you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 143 points 3 months ago (25 children)

One time 5%, that's like a bandaid on a severed artery

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] 106 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 62 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah, a 95% marginal tax rate and both a massive inheritance and transfer of assets while alive (not sure how it's called) taxes would solve most of the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    (not sure how it's called)

    I think you are looking for "wealth tax"

    Also the US has inheritance tax that kicks in once an estate exceeds 5million dollars. The problem is that you can bypass that limit by establishing a trust that holds all your assets. If before your death you put everything over 5million in a trust (baisically a legal contract that acts like a container for assets that a lawyer oversees to make sure the contract is executed) then it stops being your wealth and starts being the trust's wealth. A trust can have any arbitrary set of rules, for example it could be as simple as: wisely invest my assets and pay out an income to my surviving decendants from the intrest and their decendants. Or ot could be: while i live pay me out, on my death distribute everything left to charities my children are ungreatful brats and don't get anything. Really it can be anything.

    Those are really useful if for example you have 3 unmarried adults who want to share property and make sure property rights transfer between them until everyone is dead then the trust is disolved and the property goes to: favorite niece or something. It can also be useful to allow joint ownership of regulated items that otherwise can't be jointly owned (e.g. machine guns) they are also more powerful than a will if for example you want to make sure your grandkids get college money, or dont get any money until 25, while their parents get nothing and so on... anything you can put on a contract can rule the trusts assets.

    So realistically the solution here is to cap how much value can be in a trust, say 5million dollars, and limit how many trusts an individual can be a benneficiary of, lets say 3 trusts at a time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It almost looks like it‘s designed to fail. Probably all of those billionaires will be richer by the end of the year this tax comes into effect. Meanwhile the money raised from it won‘t be enough to solve all that many issues. It‘s not really supposed to but billionaires and their outlets will keep telling us how „taxing the rich was tried and failed!!!“ Mark my words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I was going to answer how taxing income instead of assets is more effective because it emphasizes reinvesting and creating jobs. But billionaires shouldnt exist. Its just too much accumulated in one person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The problem with the "reinvestment" thesis is that the US and certainly not California, aren't some fledgling economies struggling to develop and grow--wealth is so unhealthily concentrated it leads to those with outsized portion of the gains investing in things for the sake of investing rather than actually doing anything good for the economy(let alone nation) long term.

    Billionaires have wealth managers and investment teams throwing money at returns regardless of externalities, tax minimization, lobbying...they aren't putting money into anything "real" that anyone on main street or any other street would benefit from.

    5% one time seems so poorly thought out it was designed to be voted down by those who want real change (permanent, ongoing), which is anyone not in the 1%

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 5 points 3 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    At the very minimum, a 2% worldwide annual tax to prevent some tax evasion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The 2% would be applied to households worth 100 million dollars or more, I'm pretty sure they could spare the change without much impact on their lifestyles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Motherfucker they take 35% of what we make.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)