3 ms·

> But we should also be taxing them at 90+% by that point. Many (most?) billionaire's wealth is tied up in the stock of companies they own. Presumably they sho

> But we should also be taxing them at 90+% by that point. Many (most?) billionaire's wealth is tied up in the stock of companies they own. Presumably they should be required to sell their stock to give money to the government. What group of people do you expect to have the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars necessary to buy stock from company founders over the first decade? If I'm being honest that sounds like a great way to force American owned companies to sell control of their companies to foreign individuals and institutions.

thundergolfer 6y ago
This seems like a strange issue to get hung up on. In the event that the government is receiving hundreds of billions in tax revenue, that can just give money to the public so that they can buy the stock, or just accept the stock as tax payment. This would help with the inequality problem of ~10% of the richest Americans owning 90% of all stock. You could even have a baby bonds program where isn’t of cash sitting in a trust there’s an ETF with a bunch of stock from taxed billionaires.
- forrestthewoods 6y ago
  Ok so Bezos gives X% of his stock to the government per year. So either we’re actually socialists at that point or the US sells it to... somebody; so that cash can be given to or spent in the benefit of people who need actual money and not imaginary money. At some point you have to convert stock to cash. > This would help with the inequality problem of ~10% of the richest Americans owning 90% of all stock. Reducing the value of stock is certainly one way to reduce inequality. Of course that doesn’t _actually_ help anybody. Inequality is mostly, although not entirely, a second-order metric.
crazygringo 6y ago
This is already a solved problem, we tax income rather than wealth. I assumed it was clear from context the 90+% tax is an income tax. It only applies when they sell (or die, as inheritance tax). So none of your concerns over who would have the money, or whether foreigners would gain ownership, would have any relevance. But since you seem interested in wealth taxes, for people who advocate that instead, the strategy there is very different -- generally something like ~2% per year (2% yearly would add up to 70% after 60 years), which for public companies presents zero problem since the stock market is constantly purchasing shares anyways. And just like many companies have non-voting shares, selling those would prevent dilution of control.
- forrestthewoods 6y ago
  A 90% tax rate doesn’t actually mean the government collects that money. It just forces the money to be spent in different ways. Which is maybe a good idea! But that’s the actual end result. People love to quote US income tax rates of the past. But tax revenue to GDP has been almost perfectly flat since WW2. Despite huge fluctuations in personal income tax rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    The fact that tax revenue to GDP has been flat doesn't really matter, because that masks the fact of progressive taxation. The whole point of taxing billionaires 90% is so we can tax the lower class close to 0%, or even spend more on them than we collect (through education, social services, health care, etc.). It's totally fine if the overall tax revenue to GDP remains unchanged. The point isn't necessarily to raise more money, it's to address inequality by creating a level playing field for each new generation of citizens. And yes, taxation pretty much necessarily distorts spending. But loopholes are not actually that hard to fix, if we want to fix them. If we tax income and inheritance, and close taxation loopholes around things like setting up trusts/charities, then that billionaire's wealth is going to end up being collected one way or another.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

thundergolfer 6y ago

This seems like a strange issue to get hung up on. In the event that the government is receiving hundreds of billions in tax revenue, that can just give money to the public so that they can buy the stock, or just accept the stock as tax payment. This would help with the inequality problem of ~10% of the richest Americans owning 90% of all stock. You could even have a baby bonds program where isn’t of cash sitting in a trust there’s an ETF with a bunch of stock from taxed billionaires.

forrestthewoods 6y ago
Ok so Bezos gives X% of his stock to the government per year. So either we’re actually socialists at that point or the US sells it to... somebody; so that cash can be given to or spent in the benefit of people who need actual money and not imaginary money. At some point you have to convert stock to cash. > This would help with the inequality problem of ~10% of the richest Americans owning 90% of all stock. Reducing the value of stock is certainly one way to reduce inequality. Of course that doesn’t _actually_ help anybody. Inequality is mostly, although not entirely, a second-order metric.

crazygringo 6y ago

This is already a solved problem, we tax income rather than wealth. I assumed it was clear from context the 90+% tax is an income tax. It only applies when they sell (or die, as inheritance tax). So none of your concerns over who would have the money, or whether foreigners would gain ownership, would have any relevance. But since you seem interested in wealth taxes, for people who advocate that instead, the strategy there is very different -- generally something like ~2% per year (2% yearly would add up to 70% after 60 years), which for public companies presents zero problem since the stock market is constantly purchasing shares anyways. And just like many companies have non-voting shares, selling those would prevent dilution of control.

forrestthewoods 6y ago
A 90% tax rate doesn’t actually mean the government collects that money. It just forces the money to be spent in different ways. Which is maybe a good idea! But that’s the actual end result. People love to quote US income tax rates of the past. But tax revenue to GDP has been almost perfectly flat since WW2. Despite huge fluctuations in personal income tax rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law
- crazygringo 6y ago
  The fact that tax revenue to GDP has been flat doesn't really matter, because that masks the fact of progressive taxation. The whole point of taxing billionaires 90% is so we can tax the lower class close to 0%, or even spend more on them than we collect (through education, social services, health care, etc.). It's totally fine if the overall tax revenue to GDP remains unchanged. The point isn't necessarily to raise more money, it's to address inequality by creating a level playing field for each new generation of citizens. And yes, taxation pretty much necessarily distorts spending. But loopholes are not actually that hard to fix, if we want to fix them. If we tax income and inheritance, and close taxation loopholes around things like setting up trusts/charities, then that billionaire's wealth is going to end up being collected one way or another.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]