4 ms·

Billionaire wealth in the US totals $5.5T dollars. In 2024, the Federal government is projected to borrow $1.9T. And remember: billionaire wealth is mostly pa

Billionaire wealth in the US totals $5.5T dollars. In 2024, the Federal government is projected to borrow $1.9T. And remember: billionaire wealth is mostly paper wealth. The deficit is real dollars. We have a spending problem. Not a rich people problem.

Aerbil313 2y ago
[flagged]
squigz 2y ago
Why not both?
- namaria 2y ago
  Meme type uninspired joke comments are becoming far too prevalent...
  - squigz 2y ago
    Awww, you can do better.
    - namaria 2y ago
      I hope you hear yourself bud
Aerroon 2y ago
And the problem is worse in most European countries. The government spends an even larger share of the GDP.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Welllll...first, the article's subject is global, not just the US. Second, the article definitely says "the billionaire minimum income tax proposed in the U.S. by President Joe Biden, which targets individuals with more than $100 million in wealth...would subject the entire pre-tax return on wealth for ultra-high-net-worth Americans to a minimum individual tax rate of 25%, irrespective of whether the return comes from dividends, realized capital gains or unrealized gains". So within the US perhaps it's more reasonable to talk about people with $100M rather than $1B and laugh about the name not exactly matching the number. I don't have the exact total wealth number for that threshold, but I do have the wealth of the top 0.1% in the US, whose minimum net worth is now about $50M (extrapolate 2 years from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1311 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1311), which is close enough to $100M for me, at a total of $20.7T (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246). Third, 2% is given as a minimum starting point. Even at 5% the money would still be increasing in the market faster than that.
- qeternity 2y ago
  You're missing the point. You could make it 100%. Confiscate all the wealth of $100m+. The government will exhaust the entirety of that surplus in a single digit number of years.
  - tracker1 2y ago
    Exactly, thanks. There's a saying you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. You can't tax your way out of excessive spending.
jncfhnb 2y ago
That’s not an argument to not tax the rich
- tracker1 2y ago
  But taxing existing wealth of billionaires is an argument for billionaires to move to another country. Taxing on exchange would disproportionately affect the wealthy but still be fair. Not just income but money exchange. Then when $B buys, sells, shorts stock it's accounted for. When goods and materials are bought or sold, it's taxes. The wealthy buy, sell, trade and rent more than poor. They'd pay more there. I find taxes on existing property just ethically and morally wrong. I don't care if it's a poor guy's bicycle or a billionaire yacht.
- SllX 2y ago
  It is an argument against treating the rich like a piñata you can smack to fix your budgetary issues. A tax increase argument on any part of society should be centered around what you are hoping to do with those taxes: reduce borrowing, pay down public debts, increase public services (I should specify: public services which are worth the government keeping people on payroll to perform as a public service). Taxes aren’t an equalizer, they’re a government revenue stream. They’re not always even the best government revenue stream to cover every service, some can be fee-for-service, some can be covered by tariffs.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Ok. Reduce borrowing. Done. The rich benefit disproportionately from societal structures. The bulk of market driven capital gains should be collected for the benefit of society. Equalizing need not come into the dialogue.
    - SllX 2y ago
      Sure—and as of 2018, I’m a little out of the loop on anything more recent, the top 1% in the US paid about 40% of US taxes—but have you considered also reducing borrowing, spending and services and then adjusting tax rates across the board down once we’ve gotten our debts down to a more manageable level?
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
We have both. The federal deficit has been skyrocketing every since Reagan massively cut the top marginal rate. Combine it with crony capitalism, where government contracts go to whoever promises to kick back the most to the politicians' next campaign, "use it or lose it" budgeting that encourages wasteful spending, and we have massive over-spending. You must recognize that it's a very bad look when a state says "We're going to let poor children starve and cut $X from school lunch programs" and then in the same breath say "We're cutting taxes on 'job creators' by $X".
- qeternity 2y ago
  Nobody is starving in the US. This is ridiculous.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    Over 21,000 people died in the USA from malnutrition in 2022. Many suffer from food insecurity. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/health/nutritional-deficiency-life-expectancy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/health/nutritional-deficiency...

Aerbil313 2y ago

[flagged]

squigz 2y ago

Why not both?

namaria 2y ago
Meme type uninspired joke comments are becoming far too prevalent...
- squigz 2y ago
  Awww, you can do better.
  - namaria 2y ago
    I hope you hear yourself bud

Aerroon 2y ago

And the problem is worse in most European countries. The government spends an even larger share of the GDP.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

Welllll...first, the article's subject is global, not just the US. Second, the article definitely says "the billionaire minimum income tax proposed in the U.S. by President Joe Biden, which targets individuals with more than $100 million in wealth...would subject the entire pre-tax return on wealth for ultra-high-net-worth Americans to a minimum individual tax rate of 25%, irrespective of whether the return comes from dividends, realized capital gains or unrealized gains". So within the US perhaps it's more reasonable to talk about people with $100M rather than $1B and laugh about the name not exactly matching the number. I don't have the exact total wealth number for that threshold, but I do have the wealth of the top 0.1% in the US, whose minimum net worth is now about $50M (extrapolate 2 years from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1311 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1311), which is close enough to $100M for me, at a total of $20.7T (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246). Third, 2% is given as a minimum starting point. Even at 5% the money would still be increasing in the market faster than that.

qeternity 2y ago
You're missing the point. You could make it 100%. Confiscate all the wealth of $100m+. The government will exhaust the entirety of that surplus in a single digit number of years.
- tracker1 2y ago
  Exactly, thanks. There's a saying you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. You can't tax your way out of excessive spending.

jncfhnb 2y ago

That’s not an argument to not tax the rich

tracker1 2y ago
But taxing existing wealth of billionaires is an argument for billionaires to move to another country. Taxing on exchange would disproportionately affect the wealthy but still be fair. Not just income but money exchange. Then when $B buys, sells, shorts stock it's accounted for. When goods and materials are bought or sold, it's taxes. The wealthy buy, sell, trade and rent more than poor. They'd pay more there. I find taxes on existing property just ethically and morally wrong. I don't care if it's a poor guy's bicycle or a billionaire yacht.
SllX 2y ago
It is an argument against treating the rich like a piñata you can smack to fix your budgetary issues. A tax increase argument on any part of society should be centered around what you are hoping to do with those taxes: reduce borrowing, pay down public debts, increase public services (I should specify: public services which are worth the government keeping people on payroll to perform as a public service). Taxes aren’t an equalizer, they’re a government revenue stream. They’re not always even the best government revenue stream to cover every service, some can be fee-for-service, some can be covered by tariffs.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Ok. Reduce borrowing. Done. The rich benefit disproportionately from societal structures. The bulk of market driven capital gains should be collected for the benefit of society. Equalizing need not come into the dialogue.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Sure—and as of 2018, I’m a little out of the loop on anything more recent, the top 1% in the US paid about 40% of US taxes—but have you considered also reducing borrowing, spending and services and then adjusting tax rates across the board down once we’ve gotten our debts down to a more manageable level?

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago

We have both. The federal deficit has been skyrocketing every since Reagan massively cut the top marginal rate. Combine it with crony capitalism, where government contracts go to whoever promises to kick back the most to the politicians' next campaign, "use it or lose it" budgeting that encourages wasteful spending, and we have massive over-spending. You must recognize that it's a very bad look when a state says "We're going to let poor children starve and cut $X from school lunch programs" and then in the same breath say "We're cutting taxes on 'job creators' by $X".

qeternity 2y ago
Nobody is starving in the US. This is ridiculous.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  Over 21,000 people died in the USA from malnutrition in 2022. Many suffer from food insecurity. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/health/nutritional-deficiency-life-expectancy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/health/nutritional-deficiency...