I tweeted: How do you morph a $200 million Picasso hanging on a wall of a wealthy into real purchasing power for the poor?
Someone answered: "If owner says $200m & you think it's worth more, then you buy it for $200m, else you tax it 1/2%/yr"
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. I hate unfair wealth creation as much as anyone, but once that purchase power has been frozen on a wall, how do you convert it into food, education and health services? Do you know of some arguments that could shed light on this issue?
Or phrased even more confusing: 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?
More than going after that painting, why do they not go after the one who sold that painting. He has now the purchase capacity power, that is unless he already used it to.
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.
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. I hate unfair wealth creation as much as anyone, but once that purchase power has been frozen on a wall, how do you convert it into food, education and health services? Do you know of some arguments that could shed light on this issue?
Or phrased even more confusing: 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?
More than going after that painting, why do they not go after the one who sold that painting. He has now the purchase capacity power, that is unless he already used it to.
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.
Posts
