Thats true and some are definitely worse like oil and media and weapons billionaires are worst tailor swift and rhianna can go last and we can kill them with like heroin overdose or something else that’s not so bad
Or maybe you can convince them to give away most of their fortunes (still keeping enough to live the rest of their lives in luxury, of course, because what’s a few hundred million to these people?), when being a billionaire is no longer allowed.
Like, allow anyone to make up to $999,999,999 after-tax, and anything after that (whether capital gains or income) is taxed at 100%. It’s that simple. You only need to “take care” of the ones who try to stop it or reverse it.
Imprison the ones who try to circumvent it with offshore banking, webs of trustees, money laundering, or other loopholes that are only available to the wealthy (like a collection of priceless paintings that are used as a bank account, or yet another personal yacht written off as a business expense).
Okay fine, I high-balled it. The same point stands, just lower it to a number you find more reasonable. $100M? $10M? I agree that it’s an unnecessary amount of money, but it’s far more manageable than the uncapped free-for-all that it is today.
Set it too low though and you’ll start to lose support, so make it high enough that even the highest echelons of the upper-middle class know it won’t ever effect them. The point is to target the owner-caste.
Oh, but a one-time wealth tax of anything over one’s first $billion followed by a net gains cap in the 8 or 9 digits is absolutely reasonable.
I’ve had similar thoughts, I was slower typing this.
(future Korazail here. On rereading, I want to be clear about the difference between wealth and income. I think we tend to focus on income tax brackets, but the real danger is when the super wealthy can fund their lifestyle and power on the idea that they have money. Rarely are they counting any of that as income, so wonderingwanderer’s thought of <1b income would apply to nobody. We need to tax wealth. I earn $$$$ each year, but my bank balance is $ because it costs $$ to exist and I am fortunate enough to have $ to spend on luxuries and keep $ in reserve. If I had a bank balance of $$$$$, then it doesn’t matter how much I earn in a year; my money itself provides the $$ to exist and $$$ for luxuries with overhead to spare. I might be able to retire on a bank balance of $$. The billionaires have $$$$$$$$$$ in the bank and it would take me 9 million years to catch up at my rate)
Give them some time to prepare, but a wealth cap with harsh penalties seems a pretty reasonable solution to the wealth inequality problem. Death would be a pretty damn harsh penalty, but a really effective one. I’d also take taxing or socializing their assets until they are under the cap.
A billion dollars is just such a staggering amount of money that there’s no reason for any person to control it. And as for ‘why lynch this billionaire?’ You don’t get to a billion in net worth all by yourself. I’d posit that Taylor Swift is my favorite billionaire, and she is known for treating her staff well and giving out life-changing amounts of money to individuals that work for her… but what if she were incentivized to keep her worth below a billion? Larger donations to charity, lower ticket prices to her shows, better pay rates to her staff instead of bonuses (which would raise competitive pay for others in the industry), etc.
People like musk can just fuck right off. They provide no real value. If you invent something that is so useful that it is worth multiple billions, make it a public asset and go invent the next thing. If you made it to a billion dollars, just shut up and retire. Let someone else figure out the next step and get their billion, you don’t need two. The person who suggested bezos pivot from bookstore into general marketplace was probably a random developer who is still there and making <100k/year, but they had the good idea, not the guy with the purse. If we all had more purse, I think we’d have more people trying things and finding the next big thing.
If I were to author a law, I’d tie the cap to a multiplier or fraction of some economic indicator that isn’t individual, like total money transacted in a year globally or something. The number should be around a billion at this moment, but I’m not really mad at it being higher, since we’re targeting the small number of people hoarding wealth.
If you make the cap feel really big, like a billion, then the people, even with millions to their name, won’t feel like it will ever apply to them; but the real predators with multiple billions will be impacted.
Your parenthetical statement is why I mentioned capital gains. Billionaires don’t make their wealth from income, no. It comes from capital gains.
Capital gains tax brackets currently max out around the same rates as $40K income tax brackets. And they still write off so much bullshit and play loopholes that most of their gains go untaxed.
A one-time wealth tax makes sense. 100% on anything over $1B. After that, a progressive tax rate that includes capital gains as well as income, and maxes out at 100%, which could honestly apply to anything over $100M since it’s annual anyway. If you make $100M in one year you’re already set for life. No one needs more than that. If you make $100M ten years in a row, congratulations, you made a billion dollars.
Even a hundred years in a row still ultimately returns $10B total, which is honestly fine given all the rest is implemented. Making $100B would require maxing out income/gains rates every year for a thousand years, so it’s not like we would have to worry about Bezoses and Musks, and there would be enough tax revenue to fund everything necessary, and no billionaires could complain that “one billion isn’t enough!” Because if they’re so “hard working” then all they need to do is max out their income/gains for ten years and they make another billion!
Thats true and some are definitely worse like oil and media and weapons billionaires are worst tailor swift and rhianna can go last and we can kill them with like heroin overdose or something else that’s not so bad
Or maybe you can convince them to give away most of their fortunes (still keeping enough to live the rest of their lives in luxury, of course, because what’s a few hundred million to these people?), when being a billionaire is no longer allowed.
Like, allow anyone to make up to $999,999,999 after-tax, and anything after that (whether capital gains or income) is taxed at 100%. It’s that simple. You only need to “take care” of the ones who try to stop it or reverse it.
Imprison the ones who try to circumvent it with offshore banking, webs of trustees, money laundering, or other loopholes that are only available to the wealthy (like a collection of priceless paintings that are used as a bank account, or yet another personal yacht written off as a business expense).
way too much
this highlights EXACTLY one of the problems with “billionaires” discourse, in fact
Okay fine, I high-balled it. The same point stands, just lower it to a number you find more reasonable. $100M? $10M? I agree that it’s an unnecessary amount of money, but it’s far more manageable than the uncapped free-for-all that it is today.
Set it too low though and you’ll start to lose support, so make it high enough that even the highest echelons of the upper-middle class know it won’t ever effect them. The point is to target the owner-caste.
Oh, but a one-time wealth tax of anything over one’s first $billion followed by a net gains cap in the 8 or 9 digits is absolutely reasonable.
I’ve had similar thoughts, I was slower typing this.
(future Korazail here. On rereading, I want to be clear about the difference between wealth and income. I think we tend to focus on income tax brackets, but the real danger is when the super wealthy can fund their lifestyle and power on the idea that they have money. Rarely are they counting any of that as income, so wonderingwanderer’s thought of <1b income would apply to nobody. We need to tax wealth. I earn $$$$ each year, but my bank balance is $ because it costs $$ to exist and I am fortunate enough to have $ to spend on luxuries and keep $ in reserve. If I had a bank balance of $$$$$, then it doesn’t matter how much I earn in a year; my money itself provides the $$ to exist and $$$ for luxuries with overhead to spare. I might be able to retire on a bank balance of $$. The billionaires have $$$$$$$$$$ in the bank and it would take me 9 million years to catch up at my rate)
Give them some time to prepare, but a wealth cap with harsh penalties seems a pretty reasonable solution to the wealth inequality problem. Death would be a pretty damn harsh penalty, but a really effective one. I’d also take taxing or socializing their assets until they are under the cap.
A billion dollars is just such a staggering amount of money that there’s no reason for any person to control it. And as for ‘why lynch this billionaire?’ You don’t get to a billion in net worth all by yourself. I’d posit that Taylor Swift is my favorite billionaire, and she is known for treating her staff well and giving out life-changing amounts of money to individuals that work for her… but what if she were incentivized to keep her worth below a billion? Larger donations to charity, lower ticket prices to her shows, better pay rates to her staff instead of bonuses (which would raise competitive pay for others in the industry), etc.
People like musk can just fuck right off. They provide no real value. If you invent something that is so useful that it is worth multiple billions, make it a public asset and go invent the next thing. If you made it to a billion dollars, just shut up and retire. Let someone else figure out the next step and get their billion, you don’t need two. The person who suggested bezos pivot from bookstore into general marketplace was probably a random developer who is still there and making <100k/year, but they had the good idea, not the guy with the purse. If we all had more purse, I think we’d have more people trying things and finding the next big thing.
If I were to author a law, I’d tie the cap to a multiplier or fraction of some economic indicator that isn’t individual, like total money transacted in a year globally or something. The number should be around a billion at this moment, but I’m not really mad at it being higher, since we’re targeting the small number of people hoarding wealth.
If you make the cap feel really big, like a billion, then the people, even with millions to their name, won’t feel like it will ever apply to them; but the real predators with multiple billions will be impacted.
Your parenthetical statement is why I mentioned capital gains. Billionaires don’t make their wealth from income, no. It comes from capital gains.
Capital gains tax brackets currently max out around the same rates as $40K income tax brackets. And they still write off so much bullshit and play loopholes that most of their gains go untaxed.
A one-time wealth tax makes sense. 100% on anything over $1B. After that, a progressive tax rate that includes capital gains as well as income, and maxes out at 100%, which could honestly apply to anything over $100M since it’s annual anyway. If you make $100M in one year you’re already set for life. No one needs more than that. If you make $100M ten years in a row, congratulations, you made a billion dollars.
Even a hundred years in a row still ultimately returns $10B total, which is honestly fine given all the rest is implemented. Making $100B would require maxing out income/gains rates every year for a thousand years, so it’s not like we would have to worry about Bezoses and Musks, and there would be enough tax revenue to fund everything necessary, and no billionaires could complain that “one billion isn’t enough!” Because if they’re so “hard working” then all they need to do is max out their income/gains for ten years and they make another billion!
I think this scenario seems manageable.
Actual billion is just a dramatic number I don’t think if you’ve done that big you can be trusted
I didn’t say anything about trusting them.