A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
That's honestly pretty pathetic. Even a 5% tax on their $13 trillion (per the article) would yield $650 billion, and that doesn't even come close to the annual proportion the average person pays. It's time we stop treating the rich a special sunflowers and make them pay their fair share like the rest of us, and close the loopholes that allow them to exploit us.
Edit: should've said taxing income not wealth, these numbers don't really apply
I agree, but the problem is that the rich have all the best fiscal experts, lawyers and politicians on their payroll.
And the rest of us are fighting amongst ourselves on which bathrooms transgender people should take or whatever symbolic pro or anti-immigration policy the politicians should implement.
As the majority, we have all the power, in theory. But until we have solidarity amongst the working class, we will not be able to yield that power effectively.
The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.
It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.
I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.
We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.
There is a very real logistical problem with directly taxing net worth. It's extremely difficult to actually assess, especially when you're targeting people with extremely expensive lawyers. They also very directly encourage wealth flight, which has happened in other countries that have tried them. They can also be avoided by accounting trickery, shell companies, and all kinds of bullshit. It's not me that owns $1 billion in Amazon stock, it's a shell company in the Cayman Islands that happened to buy a yacht. Sure, you can unwind all that, but enforcement takes a lot of time and resources.
There are other much more efficient tax schemes out there focusing on consumption that can't be easily escaped.
Bribes should be taxed at least 15%!
(The actual point being that billionaires don't necessarily spend their money on things normal people would consider consumption.)
This would be bad because it would make people not want to be billionaires
-billionaires probably
It's bad because the only way this could work is by taxing unrealized capital gains on all investments, which will hurt non-rich people that invest.
I wouldn't trust any government to not fuck with things retirement investment vehicles or property value increases if they started down this path, or to not put in a thousand loopholes that make it so the bottom 99% are the only ones paying it.
Remember, billionaires don't have their money sitting in a bank. The vast majority of it is in non-liquid assets.
That's really easy to avoid. Make the tax start at 100 million or something and you won't hit a single middle to upper class home owner.
You'll suddenly find a lot of people with 99 million in assets and a cousin in the Cayman Islands that owns a few yachts and jets.
When they pass all those millions to a cousin, they can be taxed.
Yes, the system designed by billionaires makes it seem wrong to address the systemic corruption of their system.
Liberating nonliquid assets from billionaires to workers is the whole point.
Translation: I don't trust governments to do anything at all, because I might not like some of the things they do.
So, you trust the governments that created the loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes to not put in loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes?
So you believe any kind of positive change is possible or are you just fatalistic about everything?
Governments can do good things when they try. They don't always succeed, but they definitely won't accomplish anything if all they do is maintain the status quo.
With the current state of the world, I don't believe a change like you're suggesting is possible without large scale violence from the people (I'm not advocating large scale violence from the people)
I think positive change is possible, just not if it impacts the ruling class's hoarded wealth.
Then tax stocks. 1% per stock.
OK, I need some help here. The arguments I always see against taxing the rich are along the lines of "they have very little income by design, so taxing their income doesn't help." I saw somewhere that a lot of the ultra-wealthy get spending money by taking loans out on assets.
What are the implications of taxing loans greater than $10 million, or some such?
There are other pre-existing tax structures that make a lot more sense. It'd be much simpler to simply tax the consumption of the kinds of goods that those loans buy. If you have a large tax on hyper-expensive yachts or whatever, that simply has to be paid when the sale is made, no matter how many layers of shell companies or whatever other trickery you try to bury the purchase in. Trying to tax the loan, beyond not really making much inherent sense since net worth hasn't actually changed, simply incentivizes a lot of loopholey nonsense that's hard to track.
For instance, if my direct loan is gonna be taxed to hell, then I'll just set up a shell company that takes out the loan instead. Sure, maybe there could be rules against it, but now the IRS has to spend a ton of time and money going down all these rabbit holes. Consumption taxes are essentially impossible to avoid, since you simply cannot buy your penthouse or yacht or diamonds or whatever without somebody paying the money.
Those assets are usually tons of stock which is used as collateral for the loans they live off of. Tax the stock.
That seems really low...
What if the IRS waits for these big companies to release their annual earnings report boasting about their profits, then tax 15% of whatever amount they state in that report?
Corporate taxes already exist. It's 21% at the federal level, with some additional state taxes.
The profit number that's reported to investors already is taxed.
So I guess you're happy now?
Stop. I can only get so erect.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.
"In our view, this is difficult to justify because it risks to undermine the sustainability of tax systems and the social acceptability of taxation," the observatory's director Gabriel Zucman told journalists.
U.S. President Joe Biden's 2024 budget included plans for a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01%, but that proposal has since fallen by the wayside with lawmakers in Washington preoccupied with government shutdown threats and looming funding deadlines.
Though a coordinated international push to tax billionaires could take years, the Observatory pointed to the example of governments' success in all but ending bank secrecy and reducing opportunities for multinationals to shift profits to low-tax countries.
The 2018 launch of automatic sharing of account information has reduced the amount of wealth held in offshore tax havens by a factor of three, the observatory estimated.
For example the rich increasingly park wealth in real estate instead of offshore accounts while companies can exploit loopholes in the 15% corporate tax minimum.
The original article contains 491 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
If they don't like their "tax evasions", then they should change the laws and remove the loopholes that allow it. I'm not a supporter of a wealth tax (i.e. being taxed on something repeatedly because you still happen to own it) no matter who it is that would suffer from it that we all collectively dislike.
I know in the US, if we taxed 100% of all US billionaire wealth, dropping their and their companies' productivity to zero, you could fund the federal government for only like 7 months. You'd squander tons of production for comparatively little gain. The problem isn't that we don't tax the rich enough, the problem is that we waste money left and right.
Is this a fact or a "fact" you pulled out of your ass?