14 ms·
Millionaires call for an emergency tax on billionaires
- captainredbeard 5y ago_Some_ millionaires call for...
- amelius 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
- captainredbeard 5y agoPerhaps in a different context. In this one, I am pointing out that the headline implies that millionaires, as a collective group, are pushing for taxing billionaires. By adding "some", it points out the absurdity of the title. If I were talking about a group of people in a "No True Scotsman" sense, then yes, "some" would be a weasel word. Thanks for learning!
- EarlKing 5y ago...a wealth transfer to Moderna. There. Saved everyone a read.
- V-eHGsd_ 5y agowait, is "covid is a ploy to transfer wealth to the companies providing a vaccine against the greatest global pandemic in a century" an actual anti-vax talking point? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
- EarlKing 5y agoVaccines do not pay for themselves. The proposed tax is literally about paying for the vaccines. So you're literally talking about giving out corporate welfare. Want to silence this talking point? Abandon the effort to tax people to pay for the vaccine and obtain them purely at-cost so Moderna, et al. are unable to use "the greatest global pandemic in a century" to make a mint. I mean, if this is really about getting the vaccine out then you should have no problem backing a proposal like that... RIGHT?
- david927 5y agoUntil there's a wealth floor -- until everyone is fed, sheltered and has access to education, there needs to be a wealth cap. We, as a collective humanity, should not allow anyone to have more than, say, $20 million, until the basic needs of others have been met.
- randomhodler84 5y agoThe problem is that inflation destroys the value of money quicker than you realize. Nice houses can cost $30M in alpha cities. $20M is a goal post that will need to be moved regularly. It’s too difficult to say what is “enough”.
- tclancy 5y agoThis is a common response but who's problem are you solving? How many people are affected by this? And it seems modern state banks aren't as scared as inflation at the macro level, why do we need to be concerned?
- onion2k 5y agoSo a wealth cap would also help to fix the insane inflation of house prices? Is there a downside?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jayjader 5y agoThen don't pin to a dollar amount, pin to relative wealth available in the world/country/region. Something like estimated total accumulated wealth / total pop. Inflation destroys the value of money, not the underlying goods or services. Whether there are 100 dollars to go around or 10 billion, for the same "physical context"/material reality a rule along the lines of "no more than %5 of total wealth accumulated in 1 person's account" seems inflation-resistant.
- randomhodler84 5y agoHow about this — we all agree that the entirety of wealth in the universe is made up of 21 Million bitcoin. Then the wealth cap is 21 million bitcoin. Of course, nobody can have it all, in fact, if they try they will only drive up the relative cost per unit. If this seems insane to you, consider the insanity of trying to define a fixed container size with an infinite flow of water.
- api 5y agoThe wealth distribution hockey stick is getting so extreme pretty soon it's going to be "workers... and upper middle class professionals... and millionaires... of the world unite!" Anyone with less than a billion dollars is the proletariat.
- tclancy 5y agoAll you have to lose is your Lexus!
- habeebtc 5y agoSame as it ever was. Who needs to pay more taxes? Those people over there.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adam12 5y agoWho needs to pay more taxes? Those people who aren't paying their fair share. Especially those who are using their wealth / power to get out of paying taxes.
- ericd 5y agoPaper value is not the same as realized value, and doesn’t make sense to be included as part of someone’s “fair share”. Especially true when assets are inflated to all time highs. People are willing to buy tiny fractions of Amazon stock at its current valuation, no one is offering to buy all or even most of it at that valuation.
- bradlys 5y agoShort of being in a recession - assets are almost always at all time highs dude.
- ericd 5y agoYes, I'm aware that all-time high prices are pretty normal, like anyone who's spent more than a couple of years investing. The current highs aren't just in nominal price terms, though, but also in a lot of normalized metrics, and that's not so normal.
- standardUser 5y agoTaxing the people who are accumulating all of the money is the only thing that makes sense. Writing it off as a folksy trope does not change that fact.
- MichaelRazum 5y agoHonestly so much time is spent on taxes. In terms of avoiding, discussing and modifying. Will there ever be a simple and easy solution?
- adam12 5y agoWe could start by overturning "Citizens United". I don't have any hope for that happening any time soon.
- toast0 5y agoWhy overturn it, when you could charge a 30% federal tax on (political) advertisements, and maybe a 10% state tax.
- bcrl 5y agoThat's because it's not a discussion about taxes - rather, it's a discussion about the inequity present in capitalism as currently implemented.
- MichaelRazum 5y agoExactly. But nothing new. That stuff existed since mankind exists. Still we didn’t figured out a solution.
- Geee 5y agoLol. First they create a wealth gap with inflation and then all private property should be sold overseas to feed the poor. Sounds like a good plan.
- yayr 5y agoThis may be unpopular, but the hard thing in this discussion is to differentiate between consumption and investment. It does not help much to take wealth in terms of equity paper money away from people who know how to invest it efficiently and distribute it. On the other hand, there are minimum basic needs for consumption of food, health services, shelter, education etc. I agree that the system to finance those services is broken. But then fix the system and don't only focus on punishing people when they build economically viable organisations that even help to support the economy in such a crisis.
- jppope 5y ago> "the hard thing in this discussion is to differentiate between consumption and investment" Indeed. Even harder is to acknowledge our government already has enough tax money, and further tax revenue will not be used prudently, in the best interest of our country.
- IgorPartola 5y agoCitation needed.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoCitation also needed for the opposite position - that the government will use the money well.
- IgorPartola 5y agoSure. But here is the thing: what consequences to billionaires face if they use their wealth in stupid and unproductive ways? At least for the government we have some recourse (elections, protests, public hearings).
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBut to the degree that the reason for doing this is "the rich shouldn't have that much money", to that degree there's no pressure on the government to use the money wisely. And I don't like your question. Sure, billionaires can use their wealth badly. Why should they face consequences (other than no longer having what they have wasted)? That someone could misuse something is not a reason to take it from them and give it to someone else who could also misuse it. That is, I don't like your question because it implies that they should only be allowed to keep it if they are using it "properly". I think that the rule of law calls for a higher bar than that before taking peoples' stuff.
- endisneigh 5y agoI have no problem with billionaires personally. I do have a problem with people being billionaires if the "value" they've created is negative (obviously this is my opinion). Consider two billionaries: - One creates a cold nuclear fusion device the size of a 10" x 10" x 10" cube. You can plug anything to this device and it will power it, indefinitely. - Another gets little boys and girls addicted to some sort of super candy, irresistible for those under 13. Surely one of these people is more valuable
- hackeraccount 5y agoWhat's the line from The Big Labowski, "That's like... your opinion man." That said the first thing is a bomb. The second thing is a - presumably - harmless addiction foisted on a group that's not really in a position to harm other people and will have a reasonably hard time harming themselves. I mean, children, sure but honestly they don't really have all that much agency. There's a lot of upside on #1 but I'd expect a huge amount of downside too. #2 doesn't have any upside but I don't see a lot of downside either.
- mdp2021 5y agoYou seem to be implying that governments should be more attentive in taxing externalities.
- sudhirj 5y agoIndirectly, yeah. Correctly calculating and taxing externalities might have prevented 'bad' billionaires from being made, but doesn't give us a plan on where to go from here. Lots of gray area, though. Lots of arguments were made against Gates when Microsoft's value increased with anti-competitive practices, but it's hard to argue with what it's been spent on today.
- lamontcg 5y agoThe problem is that then billionaires spend millions on media and social media campaigns to carpet bomb people with the idea that up is down and that their venture isn't really a negative externality.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoIf i got taxed at the same rate as millionaire and billionaires did, i'd be rich too. Just tax them at the same rate you tax Johnny Average. edit: and tax their companies at the same rate local mom-and-pop stores/bakeries/... get taxed.
- mjburgess 5y agoMost "billionaires" have no where near a billion to tax. This is the problem with net worth, its a made-up number. Most billionaires own companies which are "worth in principle" something to someone. You can only tax that if you force them to sell, and if they can find a buyer. Do that, and the number of billionaires would precipitously drop from a global few thousand, to a few hundred.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoDepends... We've seen the panama papers, and all the other ways to avod taxes. And also, compare taxes eg. amazon pays to taxes your local mom-and-pop store pays (percentual)... [0] [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-i...
- maccolgan 5y agomight as well ask why that entire system exists in the first place?
- ghostwriter 5y agoThese millionaires are useful idiots, it will be fun to see how their houses get confiscated in the name of further down equality one day. Everyone must be equal, and the most equal place on earth is a collective graveyard, a thing that collectivists are so succesful at replicating every single time they try to bring equality into your lives.
- breatheoften 5y agoSeems like they are proposing a wealth growth tax rather than a wealth tax.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago"The obscene levels of wealth gained from the pandemic by a handful of mega-rich individuals should immediately be taxed at 99%" Surely they should. Every sane being with a hint of a sense of justice and empathy surely agree. But they won't. Because they pay a lot less to just the right people so it will never happen.
- LatteLazy 5y agoBillionaires have power for two reasons: * there is an enormous need for capital in modern economies * everyone else refuses to actually keep any capital. Individuals max out their credit cards instead of saving. Voters demand tax cuts so governments are borrowers instead of lenders. You can tax back the capital, but there are 2 issues doing so: as long as it's spent and not saved, it will rapidly end up back in billionaire's accounts AND in the mean time, the loss of investment when billionaires pull out capital to pay the tax will mean fewer jobs and higher prices. These are the reasons no politician is willing to pull the trigger and go after the uber wealthy: you'll be celebrated for a week and then lynched when the economy falters. You want to get out of this position? Require people to save and balance governmental budgets. But people don't want higher taxes, less services and lower spending power. At least they dislike it more than they like equality and opportunity. If you really think billionaires have undue influence (and i do), cut your spending, invest and pay down debt and vote for higher taxes and lower state spending.
- pmoriarty 5y agoThis tax should be retroactive, and it should be a wealth tax, not an income tax, as the ultra-wealthy often make very little income compared to their vast wealth.
- colpabar 5y agoDoes anyone seriously believe that if the US gov levied this tax that it would actually use the revenue in an efficient way? Remember when they "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars? $2,300,000,000,000. Whoops! As an aside, this [1] was extremely depressing to read. I was aware of the 2.3 trillion around 9/11 (what a coincidence!), but had no idea about the more recent discrepancies. [1]: https://www.city-journal.org/html/americas-missing-money-15725.html?wallit_nosession=1 https://www.city-journal.org/html/americas-missing-money-157... edit: i forgot some zeroes!
- filoeleven 5y agoIt should be noted that all of that money was for military use, and the article says that the Pentagon is the only agency which still does not comply with a 1996 law that would prevent this. The obvious answer to that is to force compliance from the Pentagon. I’d personally add cutting military budget by “the amount that goes missing per year,” but that will never fly. In any case, it’s important to specifically call out the Pentagon rather than blame the entire government.
- ryandrake 5y agoHonestly, I don't really care if the government even uses the money. Even burning the money in a furnace would be beneficial, as the act would at least take a small bite out of inflation. The point is to move away from the status where the richest 1% of the population owns 35% of the country's total wealth.
- hardtke 5y agoWhile likely legal since the US Constitution only prohibits ex post facto criminal statutes, retroactive wealth confiscation is probably not a good precedent to set. A universal wealth tax would be much more palatable than a tax on wealth gained by certain people during a certain period of time.
- bl557 5y agoI'm no more a fan of billionaires than the next guy, but is this argument not extremely hypocritical: “Billionaire Jeff Bezos could personally pay for enough vaccines for the whole world, yet he would rather spend his wealth on a thrill ride to space. COVID-19 is turning the gap between rich and poor into an unbridgeable chasm” - millionaires. Millionaires could personally alleviate so much suffering in the world, yet they would rather buy... Nice houses, cars, and whatever else millionaires buy. You could extrapolate this argument all the way down even to those in objectively unfortunate circumstances. It's turtles all the way down. These pleas seem motivated more out of virtue signaling than anything else.
- curun1r 5y agoThe problem, as always, is implementation. Millionaires, especially those on the low end of that spectrum, tend to be fairly easy to tax. Their income sources are mostly regular and standard forms of income tax work pretty well. Billionaires are a very different animal. They have armies of lawyers and financial managers that help them navigate the movement of wealth through the global system to avoid taxation. They avoid recognizing income at all opportunities and strategically use debt to provide for themselves without exposing themselves to tax consequences that would come from getting the money they want to spend. They can traverse the globe looking for the most favorable taxation rates to maximize their wealth. There’s been a lot of “tax billionaires” and “billionaires shouldn’t exist” rhetoric without much substance to how to actually achieve that goal. Billionaires aren’t just going to say “aww, shucks, guess we’ve got to pay up” when governments decide to up their taxes. They’re going to react in ways that are both hard to predict and harder to stop. Capital flight is a real threat and will require a massive, coordinated effort on the parts of all the nations that comprise the global financial system to curtail. The efforts towards a minimum corporate tax rate are a good start, but that’s only one step of many that are necessary before “tax billionaires” becomes a realistic target.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBillionaires are going to react by lobbying very heavily to get loopholes created in the legislation. And each country writes their own legislation, which means each country creates their own set of loopholes. The net result is going to be that the tax system gets more byzantine, the government says "look, we started taxing billionaires", and the billionaires still aren't paying. But filing taxes will get more complicated for millionaires and upper-middle-class people. I'm not normally a highly cynical person. But I am cynical about the government's ability to wisely write legislation in the face of a heavy lobbying blitz.
- bradlys 5y agoA lot of those people in congress would also be affected by the changes. They're not the kind to implement more taxes on themselves. After all - the difference in ideas between "conservatives" and "liberals" in office comes down to how much they want to wave a confederate vs pride flag. They have almost no fiscal differences and all want as low of taxes as possible on the highest NW individuals like themselves.
- protoman3000 5y agoWhy is there no extremely high VAT on luxury goods?
- bradlys 5y agoThat would just punish people who can afford luxury goods - not billionaires. People who are wage slaves like the rest of us can afford luxury goods. Besides - what is a "luxury" good to you?
- protoman3000 5y agoA 300 million dollar yacht is a luxury good for me.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- walkedaway 5y agoAnother topic where people seem to ignore Thomas Sowell's research: https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/12/the-fallacy-of-redistribution https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/09/12/the-fallac...