7 ms·

One thing that taxing billionaires will do is drive the wealth in "Foundations" that are controlled by them. If you have a billion dollars, all your pleasures

One thing that taxing billionaires will do is drive the wealth in "Foundations" that are controlled by them. If you have a billion dollars, all your pleasures and needs are taken care of. The use for the excess money is ego and power. Thus, if it is tax advantageous to put the money into a foundation, then you will do it. Does anyone really draw a distinction between Bill Gates giving money to a cause and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation giving money to a cause? While the Gates Foundation is doing great things, it is probably very ego gratifying to have the top scientists and philanthropists and heads of governments coming to you asking for money. It is also a very powerful position to be in charge of so much money. Thus, if we have a wealth tax, we will see the money go from being the billionaire's personal money, into being part of a foundation named after the billionaire that they control.

pmoriarty 7y ago
Let's close one loophole at at time. Foundations can be tackled next.
- manigandham 7y ago
  What "loophole" is being closed here? Having wealth?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Excessive wealth (and therefore, power) is a bug. A wealth tax is a hotfix. Foundations can be addressed through the requirement that donations and control of the non profit receiving the gift is arms length, with punitive penalties for a failure to abide by said requirement. Gates and Buffett can still donate to a foundation, but then they aren't able to control it. Most Americans will never be a millionaire or a billionaire. This is statistics, not feelings. There's no point in them supporting policies enabling such disparity in the economic system.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Who defines excessive? How will this solve disparities by giving more money to the govt to spend poorly?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Democracy. I'm actually fairly happy with how government operates for the most part. If you take issue, get involved. Complaining is free, but not impactful.
        manigandham 7y ago
        This is a discussion forum. How is the government going to solve wealth disparity with more money?
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Labor regulations (an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage). Universal healthcare, preventing destitution from medical expenses and increasing worker mobility. Subsidized education preventing the need to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a degree employers can require at no cost to themselves. Big fan of a Green New Deal; the country needs a massive infrastructure overhaul, and it'd provide quality jobs to participants. You squeeze more from capital (who has been raking labor over the coals for the last 40 years) for labor. What's capital going to do, leave the country? We'll tax it on the way out, and we still get to keep the market if you want access to it from the outside. Disclaimer: My politics are firmly in the democratic socialist camp. Allow success, but not too much, and make failure cheaper and less painful.
        manigandham 7y ago
        All of those things can be done with the money we have now, while probably costing less. Taxes and insurance are already socialist. I see no point in "democratic socialism" that isn't just better spending like I talked about, outside of some extreme views on limiting wealth. My point remains that if these policies don't change now, more taxes will change nothing while concentrating more money/power into a few political hands that have proven to be bad at spending it.
  - notus 7y ago
    Having a disproportionate amount of wealth while others can't even meet basic physical needs in the same country.
    - tluyben2 7y ago
      Yes, but how? I agree and have spent a lot of (essentially useless) time on thinking about that, but this is complex unless you are a despot. If we have no privacy left, you monitor all that you do on any foreign or local card/transfer etc (you ban crypto and put insanely high fines/prison on using it) and if that seems not to match what you reported as income/capgains/etc, you get an audit. What is the point of being rich and evading taxes if you cannot spend it? And if you move it to foundations etc, at least you cannot get to it, nor can you family if they live in this (fictional?) country as they would have to explain the same things. In a society (probably a democracy?) where people value privacy and non-draconian laws, I cannot figure out how to make this work. Besides having educated and patriot people who actually would choose to pay taxes for the greater good. But these people do not start on their own (Bill Gates example of not minding to pay more tax) and they usually believe they can do better things with their money (for humanity). And that is usually not the case or way too biased; their right if taxing is paid fairly, but if evading, a problem.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      How is that a loophole? Wealth inequality is inevitable in any society. The problem is how govt spends money, not how much it collects.
    - foogazi 7y ago
      What’s the link between those two? And how does taking money from the billionaire help the people that can’t meet physical needs?
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    The loophole is that the largest taxes paid in the US are paid on income rather than wealth, which allows the most richest citizens to evade taxes by having a relatively small income while having an amount of wealth that is so large that it's hard for most people to wrap their brains around. The US used to have an income tax that was over 90% for the highest income bracket. Bringing it back would be a step in the right direction, but not enough, as non-income-based wealth would be untouched. If it was up to me, I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%. It's laughable that these billionaires are complaining at being taxed a mere 6% on wealth over $1 billion.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Wealth is just a static number. It goes up through income. You're talking about a double taxation for maintaining what you have which was already taxed on the way in. There are different kinds of incomes like capital gains which is a different discussion and one that many people agree with raising. > "I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%" You'll lose most tax income. Every entrepreneur will leave. And the middle class (which builds up more than that over a lifetime) will be decimated. It's a great way to crash a nation.
      - pmoriarty 7y ago
        "Every entrepreneur will leave." It's been a long time since I looked in to this, but it used to be the case that if you gave up your US citizenship while having a net worth of over $100,000, it was assumed by the government that you were doing so for the purposes of tax evasion, and they'd continue to tax you for the next ten years. The same could be done here, with the government getting 10 bites of 6% at wealth over $1 billion if the billionaire tries to run away. Taxation could also be made retroactive, if there was a political will to do it. If some entrepreneurs leave others will step in to take their place. As for the middle class being "decimated", I doubt it, as the median net worth in the US is only around $70k. The majority of Americans won't be affected by taxes on millionaires.
        manigandham 7y ago
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Basically, yes. Imagine maximum salaries or maximum wages; it's along the same lines. At some point, when that much wealth is concentrated into so few people, the people invariably become so big that they cannot help but distort society with their whims and preferences. Philanthropic foundations are certainly preferable to estates or family businesses, because of the implied external benefits to the public at large. However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well? In fact, if we imagine public management of such funds, then we need only have a political process in order to establish a management policy. But, as you can see, that's just taxation! So we are not really so far off from an improved alignment of incentives. Why are you interested in keeping billionaires rich? They are orders of magnitude richer than you, and you are to them as an ant, or perhaps a cute kitten, and yet you defend them. Are you really so insulted at the idea of sharing the wealth of our nation with its people?
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well? In fact, if we imagine public management of such funds, then we need only have a political process in order to establish a management policy. I think this assumes far higher governmental competence and efficiency than is warranted.
      - lidHanteyk 7y ago
        Ah, yes, and what have the Romans done for us recently? If you want something steered by the public, then we are talking about politics. The messiness is inherent to the problematic nature of large-scale planning and logistics, and a corporate veneer of neat tidiness is probably not good for transparent finances and accounting.
    - mrep 7y ago
      > maximum salaries or maximum wages Yah, we tried that in WW2 and now we are stuck with employer paid healthcare. I'd rather not.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hos234 7y ago
The Gates Foundation is definitely better than running a pedo island or putting up another building in Harvard, but whether it's outcomes are better than anyone else is not clear - https://www.forbes.com/sites/williammeehan/2019/10/25/philanthropy-not-the-problem-not-the-solution/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williammeehan/2019/10/25/philan...
m463 7y ago
It could be that some "egotistical and powerful" people think they can do something more meaningful with the money than the U.S. government would. I'm reminded of the John Carmack article on Government and Taxes. "So much of the government just grinds up money, like shoveling cash into a wood chipper." It's worth reading (sorry can't find a better link, use this link and click to expand the first comment) https://www.riverdavesplace.com/forums/threads/entreprenuer-john-carmack-on-the-government-and-taxes.39077/ https://www.riverdavesplace.com/forums/threads/entreprenuer-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
Easy game : Tax the foundation. Everybody knows these foundations are a way to avoid tax and keep wealth intact.

pmoriarty 7y ago

Let's close one loophole at at time. Foundations can be tackled next.

manigandham 7y ago
What "loophole" is being closed here? Having wealth?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Excessive wealth (and therefore, power) is a bug. A wealth tax is a hotfix. Foundations can be addressed through the requirement that donations and control of the non profit receiving the gift is arms length, with punitive penalties for a failure to abide by said requirement. Gates and Buffett can still donate to a foundation, but then they aren't able to control it. Most Americans will never be a millionaire or a billionaire. This is statistics, not feelings. There's no point in them supporting policies enabling such disparity in the economic system.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Who defines excessive? How will this solve disparities by giving more money to the govt to spend poorly?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Democracy. I'm actually fairly happy with how government operates for the most part. If you take issue, get involved. Complaining is free, but not impactful.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        This is a discussion forum. How is the government going to solve wealth disparity with more money?
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Labor regulations (an example would be increasing the minimum wage, $15 an hour gets thrown around and would provide workers with a living wage). Universal healthcare, preventing destitution from medical expenses and increasing worker mobility. Subsidized education preventing the need to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a degree employers can require at no cost to themselves. Big fan of a Green New Deal; the country needs a massive infrastructure overhaul, and it'd provide quality jobs to participants. You squeeze more from capital (who has been raking labor over the coals for the last 40 years) for labor. What's capital going to do, leave the country? We'll tax it on the way out, and we still get to keep the market if you want access to it from the outside. Disclaimer: My politics are firmly in the democratic socialist camp. Allow success, but not too much, and make failure cheaper and less painful.
        manigandham 7y ago
        All of those things can be done with the money we have now, while probably costing less. Taxes and insurance are already socialist. I see no point in "democratic socialism" that isn't just better spending like I talked about, outside of some extreme views on limiting wealth. My point remains that if these policies don't change now, more taxes will change nothing while concentrating more money/power into a few political hands that have proven to be bad at spending it.
- notus 7y ago
  Having a disproportionate amount of wealth while others can't even meet basic physical needs in the same country.
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    Yes, but how? I agree and have spent a lot of (essentially useless) time on thinking about that, but this is complex unless you are a despot. If we have no privacy left, you monitor all that you do on any foreign or local card/transfer etc (you ban crypto and put insanely high fines/prison on using it) and if that seems not to match what you reported as income/capgains/etc, you get an audit. What is the point of being rich and evading taxes if you cannot spend it? And if you move it to foundations etc, at least you cannot get to it, nor can you family if they live in this (fictional?) country as they would have to explain the same things. In a society (probably a democracy?) where people value privacy and non-draconian laws, I cannot figure out how to make this work. Besides having educated and patriot people who actually would choose to pay taxes for the greater good. But these people do not start on their own (Bill Gates example of not minding to pay more tax) and they usually believe they can do better things with their money (for humanity). And that is usually not the case or way too biased; their right if taxing is paid fairly, but if evading, a problem.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    How is that a loophole? Wealth inequality is inevitable in any society. The problem is how govt spends money, not how much it collects.
  - foogazi 7y ago
    What’s the link between those two? And how does taking money from the billionaire help the people that can’t meet physical needs?
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  The loophole is that the largest taxes paid in the US are paid on income rather than wealth, which allows the most richest citizens to evade taxes by having a relatively small income while having an amount of wealth that is so large that it's hard for most people to wrap their brains around. The US used to have an income tax that was over 90% for the highest income bracket. Bringing it back would be a step in the right direction, but not enough, as non-income-based wealth would be untouched. If it was up to me, I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%. It's laughable that these billionaires are complaining at being taxed a mere 6% on wealth over $1 billion.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Wealth is just a static number. It goes up through income. You're talking about a double taxation for maintaining what you have which was already taxed on the way in. There are different kinds of incomes like capital gains which is a different discussion and one that many people agree with raising. > "I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%" You'll lose most tax income. Every entrepreneur will leave. And the middle class (which builds up more than that over a lifetime) will be decimated. It's a great way to crash a nation.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      "Every entrepreneur will leave." It's been a long time since I looked in to this, but it used to be the case that if you gave up your US citizenship while having a net worth of over $100,000, it was assumed by the government that you were doing so for the purposes of tax evasion, and they'd continue to tax you for the next ten years. The same could be done here, with the government getting 10 bites of 6% at wealth over $1 billion if the billionaire tries to run away. Taxation could also be made retroactive, if there was a political will to do it. If some entrepreneurs leave others will step in to take their place. As for the middle class being "decimated", I doubt it, as the median net worth in the US is only around $70k. The majority of Americans won't be affected by taxes on millionaires.
      - manigandham 7y ago
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Basically, yes. Imagine maximum salaries or maximum wages; it's along the same lines. At some point, when that much wealth is concentrated into so few people, the people invariably become so big that they cannot help but distort society with their whims and preferences. Philanthropic foundations are certainly preferable to estates or family businesses, because of the implied external benefits to the public at large. However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well? In fact, if we imagine public management of such funds, then we need only have a political process in order to establish a management policy. But, as you can see, that's just taxation! So we are not really so far off from an improved alignment of incentives. Why are you interested in keeping billionaires rich? They are orders of magnitude richer than you, and you are to them as an ant, or perhaps a cute kitten, and yet you defend them. Are you really so insulted at the idea of sharing the wealth of our nation with its people?
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > However, wouldn't it be even better if the benefits were not just received by the public, but steered by the public as well? In fact, if we imagine public management of such funds, then we need only have a political process in order to establish a management policy. I think this assumes far higher governmental competence and efficiency than is warranted.
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Ah, yes, and what have the Romans done for us recently? If you want something steered by the public, then we are talking about politics. The messiness is inherent to the problematic nature of large-scale planning and logistics, and a corporate veneer of neat tidiness is probably not good for transparent finances and accounting.
  - mrep 7y ago
    > maximum salaries or maximum wages Yah, we tried that in WW2 and now we are stuck with employer paid healthcare. I'd rather not.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hos234 7y ago

The Gates Foundation is definitely better than running a pedo island or putting up another building in Harvard, but whether it's outcomes are better than anyone else is not clear - https://www.forbes.com/sites/williammeehan/2019/10/25/philanthropy-not-the-problem-not-the-solution/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williammeehan/2019/10/25/philan...

m463 7y ago

It could be that some "egotistical and powerful" people think they can do something more meaningful with the money than the U.S. government would. I'm reminded of the John Carmack article on Government and Taxes. "So much of the government just grinds up money, like shoveling cash into a wood chipper." It's worth reading (sorry can't find a better link, use this link and click to expand the first comment) https://www.riverdavesplace.com/forums/threads/entreprenuer-john-carmack-on-the-government-and-taxes.39077/ https://www.riverdavesplace.com/forums/threads/entreprenuer-...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago

Easy game : Tax the foundation. Everybody knows these foundations are a way to avoid tax and keep wealth intact.