653
I don't mind paying taxes for services. I mind very much billionaires not paying taxes. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

I can't remember who suggested it, but they framed the question differently around taxing billionaires.

Instead of making it a negative thing, they said it should be framed as a great honour to pay these "special" taxes. The billionaire tax should be kept separately from all other taxes, it should be pooled into a limited fund that they own, and should be distributed to areas where they want it to make a real impact. They should then be given additional benefits in society based on the impact generated by their fund. It notes that capitalism isn't necessarily about accumulation of wealth, but profit, and that wealth should be taxed.

For example, if Elon Musk were taxed 50% as a wealth tax, he is personally invited to the White House to discuss his plans with the tax authorities and the president. He gets to attend specific meetings to see where his money has gone (let's say to hospitals), and gets public praise for pumping several billion into public healthcare initiatives. Wealth is reframed into an opportunity to help society, whereas capitalism pushes profit.

While I don't really like the idea of billionaires choosing where taxes go, if improvements are measured on societal impact it's still better than before where they just hoard wealth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think that billionaires gain their wealth by gaming the system, and it seems foolish to expect them to not continue to game any new system that they're a part of. Especially given the degree of control you're suggesting.

    Idk, maybe it could work. Seems like there's a lot that hinges on billionaires doing the right thing, and I'm skeptical that they would.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    In many ways, it is an obscene amount of control, and I don't disagree that this degree of wealth isn't ethical - even examples like Taylor Swift aren't from "hard work", but rather backroom deals, undercutting other artists, etc.

    IMO, the best alternative is going entirely the other way. Tell all billionaires in the US that they are subject to a wealth tax, and attempts to fight it will result in freezing assets, expulsion from the country, executive removal, etc. Drive all billionaires out of the country, and let them set up shop elsewhere (they won't).

    It's a punishment, though. Perhaps they should be punished, but IMO an easier approach is to say "well done" and to tell them that as long as this money goes somewhere for societal gain it doesn't really matter if they decide to pump tens of billions into making public roads the best roads in the country, it's better than them just having that money in a fund somewhere.

    Where this will likely get dicey is in ensuring that this money stays in home accounts, and in defining what is taxable wealth, and fighting avoidance. That's where the system will be gamed, but ultimately it's different to avoid tax that goes somewhere to avoiding your money being spent by you for public good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Instead of the $1 menu (wait does that still exist?) they get to choose from the billionaire menu except it's required...as long as they can't lobby for the billionaire menu items which is a dream too. It would have to be programs that actually show they help people in easing financial needs of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Thing is, this already happens, it's just currently more in the billionaire's favor because instead of tax it's a "donation". You're proposing the same system that already exists with lobbyists and Super PACs, just more enforced. No one is going to bite that bait when they can just pay Scheister and Swindel, Attorneys at Law, to cut a private deal with the CEOs and senators of their choice, be completely unbeholden to public opinion about it, and not be required to do it again next tax season if it's not profitable to do so.

    Besides, I've had quite enough of rich assholes deciding that this year they're going to donate $80m to exterminate the gays / to shut down solar startups / to arm all the cops with rocket launchers. In every situation, given the choice, they will always invest their money into whatever is most immediately profitable to them, morals or longevity be damned. This would cause our already easily-purchased politicians to be even more easily purchased and with semi public approval, as Elongated Muskrat now has a legal right to billionaire hero-worship? No thanks.

    The special billionaire tax isn't an awful idea. The perks attached to it are most definitely an awful, no good, very bad idea. If something like this did get implemented it would be an absolute requirement that the investor have no say in where these taxes are spent. They may advise in certain directions, but final say should be up to a jury of some sort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent