3 ms·
It's only a tax on wealth above $50m. If she ever reaches that level of net worth, I highly doubt she'd have trouble paying a 2% tax on it. The 1935 Revenue Ta
by culi 1mo ago
It's only a tax on wealth above $50m. If she ever reaches that level of net worth, I highly doubt she'd have trouble paying a 2% tax on it.
The 1935 Revenue Tax was essentially a wealth tax and it brought great levels of prosperity as well as continued entrepreneurship
- zahlman 1mo ago> If she ever reaches that level of net worth, I highly doubt she'd have trouble paying a 2% tax on it. The point is that politicians (and political influencers) have a habit of proposing thresholds for taxation on rich people that manage to stay above their own personal level of wealth (or income). It comes across as self-serving. The thresholds should have some actual calculation behind them that doesn't appear motivated by the speaker's personal situation.
- culi 1mo agoI understand your point and was responding directly. That is, I don't think you're point is supported. The cutoff is far above what she makes. For her to pay anything significant she'd have to have a net worth well above $100m. She also justifies the $50m explicitly. That is roughly the percentile where 0.1% of people would be affected. The other cutoff (where the tax goes up to 3%) is at $1b. That is where 0.05% of people are affected.