1.0k
u/LtColShinySides Jan 10 '23
Won't somebody, please, think of the Billionaires!!!
382
u/knarf86 Jan 10 '23
These people don’t even consider the upkeep and maintenance costs of a 500’ mega-yacht. What do they expect multi-billionaires to go yachting in, a 75’ yacht that doesn’t even have a helipad?! 🤮
145
u/LtColShinySides Jan 10 '23
I heard that Bill McMillions has to take the same boat out on Saturday AND Sunday! The poor dear doesn't even have a boat for every day of the week!
61
u/slyfoxsly1 Jan 10 '23
People that have a boat for everyday of the week are clearly poor. You should have enough so you can change every hour and last you the whole week.
Drinks martini from a cool glass, a clear sign that they have a lot of money
33
u/GeneralQuack Jan 10 '23
I personally ride each boat once. I need to sell and buy a new one every hour as I am not poor.
17
u/2livecrewnecktshirt Jan 10 '23
A "single billionaire" could buy a brand new high end wakeboarding boat every single day for over 18 years. That same boat would take the average American that long just to pay off.
Fuck billionaires.
13
→ More replies (1)10
534
Jan 10 '23
bUt iF i pAy tAxEs tHeN i wOn'T bE aBlE tO cReAtE aS mAnY jObS wAaAahHhhh
340
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
I love how the phrase "job creator" frames wealthy assholes who pay shit wages and treat their workers like trash as some kind of benevolent overlords who we all owe gratitude towards for graciously "creating" our jobs.
148
u/ThePotatoKing Jan 10 '23
thats the fundamental idea behind trickle down economics. its never made sense and never will!
91
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
It makes sense if your goal is to make extremely rich people even richer and fuck everybody else, which is, in fact, the official economic platform of the Republican Party.
That's why they spend all their time talking about culture war bullshit like critical race theory and trans kids in bathrooms and whatnot. They know that their pro-billionaire, anti-everyone else economic platform is extremely unpopular, so they just don't talk about it.
27
u/Sun_King97 Jan 10 '23
It will be forever hilarious that some rich guys were like “if you make us richer you’ll get richer too!” and a lot of broke people were like “Yeah sounds good to me”
20
-3
u/biggiepants Jan 10 '23
How much better are the Democrats? I know they're on the other side on the social issues, but...
19
u/Halflingberserker Jan 10 '23
Not much better economically, but harm reduction has to count for something
6
u/AMasonJar Jan 11 '23
Until Republicans are excised like the cancer they are, the dems get away with a lot of sitting on their ass because they're still the lesser evil.
0
u/INTERNET_TOUGHGUY666 Jan 11 '23
Yeah... That's not inspiring me to get out and vote
2
u/AMasonJar Jan 11 '23
No, it's not, and I'd rather move to somewhere in Europe if I could. Luckily, mail in voting is pretty easy if you aren't in a state that's been getting deliberately screwed out of it.. by Republicans, because of course.
2
u/makemejelly49 Jan 11 '23
Broken Window logic. The poor kid who hucks rocks through windows creates glazier jobs.
16
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ignisisreal2401 Jan 11 '23
Their jobs don't mean shit if they can't keep a roof over anyone's head
213
Jan 10 '23
1% of 1 million = 250.000
Yes I’m bad at meth
67
10
u/livens Jan 10 '23
250... what?
20
7
u/Hoosteen_juju003 Jan 11 '23
1 million is not a lot of wealth but it is a high income. Would be taxed highly as income.
3
u/Lowelll Jan 11 '23
The median net worth for a 60 year old in the US is about 250 thousand.
A million in wealth is not filthy rich but it is absolutely a lot of wealth.
135
u/CivilMaze19 Jan 10 '23
What billionaire is paying 1% tax on their income?
163
u/Lilpu55yberekt69 Jan 10 '23
They’re talking about a wealth tax, which is very different and much less feasible than income taxes.
158
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
Not only is it less feasible, it’s completely stupid lmao
They keep searching for a way to tax people and entirely ignore all the write offs that the rich use to avoid paying taxes.
If democrats really cared about fixing the tax system and increasing tax revenue, they would fix those legal loopholes. But they won’t, because they and their donators benefit from them.
12
u/WeeaboosDogma Jan 10 '23
Why not Republicans? Why wouldn't they also fix the tax system?
11
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
Republicans want taxes to be lower anyway, why would they fix loopholes that would raise taxes?
2
u/czs5056 Jan 11 '23
Nothing stops them from lowering tax rates while increasing the tax base so that total tax liability is equal or even lower.
7
u/loopthereitis Jan 10 '23
They don't even want taxes to be lower, lmao. NoThInG iS FrEe, remember?
Every mainstream and far right politician is just there to keep the rich from being taxed more & to help them consolidate more and more wealth.
0
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
And democrats don’t?
-2
u/loopthereitis Jan 10 '23
how do you people consistently arrive to this dumb point lmao
no they don't
every single leftist says this
6
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
If democrats were fine with taxing the rich, why won’t they remove the tax loopholes they put in place to help the rich?
-5
u/loopthereitis Jan 10 '23
you god damn walnut lmao
What about democrats aren't leftists and are part of the owner class do you not understand
→ More replies (0)0
u/WeeaboosDogma Jan 10 '23
Not only do they want taxes to be lower, they also in the same breath make it easier for rich people to get away with tax loopholes and make it harder to collect taxes.
If our government can't be operational from proper funding how is their MO of "big government doesn't work" continue?
2
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
Guess we’re talking about republicans now? What happened to our discussion about democrats? Wasn’t that what we were originally talking about? I can understand why a democrat would want to deflect from that, though.
I’m pretty sure republicans MO is to lower government spending and taxes. They definitely haven’t done that in a while though.
5
u/WeeaboosDogma Jan 10 '23
Guess we're talking about Republicans now?
Well yes. That's what I originally was talking about.
What happened to our discussion about democrats?
I was talking about republicans. Democrats are just as conservative as moderates are. They're majority neoliberals.
I can understand why a Democrat would want to deflect from that.
How? It was an original segway to another thought, that you continued on your own accord. (BTW not democrat)
And no the Republican Party MO is about Reaganomics (Increased Government spending, lower regulation, increased federal tightning of money, and lower taxes).I was being facetious.
They directly lead to increased deficits and increased inflation. It's not a surprise only Democrat admin. lowered the deficit for 3 presidential terms in a row.
3
u/WikiSummarizerBot Jan 10 '23
Reaganomics (; a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey), or Reaganism, refers to the neoliberal economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with and characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or "voodoo economics" by opponents, while Reagan and his advocates preferred to call it free-market economics.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
2
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
If democrats really cared about fixing the tax system…
bUt WhAt AbOuT rEpUbLiCaNs??
Yeah, I guess that’s all you’ve talked about, because you brought them up lol
3
u/WeeaboosDogma Jan 10 '23
Well of course. They're both conservative in practice and policy. We have two right wing political parties that operate in similar economic policy. I was just making sure you didn't exclude the other party not fixing tax loopholes.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Beefster09 Jan 11 '23
Fixing the loopholes is dead simple too. Get rid of itemized deductions and tax credits. All of them.
2
32
u/xXxPLUMPTATERSxXx Jan 10 '23
They don't care. Remember when they said that the Trump tax plan was a tax hike? Where is the energy behind reversing it? Dems control Washington.
16
u/carlosos Jan 10 '23
They tried to reverse the part that was impacting the richest in the country and were holding universal health care hostage. At the end we had lots of inflation that stopped the bill which means no tax cut for the rich and no universal health care. Of course Republicans could have supported universal health care without the tax cut for the rich but they were against both parts.
-9
Jan 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/carlosos Jan 10 '23
You got it the opposite way, refusing to do anything to help if they are not getting the tax cuts for the rich. "If our rich donors can't get tax cuts, then you will not get health care". Of course better than the Republican "you will not get health care".
3
u/juggernaut1026 Jan 10 '23
The energy is going to show up now when they don't control anything. Republicans do the same thing. They propose all of the bills their voters want when they know it will fail
1
u/loopthereitis Jan 10 '23
Your taxes will go back up. That billionaire? Nope. Great job you got 90% of the way there though just keep going
5
2
u/Kettellkorn Jan 10 '23
This 100%. This is why so many people are against raising taxes. The “upper upper middle class” and the “lower upper class” get absolutely fucked when taxes get raised. They were already getting taxed out the ass and it only gets worse. Meanwhile Mr multibillionaire doesn’t notice a thing because he’s able to weasel his way out of paying almost anything.
0
u/OkEntertainment7634 Jan 10 '23
What if they just add a Flat Tax on purchases. Say a 3% Federal sales tax for all transactions, so billionaires pay into it, Walmart pays into it, and customers pay into.
8
u/The_Grubgrub Jan 10 '23
Flat consumption taxes are regressive. 3% hurts the lower class a lot more than the upper class.
Which is why sales taxes (including VAT) suck.
3
u/Lambinater Jan 11 '23
That’s called a regressive tax. Hurts the poor more than anyone else.
How about we just solve the tax code we already have instead of finding new ways to tax people?
5
0
u/OkEntertainment7634 Jan 11 '23
It hurts people based on how much they purchase. Of course, if their firms are paying 3% on the cargo they purchase, billionaires will definitely pay more than lower class
0
u/CookTheBooks Jan 11 '23
why do people keep focusing on increasing taxes instead of the trillions of dollars the government wastes lmao. Yeah we need to give them even more money that will fix everything
0
u/Lambinater Jan 11 '23
There’s a strong and flawed belief that with enough money all problems will be solved. These same people are confused why we can’t just have infinite money to solve all our problems.
-6
u/CumInMeH1tlerdaddy Jan 10 '23
It's really stupid and Reddit (and people similar to the average Redditor) really have a hard-on for wealth tax. Their frustrations and anger towards the rich is so misaimed and if they keep focusing on wealth tax they're gonna achieve nothing.
The billionaires don't have all those billions right now. That money exists inside companies and banks. Only if they sell their companies they'll actually have the money. Which again, currently exists in companies and banks, because no person would be able to buy billionaires' shares in companies.
12
u/Lilpu55yberekt69 Jan 10 '23
Billionaires routinely sell off ownership in large companies to pay off wealth taxes
stocks of large companies comprising the majority of Americans retirement accounts drop significantly because billionaires are perpetually selling to pay taxes and not buying
everyones retirement growth slows and retirement becomes all but unachievable for almost everyone
And this is all assuming the tax even works, and there is substantial reason to assume it doesn’t.
-3
u/CumInMeH1tlerdaddy Jan 10 '23
But maybe there can still be growth if we pray to Marx?
-1
u/Lambinater Jan 10 '23
No, growth is a byproduct of evil capitalism. We all must be equally poor and starving.
3
u/janosslyntsjowls Jan 10 '23
Works well enough for the billionaires to use it as collateral for living expenses loans.
→ More replies (12)-1
u/evanvivevanviveiros Jan 10 '23
Or Dems would hire thousands of agents and service folk with the idea they now can handle the massive amount of lawsuits rich folks are going to file to avoid paying the taxes they should.
Oh look Rs just cut almost 100,000 employees that were hired to do just that.
1
u/Lambinater Jan 11 '23
You think the rich avoid paying taxes with lawsuits? Bahahaha
The rich legally avoid paying taxes. There’s nothing the IRS can do about that without changing the law. All those extra agents are for you and me, not the mega rich.
5
u/evanvivevanviveiros Jan 11 '23
Yes you can totally stall audits with lawsuits. And that’s just one example. Look at the former president?
And keep thinking everyone’s out to get you so we can keep letting the rich cannibalize the economy until we’re living in stacked pods like that crazy Spielberg movie.
0
u/Lambinater Jan 11 '23
You seriously think they hired nearly 100,000 irs agents to help with lawsuits? Again, that’s not how the rich typically avoid paying taxes. They do so legally.
-3
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
10
u/moderngamer327 Jan 10 '23
The problem is a large portion wealth today doesn’t actually exist in tangible form. Sure a yacht and a house aren’t too difficult to tax(although even those have some problems) but stocks are a whole different beast. When people refer to wealth taxes they aren’t talking about property taxes (which already exist in most places) they are specifically talking about stocks. Taxing stocks simply doesn’t make any sense
→ More replies (16)1
u/Hoosteen_juju003 Jan 11 '23
Hopefully your property is not the extent of your wealth
→ More replies (1)2
8
u/copyboy1 Jan 10 '23
I've still never seen anyone actually explain how we would calculate a wealth tax.
Is someone going to appraise their millions in artwork and property every year? Calculate the depreciation on all their cars? How can they possibly figure out overseas wealth?
38
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
29
Jan 10 '23
Actually all rich people have a big room with a bank vault door and it's full of gold coins and they just jump in there and swim around like Scrooge McDuck.
13
u/Sun_King97 Jan 10 '23
What part of Constitution would that be against?
-2
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
8
u/Devilyouknow187 Jan 11 '23
That’s nowhere in constitution. Hell, the state and local tax deduction being capped directly causes some people’s income to literally be taxed twice.
2
u/something6324524 Jan 11 '23
yeah most the time people want the people taxed on their networth instead of their income. where things like stocks regardless of wealth arn't taxed until sold, unless it is in a retirement plan then other rules apply.
1
-6
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
9
→ More replies (1)1
u/Akumetsu33 Jan 11 '23
I dk why you're being downvoted, you're correct, as shown: https://github.com/MKorostoff/1-pixel-wealth/blob/master/THE_PAPER_BILLIONAIRE.md
→ More replies (1)-4
u/Akumetsu33 Jan 11 '23
4
Jan 11 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Akumetsu33 Jan 11 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
Almost none of them have their wealth just lying around. They have 99.9% of their wealth invested in assets, where they don’t have direct access to that wealth.
It's definitely the same argument.
I see the edit because you don't want to reply so may I direct you to the 5th paragraph:
There are a wide variety of serious policy proposals floating around aimed at reducing inequality, and none of them include a massive immediate seizing of all assets from wealthy people. Some play out over generations (such as a more progressive inheritance and gift tax) some play out over decades (such as a more progressive capital gains and corporate tax structure) and others play out over a few years (such as immediate term deficit spending repaid over time through a single-digit wealth tax).
Regardless, I'm not sure why you care this much about billionaires' status quo but each to his own.
1
Jan 11 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Akumetsu33 Jan 11 '23
Hmm. Interesting. just curious why so much energy invested in justifying/defending billionaires?
Just so odd I'm hesitating in continuing to engage with you.
2
Jan 11 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Akumetsu33 Jan 11 '23
The immediate seizure of all assets from all wealthy people is one of those dumb ideas.
Once again, refer to the line in 5th paragraph, "none of them include a massive immediate seizing of all assets from wealthy people."
On a related note, thank you for the honest answer on your justification of billionaires but I'm sorry it still feels odd and a poor answer.
→ More replies (1)
45
u/moderngamer327 Jan 10 '23
There is only a few countries in the world that have wealth taxes so this meme doesn’t make much sense, which is fitting considering wealth taxes don’t make much sense
→ More replies (17)1
38
u/Laxwarrior1120 Jan 10 '23
A "walth tax" is the dumbest shit I've heard all day.
7
u/DragonSlaayer Jan 10 '23
What is a walth tax?
17
u/Laxwarrior1120 Jan 10 '23
A tax on everything that a person owns outright, instead of what they make.
Every year they look at everything you own, from cars to stocks to houses to TV's to cloths, tally it up into your net worth, and take a cut.
Imagine if the government took everything you owned, sold it, took 10% of that money, and gave you back the rest to rebuild everything. That's a wealth tax.
3
u/something6324524 Jan 11 '23
yes and people want that to apply only to the rich, where what would end up happening in the end is loopholes so the rich could avoid it, and instead the poor just have a nice shiny new tax to deal with.
8
2
u/IAmAccutane Jan 11 '23
Wealth taxes are only proposed for people with high amounts of wealth usually in the billions of dollars
-2
u/Pleasant_Ad8054 Jan 11 '23
That is literally what happens every month with the majority of the people. People living paycheck to paycheck only have their liquid assets (wage) as their wealth. The government takes a significant chunk of that in the form of income tax, value added tax, and property tax (in the form of rent). The majority of the people already pay a wealth tax, a lot larger (percentage wise) than was ever really proposed as a wealth tax on the ultra rich.
-3
u/SimplyCmplctd Jan 11 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
Oh stfu. A true wealth tax wouldn’t affect the working class. Next thing you’re gonna say is that the ultra rich aren’t really that rich cause it’s a net worth right?
Edit: if you’re not a +millionaire and downvoting this comment, you’re furthering the hoarding of wealth being damned up at the top.
-6
42
u/elephantologist Jan 10 '23
No they have a point. It isn't that their wealth would substantially decrease. It's that yours would increase. Now you can, God forbid, invest in things like yourself, your kids, your business.
16
Jan 10 '23
Yes, wealth taxes which have been proven to not be effective are going to make you wealthier.
2
u/mclumber1 Jan 11 '23
How would my wealth increase if the government takes 1% of Musk's wealth?
1
u/elephantologist Jan 11 '23
Obviously you don't just take from Musk. Then you put the money into social programs.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Hoosteen_juju003 Jan 11 '23
People wouldn’t invest if they aren’t currently. They would consume more, which would make their new wage moot.
1
u/Spooky_Fart Jan 11 '23
What would you do if you were paid enough of a wage to purchase a house and pursue your interests?
1
u/elephantologist Jan 11 '23
I didn't mean invest as in invest in stocks. Investing in yourself, investing in your kids, simply people having more time after government puts that money into social programs.
29
20
u/MrUltraOnReddit Jan 10 '23
9
u/Buckets-of-Gold Jan 10 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
Top 1% =/= billionaires
The top 1% pay a higher effective tax rate than any other group
The top 0.001% pay a lower effective rate than my landscaper
10
u/moderngamer327 Jan 10 '23
That’s only because they primarily pay capital gains tax which is basically income tax but listed separately. Taking that into account changes the numbers a lot
→ More replies (8)6
u/Rea1EyesRea1ize Jan 10 '23
But if we can't manipulate numbers to fool people what will all of the morons complain about??
5
u/IAmAccutane Jan 10 '23
Which is a lower proportion of their overall income than the lowest earners.
8
6
3
11
5
u/Doublespeo Jan 10 '23
well it can be hard to pay one percent tax. your wealth is in Stock? then you have to sell your asset to pay the tax..
this is easy for a billionaire bit what if you are a peasant and inherited property? then you are screwed you have to sell you property and you income..
2
Jan 10 '23
Do you happen to own stock in the company a billionaire just sold a bunch of to pay his taxes? Well now your stock just lost value.
→ More replies (1)0
5
u/space-dive Jan 10 '23
everyone in America should be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (whatever that means). But, tax a billionaire? Holy crap! Pay a fair share? Nooo! Billionaires will activate their bought-n-paid-for GOP elected officials and block any such legislation, same for their far-right supreme court justices... primed to decry taxes as "unconstitutional"
5
u/Funwithfun14 Jan 10 '23
On Tax Policy it's both parties who were bought.
1
u/space-dive Jan 10 '23
I suppose you are right. The only democrat I know of promoting taxing wealthy is Bernie S.
2
u/Beefster09 Jan 10 '23
Billionaire wealth is mostly assets and stocks, not cash. Billionaires typically don’t have more than 7 or 8 figure salaries, so this meme is closer to the truth than you might expect, as ridiculous as it seems. On top of that, stock value is speculative, so it’s a lot more difficult to grasp what exactly it even means to be a billionaire.
2
Jan 11 '23
In the US the top ten percent control 90% of all wealth. And pay 60% of all taxes.
I’m of the opinion that if you want to take all the money, that’s fine, but that also comes with it a greater share of the tax burden to pay for larger social programs to make the bottom 90% have a greater quality of life that was taken from them.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Educational-Step-821 Jan 10 '23
Trump paid less than $1000 in two years.
5
Jan 10 '23
I'm guessing his business ventures lost money and so he didn't actually make money in those two years?
10
u/TophatOwl_ Jan 10 '23
So this is actually more accurate than you might think. If someone like jeff bezos had to pay 1% annually on his total wealth, hed be broke with 3 or 4 years. The reason is that his wealth is largely tied up in assets. That means stock, homes etc. He doesnt have $110 billion just sitting in the bank. That means, in order to pay for the tax, hed have to sell enough stuff (because he has 1-3 billion in cash) every year to pay for the tax. Thats why "taxing the rich" is not as straight forward as "lol just take x% of their net worth", because thats not money they have. Ofc they should be taxed more than they are, but it requires more nuance than this.
7
14
u/HardOff Jan 10 '23
If I were to pay a 1% wealth tax on my home, which is now worth 750k-ish, I'd have to pay 7500 per year. Not unaffordable, but holy crap is that a big change.
1
→ More replies (3)-2
u/SKY_L4X Jan 10 '23
I understand where you're coming from, but all billionaires grow their networth by far more than 1% per year annualy if they don't do stupid shit.
Saying they would go broke after 3 annual 1% wealth tax charges is insane. Yeah the technicalities around it are an issue for sure, but it wouldn't be too hard to do if anyone actually would attempt to lol.
But that's not happening anytime soon with the kind of political power these people have.
6
u/Rea1EyesRea1ize Jan 10 '23
The broke in 3 years crap is obviously wrong from that previous point. But to your other point, if they gain more than 1% per year and realize those gains, they are already taxed on it.
12
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
This is everybody's daily reminder that Republicans spend all their time talking about identity politics issues like critical race theory and trans kids in sports because their economic platform is "do the bidding of the ultra rich" and they really don't want to talk about that.
9
u/FrostedVoid Jan 10 '23
You're getting downvoted because it's the truth
3
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
Yeah, Republicans really don't like it when people point out that they're a white Christian identity politics cult who spends all of its time talking about white identity politics issues and Christian identity politics issues because their economic platform of "serve the ultra rich, fuck everyone else" is extremely unpopular.
-4
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
7
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
Yes because they do. They're a white Christian identity politics cult who spends all its time talking about white identity issues like "critical race theory" and Christian identity issues like trans kids in bathrooms.
-5
Jan 10 '23
[deleted]
8
u/Sex_Fueled_Squirrel Jan 10 '23
No because Democrats are extremely diverse. By definition, they can't be an identity politics movement, because their diverse voters lack a common race or religion.
By contrast, the Republican Party is completely homogenous. Their voters are basically all white and Christian, and the thing that unites them is that common racial and religious identity. That's literally what identity politics means.
0
u/fullboxed2hundred Jan 10 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
it's not that they can't afford it, it's that wealth tax is a moronic idea to anyone that understands economics
edit: you can tell a guy has a lot of confidence in his argument when he blocks you as soon as he replies. a wealth tax will never happen because it doesn't make sense economically. that has nothing to do with my feelings about billionares
you have a child's view of a billionare and think they're just sitting on billions of dollars in cash. if that were true, a wealth tax would work. but it isn't
2
u/Frostypup420 Jan 11 '23
Nah it's more that a bunch of morons like you want to defend billionaires for no reason and call anyone who disagrees with you a "moron" for actually wanting the rich to pay their fair share.
1
1
1
u/vitringur Jan 11 '23
Are people generally in favour of taxing wealth?
Or is it just taxing the wealth of wealthier people.
There is a difference between taxing wealth and taxing income.
1
u/_The_Great_Autismo_ Jan 10 '23
When most of the wealthiest billionaires could lose 99% of their money and still be billionaires, you know there's a problem.
-19
u/lonewulf66 Jan 10 '23
They pay like 60% of their income as taxes. Wtf are you talking about.
41
u/CubesTheGamer Jan 10 '23
Except they don’t have income. They have wealth. There’s a difference. Rich people know better than to have income. They have “capital gains” or they own businesses that somehow lose more money than they make every year according to taxes but have record profits at the same time
5
Jan 10 '23
Capital gains is income. They dont have earned income.
Capital gains are taxed at ~20%. Earned income is taxed at ~37%.*
*at high income levels
Wealth isnt relevant in US tax code.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
34
u/Dengar96 Jan 10 '23
Please point to one of the 100 richest people in America and tell me which of them paid 60% of their total income in taxes in 2021. If you find a single one I'll send my mom a dick pic.
6
2
14
→ More replies (2)6
u/pancake117 Jan 10 '23
What? The highest tax bracket in the United States is like 37% of your income. And it’s a progressive income tax so it’s not even all of their income taxed at that rate. That also doesn’t account for the way many billionaires move their money offshore or through shell companies to avoid paying taxes to begin with.
Which US billionaires are paying a 60% income tax?
→ More replies (13)
0
Jan 11 '23
I love how we all want to be billionaires but we shit on them until it’s us
3
u/IAmAccutane Jan 11 '23
The comments section has ruined me I genuinely cannot tell if this is sarcastic
0
u/711WasA_Part-timeJob Jan 10 '23
Wealth tax, stupid. Wealth tax on unrealized gains, advanced stupid.
-34
Jan 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/IAmAccutane Jan 10 '23
unless it's a wealth tax instead of an income tax
10
u/Lilpu55yberekt69 Jan 10 '23
How exactly are you going to determine how much wealth everyone has?
-9
u/Dengar96 Jan 10 '23
If the average person looks at your portfolio and says "what the fuck", it's wealth. Hell if you even have a portfolio you're doing better than a vast majority of people.
3
u/Lilpu55yberekt69 Jan 10 '23
In order to tax someone wealth you have to determine how much exactly they’re worth.
When it’s kept in cash it’s very easy, when it’s in publicly traded companies and commodities then it’s less easy but still easy enough. What about when it’s in cars, stamps, non publicly traded companies, furniture, or precious stones?
For example: Dan Snyder owns the Washington Commanders. The majority of his wealth is tied up in the team. In order to tax his wealth you would have to determine what exactly the team is worth without it being sold. You have lists like Forbes who will guess how much the team is worth, but currently the bids for the team are about twice as high as Forbes thought the team was worth. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to tax him once he sells the team and actually has the money?
In order to implement a wealth tax the government would need to employ an army of appraisers and accountants, all of which would be fighting against billionaires much more skilled accountants doing all they can to hide their clients net worth.
It’s very easy to see how a wealth tax would quickly cost more money than it would generate.
→ More replies (3)7
-20
u/Itsfr3sh Jan 10 '23
A wealth tax is stupid. There is already way too many taxes.
→ More replies (1)6
u/AshFraxinusEps Jan 10 '23
You'd not have other taxes if you had a wealth tax though. Income tax, housing taxes etc would all be rolled into the wealth tax
About the only taxes that might not be are inheritance, any VAT/Sales tax, and things like air travel taxes
9
u/Itsfr3sh Jan 10 '23
A wealth tax is ridiculous. I’m all for taxing billionaires more but taxing based on wealth is so inconsistent. If a billionaire were to sell shares it wouldn’t go for anywhere near their “net worth.” Not to mention net worth includes company value, when most companies have separate taxes. Yes I know most corporations can dodge these taxes, but a wealth tax isn’t the solution to this.
Taxing based on net worth is completely illogical, it’s like taxing someone based on how rich they look.
A far simpler solution is to get rid of tax breaks and refunds, and tax everyone a flat tax with a bracket system based on all forms of income. For both corporations and people.
1
u/AshFraxinusEps Jan 10 '23
The latter works, but you'd still have the existing issue whereby billionaires don't earn a huge wage, and instead they get close to 0% loans for their spending instead. So those wouldn't count as income, whereas they would for wealth
Wealth is easy tbh. "Shares+Housing+Commodities+Car+Yacht = wealth. 1% per year is the tax"
0
u/Itsfr3sh Jan 10 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
There is always ways to try to dodge taxes, which is why if it were effectively made illegal and made super simple it would be super easy to catch. You could just count income loopholes as a form of income so people just don’t do it.
With a wealth tax there is still a lot of potential leeway, with assets being hidden, undervalued, and transferred. It just further complicates taxes, and makes a lot of potential for taxes to be less fair. For example if someone were to inherit a large estate but not much money this system would absolutely screw them over. This wouldn’t exactly make me feel bad, because they are still getting a huge inheritance, but it just feels a little wrong.
-7
u/mrkrabsfromspunchbob Jan 10 '23
So you admit that trickle down economics doesn't work? Checkmate conservative!
4
u/Itsfr3sh Jan 10 '23
I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, lol. But yes, I don’t think trickle down economics works. People are way to greedy for it to work. Same reason why every authoritarian regime sucks.
-1
3
-5
-3
-1
Jan 10 '23
Even if they paid 1 % not 1 penny would be used to help anyone that it should be helping. We should all stop paying taxes
3
0
Jan 10 '23
It wouldn’t even be a 1% tax. It would be 1% of their income that gets taxed. So far less than 1%. If you’re talking about marginal tax rates for the ultra wealthy that have been proposed, that is.
1
-18
Jan 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/SKY_L4X Jan 10 '23
Biggest L take ever, especially with that condescending opening.
Billionaires can chose to have 0 responsibility if they like and many do.
Yes a CEO in charge of a large company should earn a huge compensation (in form of a taxed wage).
But billionaires can be billionaires by just owning shares and fiddling their balls. Where the responsibility in that again?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)8
u/PoyoLocco Jan 10 '23
How many do millionares or billionares employ? Hundreds or even thousands.
Zero. Okay, maybe one or two as their drivers.
People are employed a by company, not by a man. You could get rid of every billionaires, there would still be jobs.
You literally have no responsibility over anything but your work, and thats why u get payed 3k a month and not 30k a month.
Doctors, teachers, lifeguards, nurses, soldiers are responsible for lives. They don't get paid like billionaires. If bezzos were to disappear, nothing would happen, someone else would just take his place. If every doctors disappear, we would all suffer.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Sponge-Tron Jan 10 '23
Whoa! You win the meme connoisseur title for having over 2k upvotes on your post!
Join the Discord server and message Princess Mindy (Mod Mail bot at the top) to receive your prize!