Taxation of wealth and the rich as a social imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the article is the problem of taxing the rich and wealth, which is among the topical topics of public interest. The study aimed to highlight the latest initiative of a group of American multimillionaires to increase the level of tax rates on this ultra-rich category of taxpayers. This initiative can be considered a solidarity tax. The task was to characterize the quantitative indicators of this initiative. The article is motivated by the striking fact that 400 American ultra-billionaires have a total wealth worth 4 thousand billion dollars! The role of the research method of the problem was carried out by analyzing the quantitative parameters and fiscal and administrative features of taxation of the rich. Results of work. First of all, the results of the study consist in the interpretation of the multicomponent concept of wealth as an object of taxation. The impossibility of a general income and property tax is revealed, such a tax exists only as an unrealized project. The fiscal and administrative reasons for the abandonment of the inheritance tax in 21 countries, including Austria, Canada, Sweden and Israel, are clarified. Conclusions. The arguments are presented that property taxes harm the processes of wealth creation and capital. For this reason, the share of property taxes in tax revenues has fallen from 42% to 14% since the beginning of the XX century. The most significant fiscal potential for strengthening the taxation of the rich are taxes on income and profits. A quantitative and institutional analysis of existing wealth taxes in Norway and Switzerland was carried out. A serious fiscal and administrative problem of wealth taxes is the valuation of taxable assets. The wealth taxes have very great, virtually inexhaustible scientific and practical potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".