0% for those whose total assets are between half and twice the median (calculated from the entire adult population, adult meaning those who are eligible to vote)
for those whose total assets are above twice the median, the formula would be as follows:
```
rate = 100% * 50% ^ floor(log₂(total assets / median assets))
```
Thus, for those who has 16 times the calculated median asset, they will be taxed 93.75% the value of their assets.

This is different from the tax bracket calculations, but it can be modified so that it will be calculated similarly (that is, the portion of the assets that exceed 16 times the median will be taxed 93.75%, those between 8 and 16 will be taxed 87.5%, between 4 and 8 will be taxed 75%, between 2 and 4 taxed 50%, and between the median and twice it are tax-free. It will be a more complicated calculation, and IDK if it is an improvement over the more simple formula.
those who have less than half the median, the formula will be as follows:
```
rebate = max(total assets * abs(ceiling(log₂(total assets / median assets))), k)
```
where k is a defined maximum rebate value

Thus, for those who has 1/16 the calculated median asset, they will have a rebate of 16 times the value of their assets, unless it's greater than the maximum rebate value. Those who have absolutely no assets to their name will have the maximum rebate value (since a 0 will break a more naive formula).

Assets can then be defined for this calculation such that it covers any means of earning money (stock, land, equipment, etc), but I am not a tax lawyer to bullet-proof this. The intent is that those who have less will receive such that they are lifted up, and those who have too much will be levied accordingly. The end result, hopefully, will be a society where most people have some assets, but no one will have way more than twice, or way less than half the median (an average value that is more or less resistant to extreme values).

Will it be practical? I sure hope so. Will it be realistic, hell no!

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Interesting idea.

What is the purpose of floor() and ceiling()? Why not have it be a continuous function?

[–] megane_kun@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, I wanted a more "bracketed" approach (hence, the note about making it similar to how I think income taxes work), but I suppose a continuous function could also work better as a simple formula. I'd still keep the difference between "assets below" and "assets above" median difference though.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, taking the log of the "total assets / median assets" quotient is really elegant!

load more comments (1 replies)