According to a summary of the bill released by the Patriotic Millionaires—an advocacy group that helped craft the measure—the wealth tax would have four brackets:

  • 2% for all wealth between 1,000 and 10,000 times median household wealth;
  • 4% for all wealth between 10,000 and 100,000 times median household wealth;
  • 6% for all wealth between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times median household wealth; and
  • 8% for all wealth over 1,000,000 times median household wealth;

"In the unlikely event median household wealth fell below $50,000 from its current level of about $120,000, the thresholds would be fixed at $50 million, $500 million, $5 billion, and $50 billion respectively.”

The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 141 points 3 years ago (11 children)

This plan is so very soft on the billionaires and yet we are going to see it being resisted violently and with extreme prejudice.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 73 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    By temporarily embarrassed millionaires, no less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Even most of the extremely rich aren't effected by this, if you calculate it out you need over 31,000,000 dollars before the lowest bracket kicks in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)

    For everyone saying this is not harsh enough, it is a WEALTH tax. Not income, wealth. All owned assets. Meaning any of these people who don't increase their net worth by at least the amount of the tax each year will lose more and more of their total wealth year over year.

    It isn't intended to strip all mega rich people of all their stuff immediately - that obviously could never pass - but still is intended to open the door to wealth taxes and redistributive policies more broadly.

    It's a great move. If we can get anything like this passed, it is a significant victory.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    In other news, renting a house has never been more popular! On secondary news, rent has raised across america by 8% unilaterally

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Are you describing right now or making a prediction I can't tell

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

    I think it is more the state of American media. Similarly to before 08 housing crash, many home builders got stuck with over valued houses no one would buy. So they rented them out so that it would generate income and not have to take a write down. If you watch CNBC it tells you how the housing market is somehow doing amazing if you look at perfectly curated numbers that do not add up. One of the common media pieces at the moment is how popular this new rental home trend is and how its so helpful and gracious to those who can’t afford homes. Example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/homes/build-for-rent-homes/index.html

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 57 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's got a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere, but it's nigh time a wealth tax entered the realm of possibility

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago*

    Yeah, we have a better chance of pigs flying, getting struck by lightning, and winning the lottery all at the same time on the same day simultaneously than this has of actually passing both chambers and getting signed into an actual law. This type of thing will never pass when the very oligarchs it seeks to tax own the very government responsible for making it a law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Eight whole percent. I can hear their boots shaking now /s

    Go with the Bernie plan. Anything over $1B is taxed at 100%. Shit, I think even that is too soft. Nobody needs even a fraction of that to for themselves and their children's children's children's ... to live like kings their entire lives.

    Also, it's always hilarious how American politicians are so obsessed with overly on-the-nose acronyms for legislation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What a travesty. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of the brows of everyone he's screwed over to amass his fortune? Sure, I might not have two cents to rub together between paychecks but I'd better oppose this just in case I get rich some day.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Isn't the issue that they are currently hiding and obfuscating their income? Increasing the percentage is a great idea and all but 1% or 8% of zero is still zero.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (16 children)

    That's it? The highest one is 8%? Wtf is this, a joke? No one needs billions of dollars. No one should hoard billions while others sleep in the streets. Hell, billionaires shouldn't exist at all.

    Edit: also where is the "assets" and stocks tax?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    8% seems fine considering it's a wealth tax, not an income tax. In 7 years that takes away 56% of their wealth.

    Granted, I'm not at all clear on what sort of assets constitute "wealth" here. How much of Musk's $242.4 billion net worth that google currently spits out would be affected by this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's not like their wealth is not increasing. Fuck them, I wish I could tax them 90% after their first billion. No one needs one thousand million dollars. Holy shit! It's a lot of money they'll never ever spend. Also, I'd tax everything they own, even their stocks and other "assets" they use to avade taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    It’s so soft and yet there is still 0% chance of this going anywhere. That’s where we are smh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Yup. I've literally given up hope on this government. At this point, I'm just waiting for a total collapse of this country. It will happen, but I don't know when.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    It's common sense. You can't have infinite growth from a finite source. It just doesn't work that way. Billionaires know this, that's why some of them are actually building bunkers and "post apocalypse" places for themselves. They know it burns, yet, they keep playing with fire. Education and health of societies are very important, like the article says, but capitalism doesn't care. Those short term profits are more important until they don't mean shit anymore, or don't even come by. I'm waiting patiently. I'll be in my 50s. I grew up very poor in a 3rd world country and I know I will survive it easily.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 3 years ago* (12 children)

    Wealth taxes are super easy to avoid, so I'd much rather see something like cap gains+"luxury" sales/income taxes and such, but it's a step in the right direction

    Now raise taxes on everyone making over 100k and we're really cooking with gas

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    $100k aint that much and those people already have a heafty tax burden. Plus luxury taxes are easily avoided when yachts and planes are purchased in the Bahamas. What we need are 50% taxes on the money they borrow against their assets. Want to buy another mansion? Cool 50% tax on the money Goldman Sachs lends you against your Amazon stock. If I have to pay a tax to borrow against my 401k so should these assholes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    Good thing the people who have to vote on it aren't impacted by these brackets at all!

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (5 children)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    My understanding is that this would be x% of your total wealth, which is much more reasonable.

    So you would pay an extra 2% of your total worth every year. So at a billion that's 20 million, at 980 million 19 million and change, etc.

    The numbers could be much higher, but this is a lot of funds. It also would take several generations for the inheritance to drop below "you'll never spend this" to just "you can live on the interest". Even with zero interest on their investments (which is absurd - so really this would more be a source of funds than anything). At least it would be a starting point

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Can someone ELI5 with examples? Is this based on income?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›