4 ms·

> No one needs more than 999 million It's not like anyone has the money in cash you know. You should rephrase your statement to "nobody needs more than a bill

> No one needs more than 999 million It's not like anyone has the money in cash you know. You should rephrase your statement to "nobody needs more than a billion dollar stake in one or more companies". That is more realistic, and maybe a better discussion can come out of that one.

luma 4y ago
Oh I'm pretty sure the IRS could figure out a cash equivalent. WE DON'T NEED BILLIONAIRES
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
techdragon 4y ago
To late for an edit now. And while just throwing the number out like it’s a bank balance is a bit of a hot take… I’m fully aware of the fact that any realistically useful proposal for this kind of wealth tax would require a lot of careful structural work to make useful and effective. It’s important to note that the USA is one of the only countries that expects overseas citizens to file tax reporting paperwork. Normally this is perfunctory stuff. But the key is that it’s law that living full time outside the USA doesn’t mean you have any loopholes for skipping the paperwork… The IRS is uniquely positioned under current law to enforce a global jurisdiction wealth tax on US Citizens … and since the USA already requires a payment for processing the renouncing of citizenship, you could just as easily place a punitive sized fee or fine for obviously renouncing citizenship to avoid paying billionaire taxes. But once one country moves toward this sort of law I think others would follow. We have international law organisations that are used for tracking financial criminals and if more countries had similar laws these international organisations would gradually be more and more useful in ensuring billionaires can’t just stash money in overseas banks markets trusts and assets.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  My take is that billionaires are mostly made because they own a very successful company. So when you talk about wealth tax of these billionaires, you automatically talk about diminishing their stake in said company(-ies). And I think that is the main point that needs to be discussed.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Another view of this is just that they've very effectively captured the value created by the workers of those companies. Rather than wait for them to accumulate that value personally then tax it, we could limit how and how much value accrues to individuals who run companies.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      How would that work in practice? Like give shares to workers as the company becomes more valuable?
LastTrain 4y ago
Elon could easily raise that amount in cash.
felipesoc 4y ago
You can't say that after the same Elon bought Twitter for 55 billion. If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  In practice, Twitter is partially owned by the bank right now. Although he did sell Tesla stock to get a large part of that money.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash. The literal opposite is true. If he has to sell his stocks it means he does not have it in cash. If you are using your house as collataral, you do it precisely because you lack the money in cash. The only way to reduce his networth bellow a billion is seizing stock in his companies grom him. Him paying money is the exact same thing, just with an additional (likely devastating, for him and the company) step. The real question is whether you want the government seizing corporations from individuals.

luma 4y ago

Oh I'm pretty sure the IRS could figure out a cash equivalent. WE DON'T NEED BILLIONAIRES

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

techdragon 4y ago

To late for an edit now. And while just throwing the number out like it’s a bank balance is a bit of a hot take… I’m fully aware of the fact that any realistically useful proposal for this kind of wealth tax would require a lot of careful structural work to make useful and effective. It’s important to note that the USA is one of the only countries that expects overseas citizens to file tax reporting paperwork. Normally this is perfunctory stuff. But the key is that it’s law that living full time outside the USA doesn’t mean you have any loopholes for skipping the paperwork… The IRS is uniquely positioned under current law to enforce a global jurisdiction wealth tax on US Citizens … and since the USA already requires a payment for processing the renouncing of citizenship, you could just as easily place a punitive sized fee or fine for obviously renouncing citizenship to avoid paying billionaire taxes. But once one country moves toward this sort of law I think others would follow. We have international law organisations that are used for tracking financial criminals and if more countries had similar laws these international organisations would gradually be more and more useful in ensuring billionaires can’t just stash money in overseas banks markets trusts and assets.

koonsolo 4y ago
My take is that billionaires are mostly made because they own a very successful company. So when you talk about wealth tax of these billionaires, you automatically talk about diminishing their stake in said company(-ies). And I think that is the main point that needs to be discussed.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Another view of this is just that they've very effectively captured the value created by the workers of those companies. Rather than wait for them to accumulate that value personally then tax it, we could limit how and how much value accrues to individuals who run companies.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    How would that work in practice? Like give shares to workers as the company becomes more valuable?

LastTrain 4y ago

Elon could easily raise that amount in cash.

felipesoc 4y ago

You can't say that after the same Elon bought Twitter for 55 billion. If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash.

koonsolo 4y ago
In practice, Twitter is partially owned by the bank right now. Although he did sell Tesla stock to get a large part of that money.
constantcrying 4y ago
>If he can get that money using his stock as collateral then he does have it in cash. The literal opposite is true. If he has to sell his stocks it means he does not have it in cash. If you are using your house as collataral, you do it precisely because you lack the money in cash. The only way to reduce his networth bellow a billion is seizing stock in his companies grom him. Him paying money is the exact same thing, just with an additional (likely devastating, for him and the company) step. The real question is whether you want the government seizing corporations from individuals.