3 ms·

I laugh at this idea. Sure it would be nice if possible. But people become billionaires through the art of inheritance and not paying taxes. They tend to excel

I laugh at this idea. Sure it would be nice if possible. But people become billionaires through the art of inheritance and not paying taxes. They tend to excel at both.

dontreact 3y ago
Yes it's difficult. I think we should have a pretty high bar for evidence required to decide that this idea is impossible. Because once you decide that it's impossible, then there will be no more evidence collected. I would like to see a wealth tax passed and then evaded and then a follow up to stop the gaps etc. A few cycles of this before deciding it can never be done. I think this is a multi decade effort that is important for the future of all societies.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It will be interesting to see the ruling on Moore v United States* in regards to the adjudicated Constitutionality of a federal tax on unrealized income, the ruling of which has implications for the Constitutionality of a federal tax on wealth. * - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-3/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-s...
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  We already have an inheritance tax why is there an objection to a person being successful during his or her life. Are we saying we'd be better off without Amazon, Google, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, Apple? All of these companies were built on the vision of one or a small number of founders. They collectively employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. You who make six figure salaries slinging javascript would probably not have jobs like that without companies that billionaies built. Would they have bothered or even been able to do it if we taxed away not only their income but also their wealth?
  - text0404 3y ago
    yes, we would probably be better off as a society without those companies (we can say that with certainty for meta _alone_). destabilizing democracy, suicide nets, AI for the "defense" industry, surveillance, misinformation, mass manipulation, adtech, etc. > You who make six figure salaries slinging javascript would probably not have jobs like that without companies that billionaies built. doing something else more productive? your disdain is apparent in this comment, so i'm sure you wouldn't mind it if people who "sling javascript" for six figures find something better to work on. > Would they have bothered or even been able to do it if we taxed away not only their income but also their wealth? do you start every side project with the question, "well how much will i have to pay in taxes when this makes me a billionaire?" most innovation in human history has existed absent a profit motive.
    - anononaut 3y ago
      > most innovation in human history has existed absent a profit motive Absolutely delusional!
      - text0404 3y ago
        einstein, marie curie, socrates, newton. should i go on? the only delusion here is thinking the pinnacle of human innovation is social networking and $1000 phones.
xyzelement 3y ago
Billionaires top of mind for me: Bloomberg, the Google guys, Steve Jobs, Bezos, Dalio, Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg. Many grew up poor (probably Gates & Zuck had the most growing up but not billions) and none of them are famous for building products and companies with impact, not tax evasion.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Why would an inherited-billionaire be at the top of anyone’s mind?
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    The post I am responding to made a blanket statement about the group. I don't have a survey[1] of what percentage of billionaires are or aren't self made - so I thought about it, and of the ones available for recall, all were self-made. I assume what the poster talked about exists, but it seems to not be the most obvious case. [1] While replying to you, I did a quick Google and found this link: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made According to this, what the poster was talking about was more true in the past. ~40 years ago, 60% of billionaires had come from rich families, while 10 years ago (when this article is from) that number was down to 32%. One can presume that this trend continues over the last decade as well. So at least 70% of billionaires are self made, and 20% (according to the same source) come from very poor families. So at the very least, we can say that the post I am replying to is true for at most 30% and is false for 70%.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > The post I am responding to made a blanket statement about the group. I think they can fend for themselves. > I don't have a survey[1] of what percentage of billionaires are or aren't self made - so I thought about it, and of the ones available for recall, all were self-made. I assume what the poster talked about exists, but it seems to not be the most obvious case. Inherited billionaires don’t make for exciting stories. That’s why they aren’t at the top of anyone’s mind. Was the point. But “self-made” can also be loaded: > [1] While replying to you, I did a quick Google and found this link: You’ll see that that he defines certain people like Zuckerberg as not really being “wealthy” but “upper-middle class”. But I guess economists might have a certain bias towards the upper end of the spectrum when they only research wealth and those entities and people who have it.

I laugh at this idea. Sure it would be nice if possible. But people become billionaires through the art of inheritance and not paying taxes. They tend to excel at both.

dontreact 3y ago

Yes it's difficult. I think we should have a pretty high bar for evidence required to decide that this idea is impossible. Because once you decide that it's impossible, then there will be no more evidence collected. I would like to see a wealth tax passed and then evaded and then a follow up to stop the gaps etc. A few cycles of this before deciding it can never be done. I think this is a multi decade effort that is important for the future of all societies.

sokoloff 3y ago
It will be interesting to see the ruling on Moore v United States* in regards to the adjudicated Constitutionality of a federal tax on unrealized income, the ruling of which has implications for the Constitutionality of a federal tax on wealth. * - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-3/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-s...
SoftTalker 3y ago
We already have an inheritance tax why is there an objection to a person being successful during his or her life. Are we saying we'd be better off without Amazon, Google, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, Apple? All of these companies were built on the vision of one or a small number of founders. They collectively employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. You who make six figure salaries slinging javascript would probably not have jobs like that without companies that billionaies built. Would they have bothered or even been able to do it if we taxed away not only their income but also their wealth?
- text0404 3y ago
  yes, we would probably be better off as a society without those companies (we can say that with certainty for meta _alone_). destabilizing democracy, suicide nets, AI for the "defense" industry, surveillance, misinformation, mass manipulation, adtech, etc. > You who make six figure salaries slinging javascript would probably not have jobs like that without companies that billionaies built. doing something else more productive? your disdain is apparent in this comment, so i'm sure you wouldn't mind it if people who "sling javascript" for six figures find something better to work on. > Would they have bothered or even been able to do it if we taxed away not only their income but also their wealth? do you start every side project with the question, "well how much will i have to pay in taxes when this makes me a billionaire?" most innovation in human history has existed absent a profit motive.
  - anononaut 3y ago
    > most innovation in human history has existed absent a profit motive Absolutely delusional!
    - text0404 3y ago
      einstein, marie curie, socrates, newton. should i go on? the only delusion here is thinking the pinnacle of human innovation is social networking and $1000 phones.

xyzelement 3y ago

Billionaires top of mind for me: Bloomberg, the Google guys, Steve Jobs, Bezos, Dalio, Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg. Many grew up poor (probably Gates & Zuck had the most growing up but not billions) and none of them are famous for building products and companies with impact, not tax evasion.

avgcorrection 3y ago
Why would an inherited-billionaire be at the top of anyone’s mind?
- xyzelement 3y ago
  The post I am responding to made a blanket statement about the group. I don't have a survey[1] of what percentage of billionaires are or aren't self made - so I thought about it, and of the ones available for recall, all were self-made. I assume what the poster talked about exists, but it seems to not be the most obvious case. [1] While replying to you, I did a quick Google and found this link: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/billionaires-self-made According to this, what the poster was talking about was more true in the past. ~40 years ago, 60% of billionaires had come from rich families, while 10 years ago (when this article is from) that number was down to 32%. One can presume that this trend continues over the last decade as well. So at least 70% of billionaires are self made, and 20% (according to the same source) come from very poor families. So at the very least, we can say that the post I am replying to is true for at most 30% and is false for 70%.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > The post I am responding to made a blanket statement about the group. I think they can fend for themselves. > I don't have a survey[1] of what percentage of billionaires are or aren't self made - so I thought about it, and of the ones available for recall, all were self-made. I assume what the poster talked about exists, but it seems to not be the most obvious case. Inherited billionaires don’t make for exciting stories. That’s why they aren’t at the top of anyone’s mind. Was the point. But “self-made” can also be loaded: > [1] While replying to you, I did a quick Google and found this link: You’ll see that that he defines certain people like Zuckerberg as not really being “wealthy” but “upper-middle class”. But I guess economists might have a certain bias towards the upper end of the spectrum when they only research wealth and those entities and people who have it.