistribution agitation profiteers raise your expectations.