[I would like help in clarity, persuasion and perhaps structure. It is about a system of wealth taxation, using AI to create a productive index and then apply apply VAT based on that on investments to affect the economy in certain ways.]
The scene of a rainforest similar to the Amazons' in Peru is where they decided to settle down. Will they succeed in their mission?
The world is globalized, and there is access to AI. What if we combine these phenomena into an optimal taxation system for the rich, the top 0.01%? Thereby the rising socioeconomic disparities could decrease, and overall production could increase. I, hereby, introduce a proposed world standard for such taxation, namely-Wealth Optimization tax, WOT.
It is feasible because in 2021 the OECD (an organisation of 38 rich countries) created a minimum global taxation for wealthy multinational companies, whereof 136 countries participated. Because of its "top-up" system as long as the company has operations in at least one of the signatory countries the tax can be topped up to 15% tax. However, such could not apply to a person's residency situation. It is, therefore, necessary to have coordination akin to the Paris Agreement or the foundation of the UN.
As it is achievable, the next step is the choice of tax. Perhaps the ancient 90% tax of the USA, or the contemporary progressive tax? None of these, as both are inefficient when compared to a tax based on a production index. Imagine the economy as channels of money, whereby the goal is to enrich the streams that are most valuable. Guaranteeing money to the right ones can be done with incentives based on VAT-tax (money added on top of something's cost) targeting the rich. This is where AI becomes crucial: gauging data and then insertion into a formula, delivering an index of how productive an investment is, and lastly choosing a tax based on that. Resources such as energy, food, and building materials might be more sought after than human capital, including health and education. All of them, would be more beneficial than so-called speculative investments, which are for example the real estate market.
Returning to the core argument, with a 90% tax, the government could dump water into the right streams, but it does not have access to all the valuable streams, that individuals do due to their ability to expand or create companies with a competitive edge. Nor does progressive tax incentivize productive investments; thus, the proposed system is optimal.
The benefits of this system other than the ones mentioned in the beginning are that because purchasing something is absolute in a suggested blockchain record (a record protected by an algorithm in a computer), domestic tax evasion becomes obsolete. To ensure that intermediaries are not used for investment, transferring money must be taxed, perhaps 75%, mirroring the number I propose on lifestyle. Logically, those who choose to hoard money or not invest and instead spend money on lifestyle, would either lead to no money flowing into the system or money flowing in insignificant streams. I, therefore, also suggest taxation on money sitting in banks to be applied after a certain time until a specified threshold. To avoid the loophole of withdrawing and trading that-taxation must be enforced there, too.
With the basics addressed, I would like to expand on the system with the idea of adjusting the VAT based on inflation to balance it out, which, for one, would be accepted because it affects a privileged minority. Furthermore, it would not disrupt startups, which rely on loans to survive, compared to wealthy people's businesses that can be invested in later. If one compares interest rates to total bankruptcies over the span of 2007 to 2023 in the USA, higher interest rates paradoxically lead to less bankruptcies. From a sound perspective, this however, should not be the case. So other variables must be deterministic and ruining the cleanness of the study.
Additionally, to avoid abrupt thresholds to be in the top 0.01%, the system could use a more gradual approach. A loophole in this regard is to spend profoundly-lingering in moderation-so a metric on wealth and expenditure is functional. The global cooperation will counter offshore accounts, but a risk is still misused corporate funds. However, again it can be countered, this time by AI, that track through the ID of the business cards' suspicious expenditure. To make it clear, the top 0.01% title would be derived from numbers of corresponding origin-country. This will be regulated by tax always being directed to the country of origin. An agreement of money needed to pay in the present legal residency would perhaps be a formal, diplomatic necessity.
Many countries have implemented similar systems, such as adjusting income tax relative to inflation (Canada) or offering deductions for investments to encourage productive economic spending in Norway. Yet, this proposal is novel due to its deep integration of a productivity index, its fusion of multiple taxation concepts into a unified system, and its global scope. Charting spending activities through blockchain could be invasive, just like powerfully directing spending habits, but with power comes responsibility. That is the principle for perhaps breaching integrity and to be highly impetus-driven; it is always an option for the rich, to not be rich. That said, I partly digress as anonymization is possible. The notion that quantum computers can break the blockchain is also valid, but it does not consider a smooth transition to a traditional system. If there was thorough information on the riches' spending habits it could strengthen the arguments proposed, but unfortunately there is limited research on that subject. Nevertheless, I urge this to be discussed more in the social and political spheres so that we as citizens can pressure the economic leaders to do more research and eventually, enact policies. It might be necessary to test it in a smaller scope with a limited system, until global implementation to guarantee its benefits, but within due time I am sure it is possible for the human-race to be blessed by WOT.
.
Another aspect to look at are the practical intricacies. There are numerous types of productivity, such as innovative, environmental, social, economic. For a formula it has to be decided, which is to be prioritized. Even when an investment leads to a return is relevant. Fortunately, there abounds data from the World Bank, OECD and other organisations to measure for specific regions making it feasible. While data availability and technological infrastructure may be limited in poorer countries, such as the access to digital payment methods, wealthier nations could provide sponsorship to bridge this gap, recognizing the long-term societal benefits of broader participation. Otherwise loopholes could be abused. On the contrary, AI could be used in the wealthy nations for the poor. When it comes to blockchain it is has been explored to be used on normal transactions, ensuring a secure and reliable record like in Dubai.
When data is used this way, it opens the door to expand the application of this system. For example, if certain conditions lead to specific results, the AI can adjust accordingly. As a result, it becomes an evolving entity.
From theory to actuality- manually if you would grade an investment it would approximately follow the sequential actions. View the companies' type, organization, the workers' information, the location of it. After that, assess its production, the supply and demand of the product, competitors, economic conditions. Thereafter gather how different productions types are valued uniquely in the region. Finally, look at the history of similar companies both in its region and abroad and tie this all together into a valuation of potential success. This would be labor-heavy if done by person, which is why AI is not only helpful but as said crucial.
This idea is not far-fetched since there are AI that evaluate the stock market. An adaptation of it could be used as an early blueprint for this new model, as it measures similar qualities. Economic gain is for example like production but the complexity of types of productivity is added on top of it here. It will also distinguish itself by leading to societal economic profit, instead of just individual. I would like to point out that there are already manuals for defining productivity such as the IMF:s TFP but are they are fundamental, i.e. calculate input contra output.
The aforementioned ramifications of this conjecture can be widened: already established companies are not in need of investments as much as newer ones, leading to newer companies having lower tax rate. This would be followed by more investments in small companies, potentially with the implication of job creation and innovation. Capitalism will in essence be fueled positively. Think of it as that in its current state, big trees are sucking in most of the nutrients, while they are wholly grown, whilst the sapling not sucking plentiful. The size is representing its complete potential of companies in the economy. This improvised system would, in turn, combat monopolization.
This dynamic will further more deter economic bubbles from appearing and popping, since they appear when things become overvalued, which the index is not biased to. In reality, it could be something like higher VAT on the real estate market where bubbles are frequent. There have been attempts to do this in Singapore and Hongkong but rather with a transactional fee, with varying success because of capital flight and the bubbles being interconnected between others sectors. To challenge this, WOT is fluent among sectors, and with blockchain, or other data sets, it could track how the rich shift spending habits based on the VAT and subsequently let the receiving country lend back money. This, though ultimately depends on the power of the rich in this matter.
Therefore, one might ask, "Why not broaden it to the public too?" That would a greater challenge to get people behind, because it diminishes their investment freedom, and low investment costs-as well as neglecting significant profit. But as this is a vision of the future, the most optimal system will be in place. The rest of the structure is, however, designed particularly for the wealthy and should not be extended to the rest, except perhaps the inflation balancing and blockchain. But perhaps not for inflation balancing because it is out of the pockets of the poor. That is, we want it to be on the becost of the rich. It would overall be a better alternative than the current practises, though, because the rich will be of a higher portion of contribution.
In summary, AI is used to calculate how productive something is. Then VAT is used to incentivize so that money is allocated where it can have the highest positive impact. The VAT is also adjusted based on inflation, instead of traditionally interest and perhaps fluctuating income tax, yielding the benefit of no extra costs on student loans and mortgages. Metaphorically, the blue streams have been occupied by robots, that via large dams decide which streams are vigorous.
Then, to consider the potential complications can be done swiftly. Firstly, Indirect investments could be complex: it can be tackled by comprehensive data and a formula. Funds for instance would need to reorient themselves, focusing on economic but also productive endeavors-with the data of thousands of companies, but that data is already required for the system to work. Or there could be a new norm of direct investments, which the rich would not be opposed to because risk is not a problem to their almost infinite funds.
Secondly, rich could get richer: even if the wealthy can prosper in the system, the lower and middle-class will also, because of the foreseen economic growth. The alternative viewpoint is strengthened by a 75% consumption tax. In other words, the rich would effectively be 75% poorer, which would be a massive step toward equality-while the advantages of capitalism still standing strong.
Thirdly, individual philanthropy could sink as more money allocates to luxury spending: even though philanthropy may decrease as donations, government aid might escalate because of higher production. It is dependent on the priorities of the state. Personally, I believe that money should cover expenses for attention where attention is due. So increasing the pension might not be as dire as helping starving kids in another country. But the deciding factor is the level of nationalism.
Next, the entrepreneurial spirit could suffer: the 75% vat on lifestyle could instead be proportional to portion of wealth on constructive investments. Furthermore, psychologically the capability of holding large sums of money, might differ from the abstract spending power. For example, even though the wealthiest can basically buy whatever they want, there is still axiomatically a drive for more. Suggesting that greed is blind. There is most likely a distinction between greed and the spirit. One is the desire to create a company, innovate and earn a good living that way, while the other is to aimlessly earn money. One will be encouraged, whereas the other might not be affected because of its disorientation.
Lastly, and perhaps the determining one is that investments need to be lucrative, while simultaneously there being an equilibrium by how much the state is financed: for one, combination between income tax and WAT might be needed to strike a balance, and for two-capital gain tax could be abolished (tax on the excessive return of investments). However, it all depends on how much the wealthiest spend on consumption. If it for example 10% before tax, 7,5% of the money earned that year will go to the state, which could be enough considering the benefits of more and better investments. The fact that less money will be tax evaded also needs to be considered. But the case closes positively due to annual money being earned from investments on top of wages, making that 7.5% more valued than normal.
The total economic impact is necessary to be researched. I can provide nonetheless that 25% of taxes is avoided by the top 0.01% in Scandinavia. On the other hand, in the USA they contribute 6% of yearly income to philanthropy. And they earn 82% of their income from investments. If we were to calculate total spent on investment and consumption, more data would need to be available. Not only how much of past investments become liquid each year, but perhaps also the annual growth of their investments.
Despite the insignificant information, I will run a mock up simulation for the sake of illustration. 50% of their investments are speculative, and will turn to about 5%. Thereby, the GDP will flourish by 6%, and with more investments it will by 7 %. While at the same time, social, environmental and innovation will bloom further.
I, hereby, conclude that it is undoubtedly not a question of if, but when. The responsibility is ours to accelerate that process; should we not do all in our power to create a more globalized world, fostering cooperation instead of conflict and war? Therein lies the reason why you should not tell me that it is is unwarranted. Neither tell me that it is blind idealism devoid of realism, since I have presented arguments and acknowledged the counterargument while the proposal still standing tall like the Statue of Liberty. If we demanded, a global tax, through petition and protest, it is not only possible but within the close future. It is true, that AI might take over the financial market and jobs in the coming future. However, that does not undermine that the taxation system will prosper equality, minimize suffering, and bring the world closer as one community. So I beg, and urge-think about it, debate it and breed it to life.
Thank you for your contribution. And it is thanks to you that meanwhile at the rainforest: the robots at the blue tributaries, and varying sizes of tropical trees, despite the maliciousness, and incompetence of humans were successful in continuing operation WOT-war of transcendence.
That was a joke. Regardless, as any wise man with a vision they shall provide a calculated plan for the convinced subjects. Alas, I am not wise, just at the behest of your discretion.
The scene of a rainforest similar to the Amazons' in Peru is where they decided to settle down. Will they succeed in their mission?
The world is globalized, and there is access to AI. What if we combine these phenomena into an optimal taxation system for the rich, the top 0.01%? Thereby the rising socioeconomic disparities could decrease, and overall production could increase. I, hereby, introduce a proposed world standard for such taxation, namely-Wealth Optimization tax, WOT.
It is feasible because in 2021 the OECD (an organisation of 38 rich countries) created a minimum global taxation for wealthy multinational companies, whereof 136 countries participated. Because of its "top-up" system as long as the company has operations in at least one of the signatory countries the tax can be topped up to 15% tax. However, such could not apply to a person's residency situation. It is, therefore, necessary to have coordination akin to the Paris Agreement or the foundation of the UN.
As it is achievable, the next step is the choice of tax. Perhaps the ancient 90% tax of the USA, or the contemporary progressive tax? None of these, as both are inefficient when compared to a tax based on a production index. Imagine the economy as channels of money, whereby the goal is to enrich the streams that are most valuable. Guaranteeing money to the right ones can be done with incentives based on VAT-tax (money added on top of something's cost) targeting the rich. This is where AI becomes crucial: gauging data and then insertion into a formula, delivering an index of how productive an investment is, and lastly choosing a tax based on that. Resources such as energy, food, and building materials might be more sought after than human capital, including health and education. All of them, would be more beneficial than so-called speculative investments, which are for example the real estate market.
Returning to the core argument, with a 90% tax, the government could dump water into the right streams, but it does not have access to all the valuable streams, that individuals do due to their ability to expand or create companies with a competitive edge. Nor does progressive tax incentivize productive investments; thus, the proposed system is optimal.
The benefits of this system other than the ones mentioned in the beginning are that because purchasing something is absolute in a suggested blockchain record (a record protected by an algorithm in a computer), domestic tax evasion becomes obsolete. To ensure that intermediaries are not used for investment, transferring money must be taxed, perhaps 75%, mirroring the number I propose on lifestyle. Logically, those who choose to hoard money or not invest and instead spend money on lifestyle, would either lead to no money flowing into the system or money flowing in insignificant streams. I, therefore, also suggest taxation on money sitting in banks to be applied after a certain time until a specified threshold. To avoid the loophole of withdrawing and trading that-taxation must be enforced there, too.
With the basics addressed, I would like to expand on the system with the idea of adjusting the VAT based on inflation to balance it out, which, for one, would be accepted because it affects a privileged minority. Furthermore, it would not disrupt startups, which rely on loans to survive, compared to wealthy people's businesses that can be invested in later. If one compares interest rates to total bankruptcies over the span of 2007 to 2023 in the USA, higher interest rates paradoxically lead to less bankruptcies. From a sound perspective, this however, should not be the case. So other variables must be deterministic and ruining the cleanness of the study.
Additionally, to avoid abrupt thresholds to be in the top 0.01%, the system could use a more gradual approach. A loophole in this regard is to spend profoundly-lingering in moderation-so a metric on wealth and expenditure is functional. The global cooperation will counter offshore accounts, but a risk is still misused corporate funds. However, again it can be countered, this time by AI, that track through the ID of the business cards' suspicious expenditure. To make it clear, the top 0.01% title would be derived from numbers of corresponding origin-country. This will be regulated by tax always being directed to the country of origin. An agreement of money needed to pay in the present legal residency would perhaps be a formal, diplomatic necessity.
Many countries have implemented similar systems, such as adjusting income tax relative to inflation (Canada) or offering deductions for investments to encourage productive economic spending in Norway. Yet, this proposal is novel due to its deep integration of a productivity index, its fusion of multiple taxation concepts into a unified system, and its global scope. Charting spending activities through blockchain could be invasive, just like powerfully directing spending habits, but with power comes responsibility. That is the principle for perhaps breaching integrity and to be highly impetus-driven; it is always an option for the rich, to not be rich. That said, I partly digress as anonymization is possible. The notion that quantum computers can break the blockchain is also valid, but it does not consider a smooth transition to a traditional system. If there was thorough information on the riches' spending habits it could strengthen the arguments proposed, but unfortunately there is limited research on that subject. Nevertheless, I urge this to be discussed more in the social and political spheres so that we as citizens can pressure the economic leaders to do more research and eventually, enact policies. It might be necessary to test it in a smaller scope with a limited system, until global implementation to guarantee its benefits, but within due time I am sure it is possible for the human-race to be blessed by WOT.
.
Another aspect to look at are the practical intricacies. There are numerous types of productivity, such as innovative, environmental, social, economic. For a formula it has to be decided, which is to be prioritized. Even when an investment leads to a return is relevant. Fortunately, there abounds data from the World Bank, OECD and other organisations to measure for specific regions making it feasible. While data availability and technological infrastructure may be limited in poorer countries, such as the access to digital payment methods, wealthier nations could provide sponsorship to bridge this gap, recognizing the long-term societal benefits of broader participation. Otherwise loopholes could be abused. On the contrary, AI could be used in the wealthy nations for the poor. When it comes to blockchain it is has been explored to be used on normal transactions, ensuring a secure and reliable record like in Dubai.
When data is used this way, it opens the door to expand the application of this system. For example, if certain conditions lead to specific results, the AI can adjust accordingly. As a result, it becomes an evolving entity.
From theory to actuality- manually if you would grade an investment it would approximately follow the sequential actions. View the companies' type, organization, the workers' information, the location of it. After that, assess its production, the supply and demand of the product, competitors, economic conditions. Thereafter gather how different productions types are valued uniquely in the region. Finally, look at the history of similar companies both in its region and abroad and tie this all together into a valuation of potential success. This would be labor-heavy if done by person, which is why AI is not only helpful but as said crucial.
This idea is not far-fetched since there are AI that evaluate the stock market. An adaptation of it could be used as an early blueprint for this new model, as it measures similar qualities. Economic gain is for example like production but the complexity of types of productivity is added on top of it here. It will also distinguish itself by leading to societal economic profit, instead of just individual. I would like to point out that there are already manuals for defining productivity such as the IMF:s TFP but are they are fundamental, i.e. calculate input contra output.
The aforementioned ramifications of this conjecture can be widened: already established companies are not in need of investments as much as newer ones, leading to newer companies having lower tax rate. This would be followed by more investments in small companies, potentially with the implication of job creation and innovation. Capitalism will in essence be fueled positively. Think of it as that in its current state, big trees are sucking in most of the nutrients, while they are wholly grown, whilst the sapling not sucking plentiful. The size is representing its complete potential of companies in the economy. This improvised system would, in turn, combat monopolization.
This dynamic will further more deter economic bubbles from appearing and popping, since they appear when things become overvalued, which the index is not biased to. In reality, it could be something like higher VAT on the real estate market where bubbles are frequent. There have been attempts to do this in Singapore and Hongkong but rather with a transactional fee, with varying success because of capital flight and the bubbles being interconnected between others sectors. To challenge this, WOT is fluent among sectors, and with blockchain, or other data sets, it could track how the rich shift spending habits based on the VAT and subsequently let the receiving country lend back money. This, though ultimately depends on the power of the rich in this matter.
Therefore, one might ask, "Why not broaden it to the public too?" That would a greater challenge to get people behind, because it diminishes their investment freedom, and low investment costs-as well as neglecting significant profit. But as this is a vision of the future, the most optimal system will be in place. The rest of the structure is, however, designed particularly for the wealthy and should not be extended to the rest, except perhaps the inflation balancing and blockchain. But perhaps not for inflation balancing because it is out of the pockets of the poor. That is, we want it to be on the becost of the rich. It would overall be a better alternative than the current practises, though, because the rich will be of a higher portion of contribution.
In summary, AI is used to calculate how productive something is. Then VAT is used to incentivize so that money is allocated where it can have the highest positive impact. The VAT is also adjusted based on inflation, instead of traditionally interest and perhaps fluctuating income tax, yielding the benefit of no extra costs on student loans and mortgages. Metaphorically, the blue streams have been occupied by robots, that via large dams decide which streams are vigorous.
Then, to consider the potential complications can be done swiftly. Firstly, Indirect investments could be complex: it can be tackled by comprehensive data and a formula. Funds for instance would need to reorient themselves, focusing on economic but also productive endeavors-with the data of thousands of companies, but that data is already required for the system to work. Or there could be a new norm of direct investments, which the rich would not be opposed to because risk is not a problem to their almost infinite funds.
Secondly, rich could get richer: even if the wealthy can prosper in the system, the lower and middle-class will also, because of the foreseen economic growth. The alternative viewpoint is strengthened by a 75% consumption tax. In other words, the rich would effectively be 75% poorer, which would be a massive step toward equality-while the advantages of capitalism still standing strong.
Thirdly, individual philanthropy could sink as more money allocates to luxury spending: even though philanthropy may decrease as donations, government aid might escalate because of higher production. It is dependent on the priorities of the state. Personally, I believe that money should cover expenses for attention where attention is due. So increasing the pension might not be as dire as helping starving kids in another country. But the deciding factor is the level of nationalism.
Next, the entrepreneurial spirit could suffer: the 75% vat on lifestyle could instead be proportional to portion of wealth on constructive investments. Furthermore, psychologically the capability of holding large sums of money, might differ from the abstract spending power. For example, even though the wealthiest can basically buy whatever they want, there is still axiomatically a drive for more. Suggesting that greed is blind. There is most likely a distinction between greed and the spirit. One is the desire to create a company, innovate and earn a good living that way, while the other is to aimlessly earn money. One will be encouraged, whereas the other might not be affected because of its disorientation.
Lastly, and perhaps the determining one is that investments need to be lucrative, while simultaneously there being an equilibrium by how much the state is financed: for one, combination between income tax and WAT might be needed to strike a balance, and for two-capital gain tax could be abolished (tax on the excessive return of investments). However, it all depends on how much the wealthiest spend on consumption. If it for example 10% before tax, 7,5% of the money earned that year will go to the state, which could be enough considering the benefits of more and better investments. The fact that less money will be tax evaded also needs to be considered. But the case closes positively due to annual money being earned from investments on top of wages, making that 7.5% more valued than normal.
The total economic impact is necessary to be researched. I can provide nonetheless that 25% of taxes is avoided by the top 0.01% in Scandinavia. On the other hand, in the USA they contribute 6% of yearly income to philanthropy. And they earn 82% of their income from investments. If we were to calculate total spent on investment and consumption, more data would need to be available. Not only how much of past investments become liquid each year, but perhaps also the annual growth of their investments.
Despite the insignificant information, I will run a mock up simulation for the sake of illustration. 50% of their investments are speculative, and will turn to about 5%. Thereby, the GDP will flourish by 6%, and with more investments it will by 7 %. While at the same time, social, environmental and innovation will bloom further.
I, hereby, conclude that it is undoubtedly not a question of if, but when. The responsibility is ours to accelerate that process; should we not do all in our power to create a more globalized world, fostering cooperation instead of conflict and war? Therein lies the reason why you should not tell me that it is is unwarranted. Neither tell me that it is blind idealism devoid of realism, since I have presented arguments and acknowledged the counterargument while the proposal still standing tall like the Statue of Liberty. If we demanded, a global tax, through petition and protest, it is not only possible but within the close future. It is true, that AI might take over the financial market and jobs in the coming future. However, that does not undermine that the taxation system will prosper equality, minimize suffering, and bring the world closer as one community. So I beg, and urge-think about it, debate it and breed it to life.
Thank you for your contribution. And it is thanks to you that meanwhile at the rainforest: the robots at the blue tributaries, and varying sizes of tropical trees, despite the maliciousness, and incompetence of humans were successful in continuing operation WOT-war of transcendence.
That was a joke. Regardless, as any wise man with a vision they shall provide a calculated plan for the convinced subjects. Alas, I am not wise, just at the behest of your discretion.
