I actually disagree with a straight wealth tax, I believe the approach of adequately taxing the wealthy needs a more two pronged approach, which I happen to have pitched already, so I’ll just copy paste that comment here to explain what I think will work instead:
I believe someone suggested loans collateralized on stock and other such speculative assets be taxed as realized gains, which should go a long way to stop the absolutely mindbogglingly obscene displays of mega wealth we’ve been seeing as of late.
As for income, there should be nominal brackets established at the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of income for a given year, with 20th, 40th, and 60th percentile income taxed at the percent of national wealth each of those brackets owns, income in the 80th and 95th brackets being taxed at twice their respective shares of the national wealth, and income above the 99th income being taxed at three times their share of the national wealth. Then have a half a percent multiplier for every multiple of twenty times the median income of the 0-20 percentile bracket an income crosses.
Doesn’t just tax the rich, it directly makes it their class interest to spread the wealth to lighten the crunch on their top dollar. The rich literally can get their own tax cuts by sharing the wealth.
It actually even incentivizes the ultra rich to police each other since one of them building up the riches too much hits all of them, meaning the rich will be eating each other whenever one of them steps out of line!
While I definitely agree with the approach, would it not make sense to also run a wealth tax alongside this, to ensure that assets aren’t just stored outside of the US?
I’d be all for all of the below:
- Taxation on loans taken against collateral above x
- A cap on executive pay, especially in instances where an executive is paid more than the company takes in income. This would stop instances like Musk getting paid a fuck-ton when their company has very little income.
- A wealth tax to take a percentage of wealth, with yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books.
The problem with some of the listed names is that they don’t own their companies. Bezos hasn’t owned Amazon for 3-4 years now, and he’s been dumping stock for years. If we only taxed against specific types of collateral, the rich would just move to something else.
Wouldn’t a wealth tax increase risk of assets being stored and hidden outside the US?
Americans are already taxed on worldwide income. If there’s a wealth tax and they tried to get around it by storing assets outside the US, wouldn’t hiding it be much the same as attempting to hide non-US income?
Any comments on whether a wealth tax is even constitutional, since the 16th amendment only authorizes an income tax and not a wealth tax?
Do they get a deduction when they repay the loan on the back end, if they had to pick up income for the loan when it was received?
Wouldn’t it be disruptive to cap executive pay during lean years, or startup years, or recession years etc? Wouldn’t that create even more incentive than there already is to aggressively pump up income in order to meet arbitrary quarterly/annual earnings goals to keep executive comp high? What if there was a lot of income last year, little income this year, and a lot of income next year, etc. Should everyone’s income seesaw up and down or could we maybe plan around cash flow a little bit?
“Yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books” is such a loaded sentence full of ignorance and naivete I really can’t begin to respond to it besides telling you that it instantly identifies you as someone who doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about and shouldn’t be commenting on such things.
Finally, Bezos is still the executive chair of Amazon and still holds 990 million shares as of November 2023 so idk what you’re talking about with that last sentence. Link to the SEC Form 4 Proxy Statement, a primary source document despite the shady url: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001018724/0978cda1-fd60-4d80-bdc4-e6911372e1a3.pdf or you can find it here dated November 1 2023: https://ir.aboutamazon.com/sec-filings/default.aspx
deleted by creator
Can somebody please fix the bar scales? Nothing corresponds to anything else, and as such the difference between “millions” and “billions” is indicated by just 1 letter. Not to mention, there is no source for the data or indication why their rates are different (3.05% for Musk and Bezos, 0.309% for Gates).
Indeed! This chart is crap. How are these values even calculated? Is this a flat tax on their networth? Nobody gets taxed like this, at least that I’m aware of - people get taxed on their profits.
I’m completely for taxing billionaires (individuals and corps) heavily on their profits, but let’s use proper arguments, not intentionally misleading bullshit.
people get taxed on their profits.
yes but a wealth tax is a tax on what you own or what you could buy, aka your net worth
Removed by mod
except for property taxes, which have existed since the beginning of the country.
Removed by mod
I agree with you but the culture around here is exceptionally infuriating for anyone who understands a thing about finance/accounting/tax/money in general so good luck.
Removed by mod
People will always act in their own rational self interest. Idk where people get this idea from that you can legislate market forces. It’s like legislating the tides or the seasons. The commies around here walking around bitching about all these mean rich people are so naive it’s really incredible.
Well, you can legislate market forces, to an extent. The issue is the degree to which people are demanding tax revenue goes so far as to violate basic math. People want a wealth tax that for the s&p 500 would hypothetically amount to 36 trillion dollars, but the M2 money supply is only 20 trillion total.
Removed by mod
Depends on scale.
At the scale of a property tax, might be ok. Or at least more fair, I’m stuck being taxed on my house which is most of my net worth, so…
At the scale of an income tax, or as frequently demanded an extreme income tax at like 90%, then yes, it would explode, fall to produce desired revenue, and take down most retirement funds with it.
Removed by mod
Of course, in the wrong thread you get branded as some billionaire defender, when you are trying to explain that it’s fine to go after them and they do enjoy having way too much actual money, but any strategy to make it fair has to be smart and workable rather than going after an extrapolated number of dollars that don’t “actually” exist. It’s true that it’s all imaginary is an oversimplification when they clearly lead lives of intense wealth, but have to recognize the degree to which that claim is true. So take that into consideration and advocate things like covering unrealized gains as collateral in a better tax system, or a property tax level rate on unrealized gains (though even then, have to tread carefully. Most property has an intrinsic use and the tax burden has been priced into the market for eternity, for a more purely financial vehicle previously not subject to a tax, might have unintended consequences).
Removed by mod
that depends on who you ask
Have seen this chart a couple times and both times that is my immediate reaction. Putting the taxes and the remaining money on the same scale would make the point hit.
I cannot see why anyone should ever have more than 10 million dollars. How much is the billionaire’s fair share? Enough to bring them down to 10 million.
We could quibble on 10 million. Maybe it should be 1 million. But that is a separate end less interesting question.
Agreed. It’s also a question of power: no one should have enough money to amass that much power. It’s barely an exaggeration to say that the Koch brothers bought themselves a political party and doomed the entire planet to climate catastrophe. No one should have that much money.
10 million dollars is not as much wealth as it was ten years ago.
Isn’t that the point? If I wrote 2 or 3, people could talk about absurd land prices in San Francisco or medical emergencies for five of their children simultaneously. But when we are talking about 10, it’s pretty hard to come up with a plausible hypothetical situation where the money is actually necessary, ever. I’m not questioning your ability to do craft such a hypothetical, but I am questioning your ability to do so while keeping a straight face.
It’s still enough to live off the interest.
Removed by mod
The only gripe I have with this is settling for billionaires paying ‘their fair share’. That would have been acceptable if they paid that while hoarding these unimaginable levels of wealth.
At this point; the amount they should be due to pay should be punitive - to discourage anyone from attempting anything similar in the future.
I think you’ll find more gripes once you compare the bar widths and corresponding amounts.
You can’t just vote for politicians who want to tax the wealthy more money because how else can I get trans kids out of middle school basketball?
I’d love to tax the kleptocrat class and pay to fix some of the country’s problems, but I’m worried a woman and her doctor might do medicine deemed heresy by my twisted interpretation of a book of fables I never actually read (and may not even believe). Also the gays and brown people scare me, and somehow the only way I can save myself from them is to give Elon Musk ownership of San Francisco.
/s
I wonder how high we could get the standard deduction without even impacting their quality of life?
One billion is 1000 millions. If you spend 10 millions a year, that’s enough for 100 years. They don’t need any of the money they have.
Nobody could survive on only 10 million a year!
Give me that money and I’ll prove it!
No, no, I could never be so cruel to you.
I could try 🫴
You have any idea how expensive insurance is on a Ferrari?!
…At least six?
Neat part is that Bill Gates has been saying he wants taxes to increase for the ultra-rich, he is on board, if only all of them thought that way
I wonder how quickly he’d change his mind if we also removed the ability to
launder fundsdonate money for tax breaks from your bank account into your foundation’s bank account.Something tells me Bill is saying that publicly, then discreetly paying lobbyists to oppose such moves.
Removed by mod
Charities that he controls. He’s shifted power to nonprofit companies, getting additional protection from taxes in order to push his ideas. For example you may be for nuclear power or against it, but he’s able to get one built. Isn’t that the sort of thing the people should decide?
Yep. Gates came from Rich. Legit rich. Hence his education and upbringing and investor support early on. But he coupled it with, well, talent and appetite hence <gesticulates at the MS evolution and hellscape> eh overall… I prefer him to musk I guess?
It’s a hard ask because SpaceX. Otherwise… fuck that guy.
Bill Gates is a higher class of billionaire.
And I’m sure there were some relatively nice nazis in WWII Germany. Still nazis.
Who the fuck is doing Bill Gates’ taxes and how do I get them to do that but on my much more modest income.
Whoever designed the “charts” is in on it, I know that much
But it only takes $50k to buy a congress person, so this will never happen.
You don’t even need money really, just give them some insider knowledge on a stock trade and let them make it big like they already do.
You can by a german right winger for 20k (true patrios sell themself and their country to China/Russia!)
$50K? You’re trying to bribe one with a stronger backbone than most, I guess.
deleted by creator
Nearly all of us pay more than these clowns do, when considering the percent of our incomes. And most of us are losing savings or being forced to budget to the extreme these days.
Fuck the ultra rich that never give back. People like Musk are a fucking scourge to our entire society.
They also create large amounts of value. You would get the same tax breaks if you provide the same value for society. You can hate capitalism all you want, but something you can’t argue against is that it motivates people to provide value
Yeah Covid showed us how all these billionaires create real value instead of the rank and file.
Oh wait, the economy came to a crawl and governments were printing money to keep it moving.
Most of the billionaire today inherited their fortune, and a lot of billionaire before them started on third base.
They provide no value, and if they disappeared tomorrow, we would fine.
“They provide no value, and if they disappeared tomorrow, we would fine.”
We would be fine, but only because someone else would quickly take their place.
Lol
Removed by mod
How about leaving them with a billion? That’s way more than they need.
Why such a % difference between Gates (0.3) and Bezos(3)? Is it based on the last year’s income?
Is it based on the last year’s income?
I thought wealth taxes are based on net worth, not on income?
While I agree with the sentiment it’s worth noting that this wealth isn’t usually liquid. It’s tied up in other assets. Like shares in companies. Liquidating those shares to pay a wealth tax will also dilute their influence in those companies. Not to mention liquidation comes with additional taxes.
Who cares. Make them sell their toys or seize them, if they refuse.
I wonder how having assets seized would affect their tax return. It could be that it would be beneficial for them to put up a fight and get the assets seized instead of liquidating them and then being subject to a huge tax bill.
The asset’s worth should be at least the value owed in taxes + 10% liquidation fee to nip shit like that in the bud. No more loopholes, no more leeway.
OK, so the headline figures need to be up rated to take into account the true amounts they’d need to pay.
You make this all sound like a bad thing.
Not bad, I’m just identifying knock-on effects that mean the people mentioned would pay substially more than the headline figure in the image.
Bill Gates looks like a loser with his 372kk compared to other guys.
