Assuming billionaires were going to get a special tax, how would you actually determine how much to tax them? Sure some would be straightforward like Musk where it’s entirely derived from a few companies with known ownership stakes, but what about all the others?

We don’t even know the names of most of the billionaires. With all the games they can play to hide money, now made even easier thanks to the changes Trump made in his first few months, how would you even figure out who and what amount to tax? They don’t have a normal salary or easily documented income like everyone else.

  • SolidShake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    So. If I make 50,000 dollars a year but only need 40,000 to live. And I save that 10,000 a year for 20 years. You want to tax me on that $200,000 I saved? Lol wtf

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      No, but if you own $4billion in stocks and you borrow against it to live off of then you’ve realized that value and you get taxed heavily on it.

      The idea is to get them to stop doing the “unlimited money glitch” of doing this.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Most of the current plans for wealth taxes start in the region of $5-$50 million, taxing wealth above that bracket (like other progressive taxes). Do you expect to save $5 million, let alone $50 million?

      Most of the seriously proposed tax rates are also in the 1-3% range, maybe 5% on the very high end. Again, of wealth above that threshold.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        If you spend it eating out, drinking, getting your house renovated, flying somewhere - then you end up paying tax and spending money and there’s some trickle down. If it sits in a bank account or in stocks or real estate, less so.

        This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how an individual’s wealth can be useful to society. Societies become prosperous when they do things that are good for people, and that is what the money is best spent on - making society better. Sure, if they go to the bar every night and spend $200k getting hammered, maybe we netted a little extra tax revenue. And the bar is certainly doing better. But it is far better for everyone if that money becomes the startup capital for, say, a new plumbing business or taco restaurant or law firm or real estate development. Put it into something that actually does something

        And that’s essentially what buying stocks is. Putting your money in stocks is good for the economy.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Most people with that little money aren’t going to go out of their way and assume the risk of investing in new ventures. They’re going to put it in some managed or unmanaged fund recommended by someone else, and that money is going to be invested in something safe and presumably profitable on an infinite time scale, like a megacorp (or 500).

          It would amazing if the everyday worker’s savings went towards aiding the local community in starting new businesses, but I wouldn’t count on that being the default.

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes, but you’ll only pay like a thousand a year on those savings, and your costs will go down to 30,000 thanks to improved infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

      • SolidShake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        That’s insanely stupid. You already pay taxes from your income and you pay taxes spending money. No ken should ever be taxed on money they have saved. Ever.