5 ms·

I'm a big fan of 100% taxation on anything above 999M, but my continuation here is that anyone that earns more than that gets a trophy for every additional 1B t

I'm a big fan of 100% taxation on anything above 999M, but my continuation here is that anyone that earns more than that gets a trophy for every additional 1B they earn put on display in a big museum in a city of their choice (Museums selectively scattered around the US).

theptip 4y ago
I like the idea of getting public achievements based on your personal tax contributions. Give them a public museum name for each $B for all I care! Or more generally, just let them pick which program they want to have their face/logo on. “The Musk EV car subsidy” etc.
- hunter-gatherer 4y ago
  And if they get to say, 10 billion they get to replace a president's face on a mint. I'm for it.
Aeolun 4y ago
I’m a firm believer in a maximum of like 50% tax on income. Anything more just feels like a punishment for working.
- imdsm 4y ago
  Absolutely. Let's say I earn over the threshold, and I can now either choose to continue to try and innovate and add value to society, or retire to a private island and just become a carbon contributor, I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit? Most people have assets not liquidity too, so it's like saying, if you own too much, you have to stop. Well, what if Elon stopped and we reverted back to dropping rockets into the ocean? What if Bill Gates stopped and never did any of the philanthropy that he does? I feel like this is used by people as a cheap excuse for a problem they can't solve.
  - akoncius 4y ago
    we can also flip a question: how do you prevent a scenario where bezos or musk achieve so much wealth that they can purchase everything? to own all corporations and if somebody will create a competitor that competitor gets destroyed by shady practices so it gets impossible to have free market?
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I'm not convinced that "make a lot of money" and "add value to society" are incredibly well correlated.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I'm not convinced that "increase government expenditure" and "add value to society" are correlated, at least not positively.
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit? That's a good question for the current situation -- why does Bezos still go to work? Once you have $100B, what tangible benefit do you get from more? Surely he's not doing it for the money, another $1B, or even $100B isn't going to change his lifestyle.
    - chrismcb 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure bezos stopped going to work.
    - californical 4y ago
      It may not change his lifestyle, but it’s still a motivating achievement. If a world-class marathon runner is 4 minutes ahead in a race, and can see the finish line, do they start walking? Or do they try to push themselves even harder to see how much more they can win by? People are competitive, and are always motivated by achieving “more”, even if it doesn’t change the outcome for them. Does society benefit by billionaires pushing for more? I’m not sure, but I don’t think that the answer is clearly “no”.
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  “There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.” — Karl Marx
  - supernovae 4y ago
    billionaires aren’t capitalism.
    - stevenjgarner 4y ago
      What is the goal of capitalism? Is it not: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." [1] [1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.ht...
- greycol 4y ago
  If you could push a button once an hour that gave $1,000 to you and $99,000 to the government you are saying you'd feel like you're being punished for pushing it? Let's not pretend that billionares are working 1.44 million hours a week to earn 18000 times what the janitor earns working two jobs in an 80 hour week. The quality of a billionaires 'work' is different than 'real work' so what you feel intuitevely about work may not be a great touchstone for how billionaires should be taxed.
  - vasco 4y ago
    Anyone can push a button, not everyone can create a billion dollar company.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    There is no button. That framing is dumb because it implies no risk and no alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation.
    - selcuka 4y ago
      > alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation. They are already doing that, so what would be the difference?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wrycoder 4y ago
  These people don’t put the money in their mattresses, you know. They spend it or invest it, creating economic activity. Your suggestion is to give it to the government, which will more wisely spend it? I think not.
stevenjgarner 4y ago
Given that successful technologies have mostly been developed by corporations which have appreciated in value from their innovation, do you favor a Luddite lifestyle, eschewing technology? Or do you think investors would rush to put their capital at risk for no return? I believe the technologies on which we are enjoying this conversation would never have emerged if a wealth tax hit silicon valley after WW II.
- akoncius 4y ago
  internet was created by two universities, not private companies. and usually universities are funded by governments. private companies ruined internet actually.
  - redorb 4y ago
    Private companies ruined the internet by creating millions of jobs?
  - kurisufag 4y ago
    as much as I enjoy longing for the time when using the internet meant browsing 5-6 boards that weren't all that populated, private companies "ruined the internet" by giving the average person access to it. you can argue that has been a net negative for the Internet, but it is clearly better for society generally.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
Why 999M? And is that yearly annual income or does it include all assets? In any case, surely nobody _needs_ one billion dollars. Why not 100% taxation on anything over 1M? Actually even that is outlandish, people can go their whole lives without ever earning that much. Just cap it at 100k.
forgingahead 4y ago
What's your current net worth? How about we set the level to be somewhere less than what you personally are worth? There are a universe of people who earn and have a net worth much less than you who would be very happy with that ceiling figure. But would you? Western politicians who float this idea are hilarious too - they're all multi-millionaires themselves, but a wealth tax is always proposed at a level that is "slightly more than what I have", never below.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  What's your current net worth? How about we set the level to be somewhere less than what you personally are worth? If you set the limit much lower than my net worth, the government is going to have to support me. But I'd think that someone with "only" $100M of net worth could scrape by on their own. But most of my net worth came from taxable ordinary income that was invested into retirement accounts that are tax advantaged and untouchable until I retire. If Bezos was drawing a salary of 3 billion dollars for the past 30 years, paying 37% income tax on that income, then we probably wouldn't be talking about a "wealth tax"
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > If you set the limit much lower than my net worth, the government is going to have to support me. Doesn't have to be much lower, just low enough to free you of the wealth you don't _need_. > But I'd think that someone with "only" $100M of net worth could scrape by on their own. Certainly. Someone with $10k of net worth and a minimum wage job could scrape by too. Nobody _needs_ more than that, surely? > But most of my net worth came from taxable ordinary income that was invested into retirement accounts that are tax advantaged and untouchable until I retire. Sounds very wealthy and privileged, to be honest. Surely you don't _need_ that it could be much better spent now helping less advantaged people who have never worked and don't have any savings or retirement. If, when you retire, you need further assistance after selling your house and other possessions, the government would be glad to step in and provide you a subsistence income and housing thanks to this wonderful redistribution scheme.
sam0x17 4y ago
That would be 614 museums in the U.S. alone I agree though. Cap it at $1B
sam0x17 4y ago
Anything is better than the 8% they pay now
chrismcb 4y ago
You mean any annual income over 990M or wealth? The problem with taxing wealth at 100% means either they have to pay to continue earning or they lose a portion of their business and eventually the ability to earn more.

theptip 4y ago

I like the idea of getting public achievements based on your personal tax contributions. Give them a public museum name for each $B for all I care! Or more generally, just let them pick which program they want to have their face/logo on. “The Musk EV car subsidy” etc.

hunter-gatherer 4y ago
And if they get to say, 10 billion they get to replace a president's face on a mint. I'm for it.

Aeolun 4y ago

I’m a firm believer in a maximum of like 50% tax on income. Anything more just feels like a punishment for working.

imdsm 4y ago
Absolutely. Let's say I earn over the threshold, and I can now either choose to continue to try and innovate and add value to society, or retire to a private island and just become a carbon contributor, I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit? Most people have assets not liquidity too, so it's like saying, if you own too much, you have to stop. Well, what if Elon stopped and we reverted back to dropping rockets into the ocean? What if Bill Gates stopped and never did any of the philanthropy that he does? I feel like this is used by people as a cheap excuse for a problem they can't solve.
- akoncius 4y ago
  we can also flip a question: how do you prevent a scenario where bezos or musk achieve so much wealth that they can purchase everything? to own all corporations and if somebody will create a competitor that competitor gets destroyed by shady practices so it gets impossible to have free market?
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I'm not convinced that "make a lot of money" and "add value to society" are incredibly well correlated.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I'm not convinced that "increase government expenditure" and "add value to society" are correlated, at least not positively.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  I mean, why work myself into the ground if I can no longer benefit? That's a good question for the current situation -- why does Bezos still go to work? Once you have $100B, what tangible benefit do you get from more? Surely he's not doing it for the money, another $1B, or even $100B isn't going to change his lifestyle.
  - chrismcb 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure bezos stopped going to work.
  - californical 4y ago
    It may not change his lifestyle, but it’s still a motivating achievement. If a world-class marathon runner is 4 minutes ahead in a race, and can see the finish line, do they start walking? Or do they try to push themselves even harder to see how much more they can win by? People are competitive, and are always motivated by achieving “more”, even if it doesn’t change the outcome for them. Does society benefit by billionaires pushing for more? I’m not sure, but I don’t think that the answer is clearly “no”.
stevenjgarner 4y ago
“There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.” — Karl Marx
- supernovae 4y ago
  billionaires aren’t capitalism.
  - stevenjgarner 4y ago
    What is the goal of capitalism? Is it not: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." [1] [1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.ht...
greycol 4y ago
If you could push a button once an hour that gave $1,000 to you and $99,000 to the government you are saying you'd feel like you're being punished for pushing it? Let's not pretend that billionares are working 1.44 million hours a week to earn 18000 times what the janitor earns working two jobs in an 80 hour week. The quality of a billionaires 'work' is different than 'real work' so what you feel intuitevely about work may not be a great touchstone for how billionaires should be taxed.
- vasco 4y ago
  Anyone can push a button, not everyone can create a billion dollar company.
- kortilla 4y ago
  There is no button. That framing is dumb because it implies no risk and no alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation.
  - selcuka 4y ago
    > alternative locations where capital can be applied with the same risk and lower taxation. They are already doing that, so what would be the difference?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wrycoder 4y ago
These people don’t put the money in their mattresses, you know. They spend it or invest it, creating economic activity. Your suggestion is to give it to the government, which will more wisely spend it? I think not.

stevenjgarner 4y ago

Given that successful technologies have mostly been developed by corporations which have appreciated in value from their innovation, do you favor a Luddite lifestyle, eschewing technology? Or do you think investors would rush to put their capital at risk for no return? I believe the technologies on which we are enjoying this conversation would never have emerged if a wealth tax hit silicon valley after WW II.

akoncius 4y ago
internet was created by two universities, not private companies. and usually universities are funded by governments. private companies ruined internet actually.
- redorb 4y ago
  Private companies ruined the internet by creating millions of jobs?
- kurisufag 4y ago
  as much as I enjoy longing for the time when using the internet meant browsing 5-6 boards that weren't all that populated, private companies "ruined the internet" by giving the average person access to it. you can argue that has been a net negative for the Internet, but it is clearly better for society generally.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Why 999M? And is that yearly annual income or does it include all assets? In any case, surely nobody _needs_ one billion dollars. Why not 100% taxation on anything over 1M? Actually even that is outlandish, people can go their whole lives without ever earning that much. Just cap it at 100k.

forgingahead 4y ago

What's your current net worth? How about we set the level to be somewhere less than what you personally are worth? There are a universe of people who earn and have a net worth much less than you who would be very happy with that ceiling figure. But would you? Western politicians who float this idea are hilarious too - they're all multi-millionaires themselves, but a wealth tax is always proposed at a level that is "slightly more than what I have", never below.

Johnny555 4y ago
What's your current net worth? How about we set the level to be somewhere less than what you personally are worth? If you set the limit much lower than my net worth, the government is going to have to support me. But I'd think that someone with "only" $100M of net worth could scrape by on their own. But most of my net worth came from taxable ordinary income that was invested into retirement accounts that are tax advantaged and untouchable until I retire. If Bezos was drawing a salary of 3 billion dollars for the past 30 years, paying 37% income tax on that income, then we probably wouldn't be talking about a "wealth tax"
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > If you set the limit much lower than my net worth, the government is going to have to support me. Doesn't have to be much lower, just low enough to free you of the wealth you don't _need_. > But I'd think that someone with "only" $100M of net worth could scrape by on their own. Certainly. Someone with $10k of net worth and a minimum wage job could scrape by too. Nobody _needs_ more than that, surely? > But most of my net worth came from taxable ordinary income that was invested into retirement accounts that are tax advantaged and untouchable until I retire. Sounds very wealthy and privileged, to be honest. Surely you don't _need_ that it could be much better spent now helping less advantaged people who have never worked and don't have any savings or retirement. If, when you retire, you need further assistance after selling your house and other possessions, the government would be glad to step in and provide you a subsistence income and housing thanks to this wonderful redistribution scheme.

sam0x17 4y ago

That would be 614 museums in the U.S. alone I agree though. Cap it at $1B

sam0x17 4y ago

Anything is better than the 8% they pay now

chrismcb 4y ago

You mean any annual income over 990M or wealth? The problem with taxing wealth at 100% means either they have to pay to continue earning or they lose a portion of their business and eventually the ability to earn more.