5 ms·

2% annual wealth tax on wealth over 200M. 70% top marginal tax rate on incoming over $10M in a year. Then it wouldn't be illegal to be a billionaire, but it w

2% annual wealth tax on wealth over 200M. 70% top marginal tax rate on incoming over $10M in a year. Then it wouldn't be illegal to be a billionaire, but it would be much harder, and would mean you were constantly contributing a significant amount back to society if you're able to maintain that level of wealth.

malwrar 6y ago
How would this work for someone who is a billionaire by means of illiquid assets like stock in the company they founded?
- zouhair 6y ago
  They will have to sell to pay taxes.
  - malwrar 6y ago
    And slowly lose control over their business? What if they aren't publicly traded?
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      They could also issue dividends from the company to share-holders. This wouldn't weakened control of their ownership interests, but it would reduce the overall size of the company itself.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  They would have a couple of options: They could sell stock—maintaining the total size of the company but losing some control over it, in order to pay taxes. Alternatively, they could reduce the size of the company by having the company issue dividends on the stock to shareholders, in an amount enough to cover taxes.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> contributing a significant amount back to society You misspelled “the oligarchs who run the government” as “society”
SllX 6y ago
You have thought this through more. 1. How would you conduct this assessment? 2. Now that you have figured out the legality of your position, why is this moral to do?
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > How would you conduct this assessment? The same way the IRS conducts income assessments. Some additional forms that you have to fill out declaring your wealth at tax-time. For the vast majority of people you could add a form on the IRS-1040 that is a single check box. "Check this box if you have less than $100,000,000 in total assets". If you have more than $100,000,000 in assets, then you have to fill out an additional schedule(s) detailing your assets. If your assets are over $200,000,000 then you're taxed on your assets that exceed that amount. > Now that you have figured out the legality of your position I actually am not 100% convinced of the legality of the wealth tax. I think we've figured out the practicalities of it. I think it may be an open question as to whether a wealth tax is presently constitutional. I don't think it's obviously unconstitutional, but I also don't think it's obviously constitutional. > why is this moral to do? I'll play if you will. First, you explain the moral position of allowing people to starve, and to die of the elements when others have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime. Once you explain the morality of a national with the resources such as ours allowing people to die in the elements, then I'll go ahead and take a pass at the morality of the wealth tax. Which is to say: I think it is immoral not to have such a tax.

malwrar 6y ago

How would this work for someone who is a billionaire by means of illiquid assets like stock in the company they founded?

zouhair 6y ago
They will have to sell to pay taxes.
- malwrar 6y ago
  And slowly lose control over their business? What if they aren't publicly traded?
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    They could also issue dividends from the company to share-holders. This wouldn't weakened control of their ownership interests, but it would reduce the overall size of the company itself.
ncallaway 6y ago
They would have a couple of options: They could sell stock—maintaining the total size of the company but losing some control over it, in order to pay taxes. Alternatively, they could reduce the size of the company by having the company issue dividends on the stock to shareholders, in an amount enough to cover taxes.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> contributing a significant amount back to society You misspelled “the oligarchs who run the government” as “society”

SllX 6y ago

You have thought this through more. 1. How would you conduct this assessment? 2. Now that you have figured out the legality of your position, why is this moral to do?

ncallaway 6y ago
> How would you conduct this assessment? The same way the IRS conducts income assessments. Some additional forms that you have to fill out declaring your wealth at tax-time. For the vast majority of people you could add a form on the IRS-1040 that is a single check box. "Check this box if you have less than $100,000,000 in total assets". If you have more than $100,000,000 in assets, then you have to fill out an additional schedule(s) detailing your assets. If your assets are over $200,000,000 then you're taxed on your assets that exceed that amount. > Now that you have figured out the legality of your position I actually am not 100% convinced of the legality of the wealth tax. I think we've figured out the practicalities of it. I think it may be an open question as to whether a wealth tax is presently constitutional. I don't think it's obviously unconstitutional, but I also don't think it's obviously constitutional. > why is this moral to do? I'll play if you will. First, you explain the moral position of allowing people to starve, and to die of the elements when others have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime. Once you explain the morality of a national with the resources such as ours allowing people to die in the elements, then I'll go ahead and take a pass at the morality of the wealth tax. Which is to say: I think it is immoral not to have such a tax.