350
Google cofounder Sergey Brin has spent $102 million to fight California’s proposed billionaire tax—he could owe $13 billion if he loses (fortune.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Proposition 40, which will be on the ballot in November, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on California’s 200 billionaires,

These fucks will do anything to avoid paying taxes...

with 90% of the revenue from the proposed measure going toward the state’s health care program and 10% going toward education, food assistance, and administration. Brin, with a net worth of nearly $260 billion, could owe about $13 billion as a result of the tax.

Can't be contributing to "socialism" I guess? Get some of that $260 billion liquid and pay up, dickhead.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Bring back pre-Reagan tax rates on the rich.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

    Those 1950s glory days that Republicans keep harkening back to involved Ike, a Republican president, taxing the [very] wealthy like 52% (fake viral posts say 90%). at a rate of around 90%.

    EDIT: Corrected based off of comments. The 52% rates seem to be more common among the "wealthy" at the time, but in comparison to billionaires today, the 90% rate would be more accurate. The "fake viral posts" is in reference to memes that make it sound like every person who counted as "wealthy" were taxed at 90%. I realize I could have written all of that more clearly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    Is it fake viral posts, or just people not understanding how marginal tax rates work or how they differ from your effective tax rate again? The highest tax rate did cross over 90% at the tail end of WWII, but very few people actually had to pay taxes at that rate, and even then, their effective tax rate would have been much lower.

    Edit: Just to illustrate, this site has historical tax rates for the period in question. For the sake of simplifying then math, I'm doing this assuming you only paid 3% income tax on income up to $100,000/year, and 94% on earnings above that with the surtax. Source for the income numbers is straight out of my ass, but it doesn't really matter, as it's only to illustrate the point. So, say that year, you managed to make $110,000. You would pay 3% on your first $100,000 in taxable income, and 94% on the remaining $10,000 you earned above that, making your effective rate 11.27% across your whole income, with a tax liability of $12,400. You can have both lower effective tax rates and higher marginal tax rates for your highest earners without either one negating the truth of the other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent