I actually disagree with a straight wealth tax, I believe the approach of adequately taxing the wealthy needs a more two pronged approach, which I happen to have pitched already, so I'll just copy paste that comment here to explain what I think will work instead:
I believe someone suggested loans collateralized on stock and other such speculative assets be taxed as realized gains, which should go a long way to stop the absolutely mindbogglingly obscene displays of mega wealth we've been seeing as of late.
As for income, there should be nominal brackets established at the 20th, 40th, 60th, 80th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of income for a given year, with 20th, 40th, and 60th percentile income taxed at the percent of national wealth each of those brackets owns, income in the 80th and 95th brackets being taxed at twice their respective shares of the national wealth, and income above the 99th income being taxed at three times their share of the national wealth. Then have a half a percent multiplier for every multiple of twenty times the median income of the 0-20 percentile bracket an income crosses.
Doesn't just tax the rich, it directly makes it their class interest to spread the wealth to lighten the crunch on their top dollar. The rich literally can get their own tax cuts by sharing the wealth.
It actually even incentivizes the ultra rich to police each other since one of them building up the riches too much hits all of them, meaning the rich will be eating each other whenever one of them steps out of line!
While I definitely agree with the approach, would it not make sense to also run a wealth tax alongside this, to ensure that assets aren't just stored outside of the US?
I'd be all for all of the below:
- Taxation on loans taken against collateral above x
- A cap on executive pay, especially in instances where an executive is paid more than the company takes in income. This would stop instances like Musk getting paid a fuck-ton when their company has very little income.
- A wealth tax to take a percentage of wealth, with yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books.
The problem with some of the listed names is that they don't own their companies. Bezos hasn't owned Amazon for 3-4 years now, and he's been dumping stock for years. If we only taxed against specific types of collateral, the rich would just move to something else.
Can somebody please fix the bar scales? Nothing corresponds to anything else, and as such the difference between "millions" and "billions" is indicated by just 1 letter. Not to mention, there is no source for the data or indication why their rates are different (3.05% for Musk and Bezos, 0.309% for Gates).
Indeed! This chart is crap. How are these values even calculated? Is this a flat tax on their networth? Nobody gets taxed like this, at least that I'm aware of - people get taxed on their profits.
I'm completely for taxing billionaires (individuals and corps) heavily on their profits, but let's use proper arguments, not intentionally misleading bullshit.
Have seen this chart a couple times and both times that is my immediate reaction. Putting the taxes and the remaining money on the same scale would make the point hit.
How is 4% "fair share" when I am paying 24%
I assume that you pay tax on your income, not your wealth/assets, so that is something different.
Yes, but you also pay tax on everything else including housing and every day goods via Sales tax. And as a percentage of wealth I'm sure that adds up to way more than 4%
But my taxes as a percent of my wealth are probably closer to 20 percent (e.g. 20,000 in taxes on 100,000 in wealth), than the 2 percent suggested here.
4% every year, perhaps?
Anyway, this graph assumes something between 3.0 and 3.1%, and exactly 10 times less (decimal point error?) for Gates.
I cannot see why anyone should ever have more than 10 million dollars. How much is the billionaire's fair share? Enough to bring them down to 10 million.
We could quibble on 10 million. Maybe it should be 1 million. But that is a separate end less interesting question.
Agreed. It's also a question of power: no one should have enough money to amass that much power. It's barely an exaggeration to say that the Koch brothers bought themselves a political party and doomed the entire planet to climate catastrophe. No one should have that much money.
10 million dollars is not as much wealth as it was ten years ago.
Isn't that the point? If I wrote 2 or 3, people could talk about absurd land prices in San Francisco or medical emergencies for five of their children simultaneously. But when we are talking about 10, it's pretty hard to come up with a plausible hypothetical situation where the money is actually necessary, ever. I'm not questioning your ability to do craft such a hypothetical, but I am questioning your ability to do so while keeping a straight face.
It's still enough to live off the interest.
I personally really hate the term "pay their fair share" because if it's implications. I would much rather hear something like "pay like the rest of us" because it's about percentages, not actual dollars.
The only gripe I have with this is settling for billionaires paying ‘their fair share’. That would have been acceptable if they paid that while hoarding these unimaginable levels of wealth.
At this point; the amount they should be due to pay should be punitive - to discourage anyone from attempting anything similar in the future.
I think you'll find more gripes once you compare the bar widths and corresponding amounts.
You can’t just vote for politicians who want to tax the wealthy more money because how else can I get trans kids out of middle school basketball?
I'd love to tax the kleptocrat class and pay to fix some of the country's problems, but I'm worried a woman and her doctor might do medicine deemed heresy by my twisted interpretation of a book of fables I never actually read (and may not even believe). Also the gays and brown people scare me, and somehow the only way I can save myself from them is to give Elon Musk ownership of San Francisco.
/s
Neat part is that Bill Gates has been saying he wants taxes to increase for the ultra-rich, he is on board, if only all of them thought that way
I wonder how quickly he'd change his mind if we also removed the ability to
launder fundsdonate money for tax breaks from your bank account into your foundation's bank account.Something tells me Bill is saying that publicly, then discreetly paying lobbyists to oppose such moves.
Nearly all of us pay more than these clowns do, when considering the percent of our incomes. And most of us are losing savings or being forced to budget to the extreme these days.
Fuck the ultra rich that never give back. People like Musk are a fucking scourge to our entire society.
They also create large amounts of value. You would get the same tax breaks if you provide the same value for society. You can hate capitalism all you want, but something you can't argue against is that it motivates people to provide value
Yeah Covid showed us how all these billionaires create real value instead of the rank and file.
Oh wait, the economy came to a crawl and governments were printing money to keep it moving.
Most of the billionaire today inherited their fortune, and a lot of billionaire before them started on third base.
They provide no value, and if they disappeared tomorrow, we would fine.
Lol
But it only takes $50k to buy a congress person, so this will never happen.
$50K? You're trying to bribe one with a stronger backbone than most, I guess.
You can by a german right winger for 20k (true patrios sell themself and their country to China/Russia!)
You don’t even need money really, just give them some insider knowledge on a stock trade and let them make it big like they already do.
Who the fuck is doing Bill Gates' taxes and how do I get them to do that but on my much more modest income.
Whoever designed the "charts" is in on it, I know that much
Bill Gates looks like a loser with his 372kk compared to other guys.
Why such a % difference between Gates (0.3) and Bezos(3)? Is it based on the last year's income?
Is it based on the last year’s income?
I thought wealth taxes are based on net worth, not on income?
While I agree with the sentiment it's worth noting that this wealth isn't usually liquid. It's tied up in other assets. Like shares in companies. Liquidating those shares to pay a wealth tax will also dilute their influence in those companies. Not to mention liquidation comes with additional taxes.
Just give their wealth to the workers they exploited to gain it.
Fuck the "fair share". Seize their stupid asses away from under them. Followed by the means of production.
This is a much nicer version of the same meme I put up here last week (not complaining, it really does look nicer).
they'd get more after tax?
The top numbers are what they'd pay in tax, not what they have
Look, our politicians are bought and paid for so I'm going to suggest something unorthodox here: we get the blood boys to float the idea of a wealth tax with these people.
A man's never as vulnerable and open to new ideas as when he's siphoning the life force from his best blood boy.
'Open veins open brains', as they say.
Bezos looks kind of like Putin in that pic.
This chart is bullshit. Scale the taxes owed the same as the money remaining so we can visualize what a fuckall pittance it is in comparison.
Is this an annual tax though? Or, a one time tax? Is it a tax on income or total net worth?
Annual on net worth
