• thebartermyth [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 years ago

    I may be dumb here, but how a real version of this tax would work? This example is basically pocket change and they’d pay cash (numbers on a computer} through some form of credit (against equity, etc}.

    But if the tax left them with 1 million remaining for example, I assume that it’d basically be impossible to pay without changing the underlying ownership / means of production, no? The boring liquidity thing people say would actually apply because there wouldn’t be enough cash (even as computer numbers) to pay the tax. So the gov would have to “print” the money for it. And then the rich would get a loan from the fed to pay the tax,(?) which seems circuitous, but also it seems circuitous even if they got a loan from a normal bank. The super-rich would essentially then just be constantly building this really large debt that would exceed the total amount of money. Because no underlying ownership or production would change, it would basically be the same as now, right? literally just numbers on a computer? Taking debt forever with unlimited credit to pay the people who gave you the money?

    I’m sorta falling into a weird spot where:

    1. Taxes seem to not really be about funding government in the sense that the gov controls the money supply (unless that’s not true actually?), so, uh, are taxes a very dull game that everyone has to play? Is this what people are talking about when they say “providing base demand for the currency”?
    2. All of these numbers seem much larger than they need to be…? In that you could only really buy ‘investments’ with them. Mostly being further means of production or scams. I get that there are markets for really expensive things (yachts come to mind), but honestly comparatively those don’t really seem expensive. Is there some other use for money that I’m too poor to understand?
    3. Money does seem kinda fake as well tbh.

    So am I being uncharitable and there is a way for a tax to actually un-rich billionaires? Would they have to sell shares/debt to the state eventually building state ownership? It all seems a bit difficult and roundabout, but maybe that’s just my lack of understanding. Also please don’t respond with something from an econ class.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 years ago

    ‘You just hate billionaires!’ never makes sense.

    I hate that guy so much, I want him to have one hundred million dollars.

  • RoabeArt [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I always use seconds as an allegory to dollars when I explain to people the difference between thousand, million and billion (I did the number crunching in my head and rushed it, so if I made any errors lemme know).

    1000 seconds = 17 minutes

    100,000 seconds = 27 hours

    1 million seconds = 11 days

    1 billion seconds = 31.70 years

    148 billion seconds (Bezos’ net worth) = 4693 years

  • SeaJ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 years ago

    Wouldn’t a wealth tax be a yearly thing?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    102 years ago

    How would this be implemented? I don’t think the market would appreciate if all billionaires were suddenly forced to sell off billions worth of their shares. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to fight back against these tyrants, but not if it crashes the economy and makes the lives of workers worse.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 years ago

    Unpopular opinion: You’ll get the same amount out of the billionaires if you tax them 3% or 97%.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        I’m not being apathetic, just pragmatic. If you want to bring about positive change you need a better solution than something that has failed and will continue to do so.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Remember: Every dollar you don’t tax them goes straight to funding far right death squads and inciting genocide against minority groups.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      862 years ago

      It’s really insane that we legally treat the tenth billion dollars at the same level as a working persons house or car.

      Everything is legally just “property”.

      No, fuck that.

      The law should protect the first million of every citizen with ferver. (and when we tackle wealth inequality, most people will have this level of wealth at the end of their working life. The fact that most currently don’t is due to inequality. )

      Up until 100 million, it should be taxed at a reasonable level. Because at some level, it’s fair that people prefer watching Taylor Swift instead of me sing on a stage.

      Above that it should be taxed heavily.

      And above a billion, it should be just confiscated. As in, oopsie, our system malfunctioned, you weren’t supposed to end up with more wealth than what a thousand normal people would save up after a whole lifetime of work, so we are taking it back.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The problem is that this wealth is ownership in companies they made. If you start a company and it becomes too successful, Is it right that we really just forcefully take that ownership away from you? Who wants to start or keep a company in a country that takes away your company from you if it’s too successful?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          There are loopholes that can be closed, but won’t because the majority of American politicians are also rich assholes. I do think most of the ideas that get bandied out are dumb as sin, however.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          82 years ago

          True. But generally I think giant companies cause more systemic problems than they solve. So maybe we don’t really need them.

          After we die back to a manageable level from climate change we should try to remember that and prohibit it happening again.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            We don’t really need giant companies? Ok, sure… personally I like my high tech options these large companies offer, and their ability to offer lower prices thanks to the economics of scale. If you want to pay more for everything then feel free to go to small companies, personally I prefer to pay less for the same stuff from large companies.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Meanwhile the downsides are invasion of privacy, destruction of the environment, poor treatment of workers and on and on.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                If employees are treated so poorly they would leave, it’s not like we force people to keep their job. If you prefer to pay more, it’s your choice to buy from smaller companies.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  No, it isnt their choice, and yes, you dontorce people to keep their jobs. The constant stealing of value and hoovering it towards yourselves keeps people bound to a neofuedal system. This is ABNORMAL. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a prosperous economy. The system you espouse is a PROVEN FAILURE. We have decades of tax law to PROVE THAT YOU ARE A FAILURE and not at all a success.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          262 years ago

          “I won’t start a company because it may be worth over a billion one day and that would only leave me with hundreds of millions of dollars. That doesn’t seem worthwhile,” thought no one ever in your hypothetical.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            52 years ago

            No, it’s more like

            " why start a company when if it becomes too successful it will literally be taken away from me for being too successful". I don’t believe we should be taking away businesses from business owners, do you?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              At some point you just have to give them a gold sticker, a “Congratulations! You won capitalism!” plaque, and leave something for the rest of humanity.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                42 years ago

                So your argument is “Fuck them because they have more than me”. Is that about right? We can steal from them because they have more to steal?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              72 years ago

              Or maybe you’re the successful owner and you reward the people that made you successful with a larger portion of that success?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              If you’ve gone public with the company yes, you’ve set up the situation where paying your due means giving up some control of the company. That was a you decision. But congratulations you’re worth hundreds of millions. If you find yourself thinking that’s not enough you’re deeply broken and one of the most selfish people in human history, a true 0.01%er.

              And again, this is a billion dollar baseline people are talking about. This is the same as people upset about the possibility of inheritance taxes because then they’d only get $10,000,000 tax free. No one is not starting a business because of that, which was your original argument.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 years ago

                It’s one thing to willfully sell some company shares to investors, it’s another to be forced to give up more shares just to pay taxes on wealth because of those shares.

                This brings up an interesting point though, let’s say it’s a private company worth billions, where one person owns 100% of the shares, do you force them to sell also?

                People may not start a business with the intent to be a billionaire, but if we say that if you make it that far we will just tax you so much you will be forced to sell away your ownership, who would keep their company here when they get close to that? I think it’s telling that many of the most successful worldwide companies are US companies.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          All these people already sell the stock of their own companies to diversify their holdings or to buy a yacht, island or Twitter.

          Selling stock on the market to pay the tax man is no different.

          They still keep a billion dollars worth of stock, so its not like they end up poor.

          And the government can “forcefully” take a third of a working mans income, which is way worse than taxing wealth. Go cry me a river.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            They don’t actually sell stock in a lot of cases, they keep it and take out loans against it. That can only go so far though, if you are like the rest of the crazy people here and suggest we just tax billionaires until they are no longer billionaires, then that won’t work.

            Why not take the income of these business owners? Just like we take the income of everyone else? Why special rules for taxing this specific group of people you don’t like?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              52 years ago

              If they can take out loans to buys islands, Yachts and overpriced tweet companies, then let them take out loans to pay tax.

              They only have five figure incomes thanks to the loopholes, so that isn’t a fair level of taxation compared to their actual capital gains that they artificially keep as “unrealized” on paper. A trick unavailable to us mere mortals.

              You’re a tool.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 years ago

                It’s clear you don’t know how things work at all. You can’t expect to tax someone billions every year and not have to sell the thing causing such a huge tax burden. This isn’t an infinite money glitch, the loan thing can only go so far.

                Also, unrealized gains are a real thing, stocks go up and down, and the change in value is unrealized until it’s sold. If a stock goes up $100 that isn’t $100 in my pocket, because tomorrow it could go down $200. If you want to tax these unrealized gains, then you should be paying out the unrealized losses as well. You would also be screwing up the middle class retirement funds, so thanks for that.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  You have a big mouth for someone who has zero clue.

                  Obviously, taxes are levied on a yearly basis and not every day, so daily fluctuations in value are irrelevant.

                  And retirement funds are tax exempt, so they will not be screwed.

                  And yes, people who can’t afford to pay property taxes have to sell property. That is a reality we all have to deal with, so why not let the super rich also deal with it.

                  Dude, get some education.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Or, crazy thought, make it so they can’t take out loans against their stock; especially if it’s not for private use! Maybe that way, people like Musk will be forced to give themselves salaries that can be taxed by the government.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          122 years ago

          Yes, I’m sure if Jeff Bezos were worth 10 billion dollars less he would have just said forget it I’ll flip burgers instead. I don’t think you need to rip their company from them, you just need to tax them.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            62 years ago

            You are literally suggesting to rip the company away from them though. They are only worth billions because of that value, if you rant to tax them billions where do you think they are going to get that money? They only have one option, to sell their ownership in their own company. If that’s not ripping their company away from them I don’t know what is.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Are other people paying taxes described as “ripping” away their ownership in “x”? What a bizarre framing. Also, Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon, so he’s already given away ownership of the company. He has assets, and they should be taxed

              How does Amazon exist? How do they continue to operate? They run on the Internet created by the US government, they deliver packages by flying through US airspace, and driving on roads paved by several levels of government. Their factories don’t burn down because of municipal fire departments, and aren’t burglarized because of municipal police departments. Why shouldn’t they pay for those things, which they make much more use of than you or I?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Others aren’t using taxes on wealth though. Should the middle class be taxed on the amount in their retirement funds also? Or the amount in their bank accounts?

                10% of Amazon is still a lot, it’s still a lot of power.

                You think Amazon doesn’t pay for any of that? They pay for their use of such things like we all do. They do get some discounts thanks to scale, but they are paying way more than you or me.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  The problem is that they are all employing tax avoidance schemes. Corporations like Amazon will spin off their IP to a separate off-shore corporation. Then they’ll pay that corporation for the use of their IP. That reduces Amazon’s profit to near zero, meaning they’re not paying taxes. The off shore corporation doesn’t pay taxes either.

                  People like Bezos won’t take salaries, because they’re taxed. Instead they’ll take stock. Then they’ll take loans against that stock, so they don’t pay taxes. They just roll that loan into another loan and continue to live off of it, never paying taxes because they have no “income”.

                  So yes, their wealth should be taxed. Otherwise the richest among us pay next to nothing and yet benefit the most from what our taxes buy. If we weren’t adequately capturing taxes from the middle class, then sure, but that’s not the case.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          If the company becomes too successful, maybe there’s not just my effort that went into achieving that.

          Somehow “you got paid, fuck off” is acceptable, but “you reaped the benefits, fuck off” is not.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            What do employees get for their efforts? Oh yeah, that’s right, they get a salary and maybe even bonuses. What are you suggesting we do the owners? Oh, punish them by removing their company from them? Yeah, they will surely keep the company in the US if that is their reward.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              When the country gives them incentives to IMPROVE SOCIETY and they refuse to do so, you pubish them if they attempt to leave the country. Everything you have espoused is entirely one-sided and demonstrates absolute disdain and hatred for the country and economy that benefits you. Why should you be soared a guillotine?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                How can you talk about improving society and in the same sentence day we should punish them for trying to leave? Is that what we should do, punish people for moving their business elsewhere? Maybe ban their business from the country so nobody benefits?

                You are promoting a more hostile and authoritarian country under the guise of “better for everyone”, it’s insane.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              Why do like sucking capitalist dick so much? The only way owners get so rich is because they are exploiting labor.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        At a billion you get a small plaque that says ‘yay you won capitalism’, they name a park bench after you and you replay from scratch.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        292 years ago

        you weren’t supposed to end up with more wealth than what a thousand normal people would save up after a while lifetime of work

        I actively try to cheat at every single-player game that I play. I still don’t think I’ve accumulated a billion anything other than self-criticisms. Even that’s questionable.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    572 years ago

    Wealth taxes are stupid. That said, nobody needs multiple hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The solution is to have regulations and laws in place that prevent them getting this large in the first place. The fact that Amazon and Google own 90% of the internet is absolutely fucked.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    372 years ago

    I’d be willing to be taxed into oblivion if I knew it’d mean everyone else could lead full lives. And I make nothing.

    Now imagine the good their excess wealth could do.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      Fuck it, I’m willing to die if it came down to it to ensure the safety and prosperity of my countrymen. And I actually hate most of my countrymen.

      If we ask and freely give such sacrifices from the working class, then asking the elite to stop hoarding gold like a dragon really shouldn’t be a big deal.

      I do respect Warren Buffet for being honest about it. It’s up to us (the public) and the politicians who work for us to change the system to make it more fair.

      There was also another billionaire who gave his money away and is no longer a billionaire. Mad respect for the guy, but he is a rare breed. We have to fix the system, not depend on charity.

  • nostradiel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Yeah and maybe also cutting down on their non-profit organisations scheme to avoid taxes would be nice…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

    consider the following: We forcefully seize the means of production and get rid off all parasites