7 ms·

You can put a wealth tax on billionaires without putting taxes on poverty level workers ($500/month in the US). You're making bizarre nonsensical arguments her

You can put a wealth tax on billionaires without putting taxes on poverty level workers ($500/month in the US). You're making bizarre nonsensical arguments here--slippery slope, strawman, etc.

elefanten 4y ago
That was clearly not the point. The point is there's always someone with a different bar for what is excessive wealth. Chances are that 80%+ of the world population would find your income staggering, the same way you consider a billionaire's wealth staggering. So how do you decide who's scale to use?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Stunned that a community of software engineers is forgetting the top-down approach to algorithm design.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  We already have a tiered system of taxes in the US. We don't tax everyone 50% because the average US wage is 100x that of a third world country average wage. It's possible to examine only the US wealth distribution and make choices about taxing the highest of the high earners there in isolation of all other earners in the world.
- panda-giddiness 4y ago
  > So how do you decide who's scale to use? Like the way all other murky subjects are settled, you just decide on one. We don't legalize murder just because some slayings are justified. The existence of grays areas does not preclude the black and white.
nightski 4y ago
Wealth taxes seem so dumb to me. In many cases it's forcing sale of private or public company ownership from those who know the company best often to - you guessed it - institutional investors. It's bad enough how much control institutional investors have, but to force it by law seems even more ridiculous. There has to be a better solution.
- planb 4y ago
  You had me for one second with that argument. But if you sell off your company, you would still get rich and be taxed - so why wouldn't you stay on board and your goal is not to get richer, but to create the best business you can?
  - spullara 4y ago
    You have to sell the business to pay the tax. That is why wealth taxes are pretty dumb without carve outs for many kinds of assets.
    - FabHK 4y ago
      Why not sell 49% of the business?
      - kansface 4y ago
        The percentage doesn't matter. You have to pay taxes on the stock you own (ie, your startup). You do that by selling the stock. As the value of the company increases, you are forced to sell off increasingly large chunks of your stake to pay the bill thereby loosing ownership (control) in the process.
        FabHK 4y ago
        With an estate tax, the value is assessed once, I'd assume (at death/inheritance), then due to be paid. You might have to sell of a third or whatever of the fortune/company, and keep the majority. Sure, over successive generations, the family might lose control of their original fortune/company, but that is compatible with the intention of the tax.
        kansface 4y ago
        You'd lose control much, much faster than that at the sort of rates being proposed. Even 1% per annum would destroy control well within a career, let alone a generation considering exponential growth. edit: Just noticed that you are talking about estate taxes and I'm talking about wealth taxes...
foobar2021 4y ago
The top 1% complaining about the top 0.01% while ignoring 99% of the world is a nonsensical argument?
- tapland 4y ago
  Wow, yeah. Putting it like this makes it pretty crazy right? You don't see your error?
eweise 4y ago
Most of the wealth is in unrealized gains. How do tax that? Let's say I buy a painting for $1 and discover its a Van Gogh. Now its worth $50 million. Should I be forced to sell it to pay taxes?
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  We already have this issue for our existing tax system. You have to declare your income and use a huge set of tax rules and laws to determine your AGI and appropriate tax bracket. Taxing billionaires changes nothing here other than deciding once your AGI has enough zeros you get more taxes applied.
  - eweise 4y ago
    In this case there is no income so nothing to tax. Yet I would be worth $50 million and some would cry that's its unfair, which I think is silly.
    - qbasic_forever 4y ago
      Then lobby to change the tax laws, just like folks are lobbying to add billionaire taxes. The billionaire tax has nothing to do with the rich having ways of hiding wealth or income, deferring losses, etc. to reduce their tax burden. You're making an argument that obfuscates and obscures the real argument here that billionaires should not exist as they serve no utility in a society besides absorbing resources.
      - eweise 4y ago
        Not sure I understand. The laws work just like I described. Nothing to tax, which is the way it should be.
        qbasic_forever 4y ago
        Then nothing changes in your fantastical scenario that I find a $1B painting in my attic and sit on it. What we're talking about here is when people like Jeff Bezos have billions of dollars of income--direct income from gains realized in asset sales, income generated from property, stock sales, salaries, etc.--we shave a significant portion of those gains off in a wealth tax.

You can put a wealth tax on billionaires without putting taxes on poverty level workers ($500/month in the US). You're making bizarre nonsensical arguments here--slippery slope, strawman, etc.

elefanten 4y ago

That was clearly not the point. The point is there's always someone with a different bar for what is excessive wealth. Chances are that 80%+ of the world population would find your income staggering, the same way you consider a billionaire's wealth staggering. So how do you decide who's scale to use?

Apocryphon 4y ago
Stunned that a community of software engineers is forgetting the top-down approach to algorithm design.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
We already have a tiered system of taxes in the US. We don't tax everyone 50% because the average US wage is 100x that of a third world country average wage. It's possible to examine only the US wealth distribution and make choices about taxing the highest of the high earners there in isolation of all other earners in the world.
panda-giddiness 4y ago
> So how do you decide who's scale to use? Like the way all other murky subjects are settled, you just decide on one. We don't legalize murder just because some slayings are justified. The existence of grays areas does not preclude the black and white.

nightski 4y ago

Wealth taxes seem so dumb to me. In many cases it's forcing sale of private or public company ownership from those who know the company best often to - you guessed it - institutional investors. It's bad enough how much control institutional investors have, but to force it by law seems even more ridiculous. There has to be a better solution.

planb 4y ago
You had me for one second with that argument. But if you sell off your company, you would still get rich and be taxed - so why wouldn't you stay on board and your goal is not to get richer, but to create the best business you can?
- spullara 4y ago
  You have to sell the business to pay the tax. That is why wealth taxes are pretty dumb without carve outs for many kinds of assets.
  - FabHK 4y ago
    Why not sell 49% of the business?
    - kansface 4y ago
      The percentage doesn't matter. You have to pay taxes on the stock you own (ie, your startup). You do that by selling the stock. As the value of the company increases, you are forced to sell off increasingly large chunks of your stake to pay the bill thereby loosing ownership (control) in the process.
      - FabHK 4y ago
        With an estate tax, the value is assessed once, I'd assume (at death/inheritance), then due to be paid. You might have to sell of a third or whatever of the fortune/company, and keep the majority. Sure, over successive generations, the family might lose control of their original fortune/company, but that is compatible with the intention of the tax.
        kansface 4y ago
        You'd lose control much, much faster than that at the sort of rates being proposed. Even 1% per annum would destroy control well within a career, let alone a generation considering exponential growth. edit: Just noticed that you are talking about estate taxes and I'm talking about wealth taxes...

foobar2021 4y ago

The top 1% complaining about the top 0.01% while ignoring 99% of the world is a nonsensical argument?

tapland 4y ago
Wow, yeah. Putting it like this makes it pretty crazy right? You don't see your error?

eweise 4y ago

Most of the wealth is in unrealized gains. How do tax that? Let's say I buy a painting for $1 and discover its a Van Gogh. Now its worth $50 million. Should I be forced to sell it to pay taxes?

qbasic_forever 4y ago
We already have this issue for our existing tax system. You have to declare your income and use a huge set of tax rules and laws to determine your AGI and appropriate tax bracket. Taxing billionaires changes nothing here other than deciding once your AGI has enough zeros you get more taxes applied.
- eweise 4y ago
  In this case there is no income so nothing to tax. Yet I would be worth $50 million and some would cry that's its unfair, which I think is silly.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Then lobby to change the tax laws, just like folks are lobbying to add billionaire taxes. The billionaire tax has nothing to do with the rich having ways of hiding wealth or income, deferring losses, etc. to reduce their tax burden. You're making an argument that obfuscates and obscures the real argument here that billionaires should not exist as they serve no utility in a society besides absorbing resources.
    - eweise 4y ago
      Not sure I understand. The laws work just like I described. Nothing to tax, which is the way it should be.
      - qbasic_forever 4y ago
        Then nothing changes in your fantastical scenario that I find a $1B painting in my attic and sit on it. What we're talking about here is when people like Jeff Bezos have billions of dollars of income--direct income from gains realized in asset sales, income generated from property, stock sales, salaries, etc.--we shave a significant portion of those gains off in a wealth tax.