3 ms·

The math doesn't math. You could tax all the ultra rich people at 100% and it wouldn't significantly change the social contract. The part people don't like hear

The math doesn't math. You could tax all the ultra rich people at 100% and it wouldn't significantly change the social contract. The part people don't like hearing is that it's a lot of the middle class that has to pay much higher taxes if you want those guarantees of minimum living standards.

goobatrooba 4mo ago
Citation needed. Here is one for the contrary (just a book review. The citation is the book). https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/06/we-need-to-tax-billionaires-at-2-economist-gabriel-zucman-just-explained-exactly-how/ https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/06/we-need-to-tax-billiona...
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  That strongly supports my point. What do you think $250 billion a year worldwide pays for? That's $30 per person per year.
  - unlogic 4mo ago
    It's $250 billion less that goes to the ultrarich, so that they can't purchase another $250 billion of assets.
    - deadbabe 4mo ago
      After a certain amount of money, financial engineers can basically build all kinds of leveraged instruments that will let you buy those assets anyway.
      - Schiendelman 4mo ago
        If you assume your taxation mechanism is actually perfect and actually gets you the theoretical maximum amount of money from the ultra rich, or even the fairly rich, it's still orders of magnitude less than it costs to make sure everyone is taken care of like the scenario we were talking about above.
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      I think that's a very different goal post. We were talking about the social contract, publicly funded services. You must realize it's just not a meaningful amount, right? That was my initial point. If you want a real safety net, you have to tax the middle class, and a lot. That's not really how that works. Almost all of that money is tied up in operating businesses. Most very rich people mostly hold investments in stock - and generally at large companies. That's debt, not an asset I think the way you're thinking of. Overall, taking that money out of market holdings reduces the value of those holdings, for everyone else as well. You really end up lowering the retirement savings value of everyone who has a retirement plan by some amount.

goobatrooba 4mo ago

Citation needed. Here is one for the contrary (just a book review. The citation is the book). https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/06/we-need-to-tax-billionaires-at-2-economist-gabriel-zucman-just-explained-exactly-how/ https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/06/we-need-to-tax-billiona...

Schiendelman 4mo ago
That strongly supports my point. What do you think $250 billion a year worldwide pays for? That's $30 per person per year.
- unlogic 4mo ago
  It's $250 billion less that goes to the ultrarich, so that they can't purchase another $250 billion of assets.
  - deadbabe 4mo ago
    After a certain amount of money, financial engineers can basically build all kinds of leveraged instruments that will let you buy those assets anyway.
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      If you assume your taxation mechanism is actually perfect and actually gets you the theoretical maximum amount of money from the ultra rich, or even the fairly rich, it's still orders of magnitude less than it costs to make sure everyone is taken care of like the scenario we were talking about above.
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    I think that's a very different goal post. We were talking about the social contract, publicly funded services. You must realize it's just not a meaningful amount, right? That was my initial point. If you want a real safety net, you have to tax the middle class, and a lot. That's not really how that works. Almost all of that money is tied up in operating businesses. Most very rich people mostly hold investments in stock - and generally at large companies. That's debt, not an asset I think the way you're thinking of. Overall, taking that money out of market holdings reduces the value of those holdings, for everyone else as well. You really end up lowering the retirement savings value of everyone who has a retirement plan by some amount.