1076
Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. They want the Supreme Court to keep it that way
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
1076 points (98.3% liked)
News
23361 readers
3231 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
TBF we are talking about unrealized gains. Their investments are worth more on paper, but until they sell them, the actual profit or loss will fluctuate. It would be an accounting nightmare to figure tax on unsold investments every year. I do, however, think capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as wage income.
They should be forced to sell, that is the point. Accounting is complicated because people want to hide wealth. None of this is actually complicated it's just been made complex.
There's a better solution. They take loans with these assets as collateral. Tax the use of collateral (as a kind of advance capital gains).
Yes that works too,
Not forced to sell. Prevented from leveraging as debt
I don't understand. Why should someone be forced to sell an investment?
The situation is that the ultra wealthy never have to sell.. Instead they get loans since that is cheaper percentage-wise than paying taxes.
I think that's The problem though right. Don't let Mega rich leverage their assets for loans for more assets.
I'm not economist, forcing someone sell something just didn't make sense to me.
No, let them do that, but tax its use as collateral. It's effectively an advance capital gains tax then, allowing them to generate cash flow from their assets but also not letting them escape income/gains taxes.
Yeah this makes sense to me.
Remove the mechanisms that allow them to perpetually amass wealth on untaxed assets. And or tax assets from a certain threshold to the point where billionaires don't exist.
Well, if a sale has to be forced, then so does the purchase. Who are you going to force to buy an asset they may not even want?
Yeah that's what makes no sense to me, forced to sell, but no concept of buyers. The logic is broken. Sounds cool though.
And on top of that, you'd have to force someone to buy an asset they may not be able to afford, even if they want the asset that they're being forced to buy.
Guys, we're talking about the ultra wealthy here. I'm not convinced that they can't afford it. And besides, valuations aren't based on nothing. The interested parties are valuating based on what they think would be acceptable compensation, should the loan, or whatever, default. Simplest solution? If the government values your assets at a rate where you can't find a buyer, then the go government would have to purchase at the established rate.
I want to emphasize here that we are talking about a level of wealth that you will never achieve; A level of wealth that indicates a sickness in society.
What purchase is forced?
To transfer wealth to the rest of society.
Because no human needs more than 1 billion dollars. Nore did any human come by that honest.
I get we're discussing wealth disparity, can't wrap my head around the proposed solution.
My only guess is that they meant if they had an investment that made $2 billion on paper that year they should have to pay the taxes on that whether or not they are required to sell off part of the investment to ensure it is paid. (Not sure, just my best guess of what they meant)
While you're waiting you can share with us your solution if you'd like.
I don't have one, I'm not an economist.
Anything i come up with doesn't come from a well informed educated background.
I can't really even grasp what a world without billionaires might look like. If their wealth was distributed to the rest of us, would that just inject trillions of cash into the economy and cause hyper inflation?
Also not an economist but inflation seems like a problem when you're trying to maintain scarcity. I can't see a problem if everyone can afford food and more people can afford fancy foods like Wagyu beef except that capitalists while think "I should be charging more for my fancy thing". To me, injecting trillions into public services sounds like we hop the gap into a post-scarcity thing where we stop charging for necessities like food, shelter, communication, entertainment, and travel.
"I'm not an economist" when asked for solutions, but you sound like you understand the economy damn well when discussing it and 'not being able to wrap your head around' other ideas.
I understand Econ as much as any highschool level graduate should...
I'm using basic supply and demand logic mate. Someone who actually understands economics would better explain the issue and solution (someone else in this thread might already).
Not sure why you're picking a fight with someone who understands their own limitations on a specific topic asking for clarity.
The solution is complex requiring every experts from multiple fields to solve and the ripples will affect everyone, even those that can ill afford it. And for those poor people, how does society go about choosing who to throw under the bus?
I think one thing that gets missed here, it that all rules and regulations can be bent and manipulated for one's own personal advantage. It's a part of human nature and drive to do so to gain an advantage - no matter how slim it might be.
The biggest issue that nearly everyone misses is not thinking about the longer term ramifications of "easy" solutions that seem to solve today's pressing problem. Social media can never "see" farther than the end of their collective noses. Example: the internal combustion engine and cars. 100+ years ago, it was an apparently "good" solution to the tons of horse manure being created in every city every day and it's attendant smell, disposal issues, and disease problems. At the time, who knew a bit over 100 years later it was not a good idea. It did seem to solve those immediate issues quite neatly at the time. And now many of us kind of regret it don't we?
And BEFORE you jump on me and the points I have tried to make it's not about "NOT" trying to make improved changes - changes are needed for sure. But the any changes you make must be carefully thought of and weighed against possible future unforeseen consequences as best we can. Social media platforms, (the society's "stupid" place), ain't it.