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).
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.
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.
Property taxes while a wealth tax, is not what people online seem want in this situation. They want a wealth tax that basically says person X is worth Y, so they owe Z every year.
You buy a new car, and it’s part of your wealth, own a home. Part of your wealth. Have a 401k…also part of your wealth.
I agree with you but the culture around here is exceptionally infuriating for anyone who understands a thing about finance/accounting/tax/money in general so good luck.
People will always act in their own rational self interest. Idk where people get this idea from that you can legislate market forces. It’s like legislating the tides or the seasons. The commies around here walking around bitching about all these mean rich people are so naive it’s really incredible.
Yep, constantly hear people act like everyone will just work to help each other without getting anything more out of it. The level of nativity is astounding from them.
Well, you can legislate market forces, to an extent. The issue is the degree to which people are demanding tax revenue goes so far as to violate basic math. People want a wealth tax that for the s&p 500 would hypothetically amount to 36 trillion dollars, but the M2 money supply is only 20 trillion total.
That’s actually a really good point I hadn’t even thought of. Is there even enough actual currency in circulation to pay the tax people are talking about, or is it all locked up in hypothetical future income priced in to the current FMV? Great post.
At the scale of a property tax, might be ok. Or at least more fair, I’m stuck being taxed on my house which is most of my net worth, so…
At the scale of an income tax, or as frequently demanded an extreme income tax at like 90%, then yes, it would explode, fall to produce desired revenue, and take down most retirement funds with it.
Of course, in the wrong thread you get branded as some billionaire defender, when you are trying to explain that it’s fine to go after them and they do enjoy having way too much actual money, but any strategy to make it fair has to be smart and workable rather than going after an extrapolated number of dollars that don’t “actually” exist. It’s true that it’s all imaginary is an oversimplification when they clearly lead lives of intense wealth, but have to recognize the degree to which that claim is true. So take that into consideration and advocate things like covering unrealized gains as collateral in a better tax system, or a property tax level rate on unrealized gains (though even then, have to tread carefully. Most property has an intrinsic use and the tax burden has been priced into the market for eternity, for a more purely financial vehicle previously not subject to a tax, might have unintended consequences).
Yup, this meme keeps getting reposted over and over like its something super intelligent…when in reality it’s someone who has no clue how our economy works at all.
Yep that’s the issue. People don’t realize that they have to sell stocks which in turn is going to have a completely destructive action on people’s retirements, when the stock market goes tits up from stocks being sold in mass quantities to cover a 90%
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.
I wonder how having assets seized would affect their tax return. It could be that it would be beneficial for them to put up a fight and get the assets seized instead of liquidating them and then being subject to a huge tax bill.
The asset’s worth should be at least the value owed in taxes + 10% liquidation fee to nip shit like that in the bud. No more loopholes, no more leeway.
This is a super basic apples and oranges concept, please try and keep up.
Your original comment was bitching about 4% not being a fair share when you are paying 24%. Wealth tax is not the same as income tax.
I think everyone is subject to income tax in the US when the income is taxable to them, yes. Eventually all of these big bad mean rich people will pay tax on their unrealized gains one way or another. No need to create a wealth tax because eventually the income tax will kick in, I promise you. There’s no need to fuck with the tax code even more, and by doing so totally breaking accounting and tax concepts in a way that only government can, just out of this populist notion that they aren’t paying their fair share, whatever that means.
Are you a bot? Wealth tax is not the same as income tax. You can’t compare 24% to 4%. It just doesn’t work that way. I don’t know how to be more clear.
Suppose you take one of your remaining dollars after paying 24% tax on your gross income. You buy a penny stock and it skyrockets to the moon and you are now worth 100 billion on paper, and you stay at your 100k/yr white collar desk job. Your only income is your 100k salary. You haven’t actually earned any income yet or triggered any taxable events. Income happens when you sell, not when values fluctuate. Your fair share is 24,000 now and then capital gains tax whenever you sell your share of that stock. This wealth tax is absurd because it’s literally just a timing difference between now and whenever you sell, or whenever you die, whichever happens first. That tax is going to get paid one way or another.
You guys are getting your panties all twisted up over a temporary timing difference. And the worst part is you just don’t even know what you’re talking about, or how chaotic it would be implementing such a thing, which would never work in practice, or even the fact that it’s unconstitutional and would require an amendment to be legal. This whole thing is just idiotic.
I don’t question that their income from what ever source should be (highly) taxed. However the wealth tax should be on top to fix the errors made in the past (and are currently made) leading to such accumulation of assets. The question is how should non-liquid wealth, such as estates, shares and bonds, be taxed.
Yeah and then they pay interest on that loan, which is income to the lender for them to pay tax on; then when the original loan comes due the billionaire either refinances and pays even more interest, or pays back the loan by selling their appreciated assets and then - yes - pays tax on the income. So either way the tax is getting paid, now or later, and you have no idea how frustrating it is to see people parroting this over and over and over, and downvoting you for pointing it out.
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.
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%
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn’t a wealth tax increase risk of assets being stored and hidden outside the US?
Americans are already taxed on worldwide income. If there’s a wealth tax and they tried to get around it by storing assets outside the US, wouldn’t hiding it be much the same as attempting to hide non-US income?
Any comments on whether a wealth tax is even constitutional, since the 16th amendment only authorizes an income tax and not a wealth tax?
Do they get a deduction when they repay the loan on the back end, if they had to pick up income for the loan when it was received?
Wouldn’t it be disruptive to cap executive pay during lean years, or startup years, or recession years etc? Wouldn’t that create even more incentive than there already is to aggressively pump up income in order to meet arbitrary quarterly/annual earnings goals to keep executive comp high? What if there was a lot of income last year, little income this year, and a lot of income next year, etc. Should everyone’s income seesaw up and down or could we maybe plan around cash flow a little bit?
“Yearly audits of accounts held by wealth management firms to ensure that no one is fiddling with the books” is such a loaded sentence full of ignorance and naivete I really can’t begin to respond to it besides telling you that it instantly identifies you as someone who doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about and shouldn’t be commenting on such things.
Finally, Bezos is still the executive chair of Amazon and still holds 990 million shares as of November 2023 so idk what you’re talking about with that last sentence. Link to the SEC Form 4 Proxy Statement, a primary source document despite the shady url: …cloudfront.net/…/0978cda1-fd60-4d80-bdc4-e691137… or you can find it here dated November 1 2023: ir.aboutamazon.com/sec-filings/default.aspx
Bill Gates is a higher class of billionaire. He funnels money through philanthropy and charities. Lonnie just lights it on fire. They are not the same. What I mean is that Billy Boy is doing exactly what you said because he’s much smarter than Lonnie.
Charities that he controls. He’s shifted power to nonprofit companies, getting additional protection from taxes in order to push his ideas. For example you may be for nuclear power or against it, but he’s able to get one built. Isn’t that the sort of thing the people should decide?
Yep. Gates came from Rich. Legit rich. Hence his education and upbringing and investor support early on. But he coupled it with, well, talent and appetite hence <gesticulates at the MS evolution and hellscape> eh overall… I prefer him to musk I guess?
It’s a hard ask because SpaceX. Otherwise… fuck that guy.
I wonder how quickly he’d change his mind if we also removed the ability to launder funds donate money for tax breaks from your bank account into your foundation’s bank account.
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.
Add comment