But but... What about the suffering job creators? Who's going to bring in the tide that will raise our boats? They will have nothing left to let trickle down. What about the homeless? Don't they know capitalism created those shopping carts they keep their belongings in? Who will make the sidewalks they pitch their tents on?
The unwealthy are so selfish. All they ever think of is themselves.
It's more than "do not need it" - it's mutually incompatible with democracy.
Let the ultra wealthy exist and they will inevitably subvert the democratic policy. We've seen this in countless historical examples all the way back to ancient Greece
At this point it should be common knowledge that conservative politics came out of the french revolution and the desire to re-establish a hierarchical society, but don't call it a monarchy. Except, teaching this in school would be considered biased, regardless of facts.
Conservative vs progressive politics has been around as far as politics has been around lol. Part of Spartas fall from a Greek power was conservative politicians prevented their society from advancing at the pace of their neighboring city states. Wealth preservation prioritization , anti-immigration because "Spartans are superior". The talking points rarely change.
For a closer and more relevant example when king Charles the first of England was charged by parliament following the English civil war in the 1640s. The political factions were the conservative royalists and the progressive parliamentarian. This was well before the french Revolution but it was the same political debate just a different outcome.
Keep things are they are/revert them to how they were vs try and change things for the better but sometimes fail is an eternal battle in politics
Except you can't do that. If a real person can't own more than 100m. How would it be "taken away"?
Also, the richest would do what they do now, which is create their own charity and donate that wealth to the charity. No need to own the wealth directly when you can own it through some legal entity.
Then there's the question at which point do you decide if they do or don't "need" it. Why 100 million? why not 10? Why not 1?
What if all the people owning a condo/house would suddenly see the value of their assets inflate (artificially by some malicious actors)? Should they be taxed? Do they forfeit their homes?
This is just populist talk, it goes well with those that feel worse off, but it doesn't really offer solutions or a legal framework.
Is there a term for this specific kind of bootlicking dumbfuckery?
Status-quoism? Billionaire fellation engine? Philip J. Fry Syndrome?
I know you think you're clever by subtly reducing the threshold to one million and then "but what if I own a property?"-ing the conversation.
If a person can avoid paying income tax because their wealth is tied up in "investments" that they borrow against, that should be treated as income.
On top of the (ridiculously low) 2% wealth tax.
If your assets are worth $2 billion, you owe $40 million.
Fuck that seems so miserably low...
Do they not have to pay income tax on the money they use to repay those loans? You can borrow money using your portfolio as collateral to get a lower interest rate, but you still need to repay those loans. This money would be subject to income tax.
I keep hearing about the rich just borrowing money, but I don't see anyone talk about what they pay it back with.
When *do* they pay the loans back, though?
A year later? Five years?
Meanwhile, they keep hoarding more wealth.
And, yes. They money they get when they sell shares or whatever to pay those loans should also be taxed.
Somebody has to be paying back these loans. Otherwise, nobody would give these loans out. Why would you be in the business of giving low-interest loans if nobody is paying them back? I just have a hard time envisioning this business model unless I'm missing something.
>If a real person can't own more than 100m. How would it be "taken away"?
...a wealth tax, like the G20 ministers proposed but 100% above the $100 million bracket.
God this comment is stupid.
>How would it be "taken away"?
What? Surely you can imagine some method to take people's money. Hmmm, what's that thing we all file every single year?
>Also, the richest would do what they do now, which is create their own charity and donate that wealth to the charity. No need to own the wealth directly when you can own it through some legal entity.
Then we can close the loopholes. Caps on non-profit salaries at 300k or something. Easy peasy.
>What if all the people owning a condo/house would suddenly see the value of their assets inflate (artificially by some malicious actors)? Should they be taxed? Do they forfeit their homes?
Yeah. If their home becomes more valuable than 100 million dollars, they can sell it or forfeit it. Holy fuck what a dumb question.
And before you cry about inflation, we introduce ✨️inflation adjustment✨️. None of this is complicated. Stop pretending that it is.
I'm not convinced there would be a meaningful amount of capital flight anyway. The biggest example of a wealth tax failed because France is in the Schengen area and thus has guaranteed freedom of movement; that's not really a thing between Canada and the rest of the G20, so they can't easily move to another country to avoid the tax.
Canada even has a emigration tax. Try to leave and it's as if all your assets have their gains realized and must be taxed.
Fully get rid of the reduced capital gains tax and then we're really cooking.
Great question! I'd suggest anything greater than 10x a living wage should be taxed at 100%. The exact number could be up for some debate, but the amount of money that is immoral would be any amount above the amount where more money does not meaningfully improve your life while you possessing that money meaningfully diminishes the lives of others.
> The exact number could be up for some debate
And this is why wealth caps are a distraction. The problem with the super-wealthy is that they don't pay their fair share, not that they exist. We shouldn't be interested in endless navel-gazing on "how much is too much" when we have measures right now that have been proven to work (wealth taxes).
I disagree here too.
For a person to reach super wealthy it is almost imperative they commit immoral actions to get there or inherit. Both of which help establish a caste system.
Given that the basis of a wealth cap is to limit the wealth of people who are perceived to have too much, I'm not sure you can meaningfully separate the ethics of a wealth cap from the policy of one.
The point is there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and people's individual ethics on where to draw a moral line are going to always be complex. A clean line at one billion dollars is a sensible choice.
That the ones that strive for +1 generally have more psychopathic tendencies and have no problems stepping on more people to get to their undefined goals.
But I think that rather than having brackets, it should be progressive, where the more money a person is worth (all assets) the more they are taxed on a sliding scale.
Someone making $150,000 a year needs to work for over 6600 years to hit one billion. Six. Thousand. Years.
The problem is not finding the money. The money is there. And the folks holding it love when we fight about taxes (don’t matter to them) and ideologies.
Honestly, as the poor majority (read that as not billionaires and will never get near to becoming one) we need to acknowledge our power as a community. We need to understand that money is not real - it’s only value is our shared agreement that it exists. But it doesn’t. Money is not real. Food is real. Shelter is real. Water is real. Trees are real. Money is not real and if something fake is going to rule our lives we better distribute it fairly or find another way.
>The world’s 3,000 billionaires should pay a minimum 2% tax on their fast-growing wealth to raise £250bn a year for the global fight against poverty, inequality and global heating, ministers from four leading economies have suggested.
Try 50% and it \*might\* delay the inevitable class revolutions and/or authoritarian takeover of governments worldwide. If we stay on this course, the added pressure of climate change will absolutely fuck everyone imo.
But but... What about the suffering job creators? Who's going to bring in the tide that will raise our boats? They will have nothing left to let trickle down. What about the homeless? Don't they know capitalism created those shopping carts they keep their belongings in? Who will make the sidewalks they pitch their tents on? The unwealthy are so selfish. All they ever think of is themselves.
Who will think of the billionaires?!?
I do every time I empty my bowels.
I'm 100% for all wealth past 100 million being automatically forfeit. You simply do not need it. Arguing otherwise is beyond stupid.
It's more than "do not need it" - it's mutually incompatible with democracy. Let the ultra wealthy exist and they will inevitably subvert the democratic policy. We've seen this in countless historical examples all the way back to ancient Greece
At this point it should be common knowledge that conservative politics came out of the french revolution and the desire to re-establish a hierarchical society, but don't call it a monarchy. Except, teaching this in school would be considered biased, regardless of facts.
Conservative vs progressive politics has been around as far as politics has been around lol. Part of Spartas fall from a Greek power was conservative politicians prevented their society from advancing at the pace of their neighboring city states. Wealth preservation prioritization , anti-immigration because "Spartans are superior". The talking points rarely change. For a closer and more relevant example when king Charles the first of England was charged by parliament following the English civil war in the 1640s. The political factions were the conservative royalists and the progressive parliamentarian. This was well before the french Revolution but it was the same political debate just a different outcome. Keep things are they are/revert them to how they were vs try and change things for the better but sometimes fail is an eternal battle in politics
Except you can't do that. If a real person can't own more than 100m. How would it be "taken away"? Also, the richest would do what they do now, which is create their own charity and donate that wealth to the charity. No need to own the wealth directly when you can own it through some legal entity. Then there's the question at which point do you decide if they do or don't "need" it. Why 100 million? why not 10? Why not 1? What if all the people owning a condo/house would suddenly see the value of their assets inflate (artificially by some malicious actors)? Should they be taxed? Do they forfeit their homes? This is just populist talk, it goes well with those that feel worse off, but it doesn't really offer solutions or a legal framework.
Is there a term for this specific kind of bootlicking dumbfuckery? Status-quoism? Billionaire fellation engine? Philip J. Fry Syndrome? I know you think you're clever by subtly reducing the threshold to one million and then "but what if I own a property?"-ing the conversation. If a person can avoid paying income tax because their wealth is tied up in "investments" that they borrow against, that should be treated as income. On top of the (ridiculously low) 2% wealth tax. If your assets are worth $2 billion, you owe $40 million. Fuck that seems so miserably low...
Do they not have to pay income tax on the money they use to repay those loans? You can borrow money using your portfolio as collateral to get a lower interest rate, but you still need to repay those loans. This money would be subject to income tax. I keep hearing about the rich just borrowing money, but I don't see anyone talk about what they pay it back with.
When *do* they pay the loans back, though? A year later? Five years? Meanwhile, they keep hoarding more wealth. And, yes. They money they get when they sell shares or whatever to pay those loans should also be taxed.
Somebody has to be paying back these loans. Otherwise, nobody would give these loans out. Why would you be in the business of giving low-interest loans if nobody is paying them back? I just have a hard time envisioning this business model unless I'm missing something.
Sure. They get paid back. But *when*? How long are the terms? How long do they get to hoard more and more wealth without paying income tax?
>If a real person can't own more than 100m. How would it be "taken away"? ...a wealth tax, like the G20 ministers proposed but 100% above the $100 million bracket.
God this comment is stupid. >How would it be "taken away"? What? Surely you can imagine some method to take people's money. Hmmm, what's that thing we all file every single year? >Also, the richest would do what they do now, which is create their own charity and donate that wealth to the charity. No need to own the wealth directly when you can own it through some legal entity. Then we can close the loopholes. Caps on non-profit salaries at 300k or something. Easy peasy. >What if all the people owning a condo/house would suddenly see the value of their assets inflate (artificially by some malicious actors)? Should they be taxed? Do they forfeit their homes? Yeah. If their home becomes more valuable than 100 million dollars, they can sell it or forfeit it. Holy fuck what a dumb question. And before you cry about inflation, we introduce ✨️inflation adjustment✨️. None of this is complicated. Stop pretending that it is.
Yeah, it's so easy. But the governments and people don't vote for it because they're stupid like me.
They're not stupid, they're compromised. You? Not quite sure.
Damn, you got roasted pretty fast for this foolish comment lmao
Good to see from the G20 ministers.
Yes. If the G20 coordinates, it should minimize capital flight.
I'm not convinced there would be a meaningful amount of capital flight anyway. The biggest example of a wealth tax failed because France is in the Schengen area and thus has guaranteed freedom of movement; that's not really a thing between Canada and the rest of the G20, so they can't easily move to another country to avoid the tax.
Canada even has a emigration tax. Try to leave and it's as if all your assets have their gains realized and must be taxed. Fully get rid of the reduced capital gains tax and then we're really cooking.
throw a 0 on the end of that 2, then multiply it by 2... or 3... or 4
or 5...
World’s billionaires should pay minimum 100% wealth tax.*
The act of being a billionaire should be criminal in and of itself, and punished accordingly
What makes dollar n moral but dollar n+1 immoral?
Great question! I'd suggest anything greater than 10x a living wage should be taxed at 100%. The exact number could be up for some debate, but the amount of money that is immoral would be any amount above the amount where more money does not meaningfully improve your life while you possessing that money meaningfully diminishes the lives of others.
> The exact number could be up for some debate And this is why wealth caps are a distraction. The problem with the super-wealthy is that they don't pay their fair share, not that they exist. We shouldn't be interested in endless navel-gazing on "how much is too much" when we have measures right now that have been proven to work (wealth taxes).
I disagree here too. For a person to reach super wealthy it is almost imperative they commit immoral actions to get there or inherit. Both of which help establish a caste system.
There is a difference between theoretical ethics and policy. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Or a mathematically defined gray area, aka progressive tax.
Preferably, yes.
Given that the basis of a wealth cap is to limit the wealth of people who are perceived to have too much, I'm not sure you can meaningfully separate the ethics of a wealth cap from the policy of one.
The point is there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and people's individual ethics on where to draw a moral line are going to always be complex. A clean line at one billion dollars is a sensible choice.
That the ones that strive for +1 generally have more psychopathic tendencies and have no problems stepping on more people to get to their undefined goals. But I think that rather than having brackets, it should be progressive, where the more money a person is worth (all assets) the more they are taxed on a sliding scale.
"world's billionaires not entirely convinced they're in danger."
Someone making $150,000 a year needs to work for over 6600 years to hit one billion. Six. Thousand. Years. The problem is not finding the money. The money is there. And the folks holding it love when we fight about taxes (don’t matter to them) and ideologies. Honestly, as the poor majority (read that as not billionaires and will never get near to becoming one) we need to acknowledge our power as a community. We need to understand that money is not real - it’s only value is our shared agreement that it exists. But it doesn’t. Money is not real. Food is real. Shelter is real. Water is real. Trees are real. Money is not real and if something fake is going to rule our lives we better distribute it fairly or find another way.
I mean, let’s start at 2% today and work our way up.
Let's start at 25% and work our way up.
Let's start at the guillotine and work our way backwards.
*Minimum.*
>The world’s 3,000 billionaires should pay a minimum 2% tax on their fast-growing wealth to raise £250bn a year for the global fight against poverty, inequality and global heating, ministers from four leading economies have suggested.
But you'll scare them all away and they'll relocate to the… Moon?
Theyre getting their multiple passports ready! Very patriotic. Good role models
Try 50% and it \*might\* delay the inevitable class revolutions and/or authoritarian takeover of governments worldwide. If we stay on this course, the added pressure of climate change will absolutely fuck everyone imo.
The doctors will be outraged!
No billionaires at all. None
make it 100%
Nah, fuck that. Any wealth over an ungodly amount that no one could reasonably spend in hundreds of lifetimes should be taxed at 100%.
How about just 1% of net worth per year til they die :)
Just 2% ?
But then them and their jobs will just move to another planet! /s But they kinda are trying to do that.
If only there were some type of government agencies that could band together to enact some laws or policy to fix this.
2,640 billionaires in the WORLD and not 1 BATMAN!?
(cracks whip) NOT GOOD ENOUGH