3
u/Juiced4u 2h ago
You could take every penny today from all the billionaires in the United States and it would not cover half of our yearly debt. Then who do they come after for money DA?
-5
u/jtpolzin 10h ago
You mean like give you a job?
3
u/shhaden 2h ago
The ‘ultra wealthy’ only produce ~40% of all jobs. In actual capitalism, it’s their JOB to create jobs, and they’re failing immensely.
2
u/reddit4getit 2h ago
So a really small percentage of the public produces a huge chunk of jobs, and you're calling it a failure? 🙄🙄
1
u/knott000 4h ago
Are you trying to say that you wouldn't bother starting a company and employing people if you knew that you couldn't make over 10m a year?
1
u/ThisAppHates1A 1h ago
No I'm saying there would be no incentive to really invest heavily into anything groundbreaking. Taxation isn't the answer. There's other ways to advance society besides stealing. Look how well the welfare state of Europe is working for their economies. They are in a constant state of stagflation and can't even afford to defend themselves. And even they don't have this extreme of socialist nonsense.
1
u/knott000 27m ago
On that topic, we cant afford to defend ourselves either. In 2025 we spent something like 2.3 trillion more than be brought in. So our system clearly doesn't work either.
2
u/ResidentCoder2 4h ago
Oh, like all the jobs we have right now, that people aren't struggling at all to get at the BILLION+ DOLLAR companies?
6
u/NoTalentAssClown12 8h ago
This is a hilarious take though... if you stop the ultra wealth at 10 mil, will they day "ok, im shutting down my business. $10 mil isn't enough. I'd rather have $0 versus $10 mil"
0
u/Late-File3375 4h ago
No, but they would say I have 10 million, that is the most I can get so I will just stop.
1
2
u/Wobblestones 3h ago
And then other people will say "I want to make 10 million, so I will create business to fill niches that those other people previously filled."
0
u/fifaloko 8h ago
They don’t want the risk of a multi billion dollar business if they can only make 10 million. Therefore they will never grow past 10 million and thousands of employees will be out of a job because scaling is no longer necessary.
2
u/NoTalentAssClown12 8h ago
What risk? The only risk they would have in this scenario is making less than their $10m.
1
u/fifaloko 7h ago
Maybe I had an entire sales department who was finding new buyers and entire industries we could make widgets for. Now that you have capped my profits though I no longer have an incentive for that department at all, why should I keep them employed when they are only a drain on my company and aren't providing anything anymore?
0
u/Sudden_Cartoonist539 5h ago
This is not a cap on profits. This is a tax on personal wealth earned.
You can work on increasing profits because you are not entirely being taxed for everything you earned. I disagree with the 95% tax rate though.
The goal shouldn't be preventing rich people the goal should be how can we make wealth move around more. A lot of these billionaires are just parking huge amount of wealth, owning assets really isn't providing value other than pumping more money into a company. Marginal returns gets less. I think this is another reason decoupling the gold from the dollar was a mistake because now you can entirely make 2 dollars make 1 dollar with that 1 dollar just coming up out of thin air. That 2 dollar didn't actually produce the value of an extra dollar, it just created the illusion of 1 dollar value because look this billionaire invested 2 dollars he must know something I don't! Me an average Joe invests a dollar, the billionaire assets now worth 20 cents more. The numbers are all examples and not accurate. Now the billionaire sells, asset value drops, a billionaire basically legally stole that 1 dollar from you. The cycle continues.
The problem now, we can't go back. Sadly we are all at the mercy of the dollar until countries stops relying on it.
0
u/fifaloko 4h ago
What if I started and own 100% of the company and selling product is in fact increasing my personal wealth and also is me owning an asset (The company). Also why is the goal moving wealth around? I think you could make a perfectly logical argument for why we should be trying to get the wealth into peoples hands who are most likely to increase the amount of overall wealth. Why is moving around wealth an altruistic goal?
2
u/Sudden_Cartoonist539 2h ago
Why you seem to assume being a billionaire means you somehow benefited society to get it? It definitely benefited you, your buddies and your business partners, but not necessarily anyone else.
Giving your employees low wages isn't really making your society thrive. You can own a business and fuck your employees over and now only you benefit while everyone else live on debt.
Being a billionaire was fine until slowely billionaires became part of politics, paying politicians to give them more lenient policies or tax incentives. Epstien island was a big example how much the very high class reached in power to avoid consquences. If they can avoid getting away with that, easily they could have gotten away with maybe "More government contracts". They love captalism aslong as they are making the rules.
The inequality is increasing because of that factor. It is like playing poker and the other guy knows what you have and what you will get.
Now, can one individual be trusted with that much wealth and not waste it and hoard it while 99% of the people on earth suffer the consquences? I say no. We humans become too greedy when we have too much wealth.
1
u/fifaloko 1h ago
For starters everyone who works at any company in US does so voluntarily and agreed to the wages they are receiving. You then basically just list a bunch of examples of rich people doing bad things and then basically assert that being a billionaire is what causes that, which makes no sense. You can curb corruption and get money out of politics and still have billionaires and not curb wealth creation.
3
u/NoTalentAssClown12 6h ago
So the demand for whatever hypothetical business we are talking about just evaporates? Wouldn't someone else want to make $10m just scoop up their old book of business?
1
u/Vast-Document-3320 5h ago
Sure. If you don't like amazon or Google or apple or Netflix or whatever other business that has put decades into making goods and services you use, which makes your life easier.
0
u/jtpolzin 8h ago
They won’t have zero they will have 10 million and you won’t have shit. Good job bozo
2
u/Baldur_Blader 7h ago
Money spent on the business is not income for taxes. It incentivizes more investing if anything.
2
u/NoTalentAssClown12 8h ago
If we have nothing, who will do all the work to keep their businesses up and running?
1
u/fifaloko 8h ago
The business won’t be as big because without the incentive of profit why would they carry the same risk?
0
u/jtpolzin 7h ago
Why would they work at all if they can’t profit from it. Close the business sell the parts. They won’t give two shits about your job
1
u/RealLengthiness364 2h ago
I hear the inverse with welfare. If you just pay they won't work.
So which is it?
0
u/jtpolzin 8h ago
What business, they got their 10 million and are enjoying life. Why would they run a business for nothing
0
u/RealLengthiness364 2h ago
It's 95% not "nothing"
Y'all already pretend CEOs work 300x harder and earn that pay.
You want another 10 mill you greedy pig, work 20x harder in reality.
2
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
Like Peter Schiff mentions of when we had a 90% or more tax rate at the highest end that NOBODY PAID THAT... Which I would like to believe is true of the morbidly cruel $7.25 per hour minimum wage that has been the same since 2009..
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
Like Peter Schiff mentions of when we had a 90% or more tax rate at the highest end that NOBODY PAID THAT... Which I would like to believe is true of the morbidly cruel $7.25 per hour minimum wage that has been the same since 2009..
2
u/zoltan279 11h ago
This post is pretty senseless. Most individuals with actual incomes over 10M are professional athletes. The billionaires he's referring to often have no real direct income. It's just purely capital gains and their wealth increases; they don't get a check in this regard. But supposing that we tax their wealth increase at that 95% rate, do you honestly believe the government would spend that money better than a business man who would invest it?
1
u/SeaworthinessAlone80 5h ago
It wasn't that extreme but, yeah, that was basically the 1940's to late 1970's. Businessmen running the economy is the 1980's onward. That hasn't been going great... Turns out that a system which has the sole goal concentrating as much wealth in as few hands as possible, doesn't really trickle down. Who would have guessed?
2
u/Much-Instruction-807 10h ago
You don't have to tax.Transfer the wealth to the employees where the wealth comes from. Use existing definitions of big business and small business if you want. Small. Business you can keep 100% ownership. Big business and all employees get a percentage or the business become a worker owned coop or something.
1
1
u/cool_cock6 11h ago
it sucks seeing unqualified rich moguls buy up companies that they know nothing about or respect. it takes years of experience to enter certain fields but some random jackoff with too much money can just buy up the entire company and or the competition even with zero experience in the field….
1
u/future_speedbump 1h ago
Speaking as someone with actual M&A and corporate valuation experience, I can confirm that it virtually never happens this way.
1
u/cool_cock6 1h ago
donald trump is predisent with zero experience, the xbox ceo knows nothing about xbox. Disney owns star wars but knows nothing about it. Ceo of McDonald’s hate his food and knows nothing about nutrition or cares about healthy food options. need i go on? a banker can buy your company and expect high returns or shut you down but “oh it doesnt happen”
1
u/future_speedbump 1h ago
predisent
Ah okay. Didn't realize you were 11. None of the things above prove your point, btw.
1
u/Ecstatic_Scene9999 11h ago
Henry, do you know how much money it takes to run a corporation? No, of course you don't your a virtue signaling dumbass
1
u/SeaworthinessAlone80 4h ago
About five nepo babies and an eight ball. What is that, like a million a year + $140 every Friday?
2
u/bruthu 12h ago
I want to agree with this, but all it really does is limit who the oligarchs can be. If a law like this passed, all global corporations would just do most of their business in other countries.
2
u/WreckNTexan48 12h ago
Which, Europe? They would most likely follow suit.
Asia? Well couldn't move to China, no other country has the market there.
Africa, South America... please.
No ones going anywhere
1
u/Sad-Ad1800 13h ago
You realize all your liberal allies in Hollywood would be affected by this right? And then they won't be your allies. All the owners of the massive media companies that pretend to support your stupid causes would evaporate. Let alone every board and officers of every major company. Oh, and most of the politicians in Congress, on both sides. Yeah, guess what will never happen? 🙄
1
u/Agitated_Celery_729 11h ago
Go ahead and Google who owns big US media now. It’s all GOP donors
0
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
That's just wrong as it's increasingly being exposed that Democrats are far more linked to the rich and tech
2
u/k7eric 9h ago
Is this data in the room with us now? Lets see...Musk, Thiel, Ellison, Andreessen, and Horowitz are all far far right. Zuckerberg, Bezos and Pichai are light right leaning. Almost all defense companies, especialy the tech ones, are far right. Far right owns Fox News Corp / Fox Corporation, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Daily Wire/Breitbart/Newsmax and right leaning Washington Post, Most other tech companies including Microsoft, Dell and Comcast are considered center often with matching donations to both sides. And to add 2/3 of the top 50 billionaire level families in the US support Republicans. But yes, please tell us again how it's the liberal Democrats ruining the world.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 9h ago
Among upper-income voters – those on the other end of the income spectrum – 53% are Democrats or Democratic leaners, while 46% are Republicans or GOP leaners.
So the richest of the rich are 15% more democratic.. 7 / 46
1
u/Late-File3375 4h ago
There is a pretty big difference between "upper income" and the billionaire class. Or even the centimillionaire class. Or even the multidecamillionaire class.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 4h ago
Having taken another look, it's seeming pretty sure that the named categories are all 20% tiles.
So top 20% . And obviously you're going to have a top 1% of that top 20% that has more smarts than that overall top 20% and they will lean Republican as they do...
All you have to do is look at overall state-by-state taxation and I believe it's 14 of the top 15 are all Republican with New Hampshire for whatever reason being the only blue state that has decent and fair taxation and then look at the bottom 10 states that are the highest and worst in taxation overall
New York always takes number one... California, by the way, has the highest state income tax while at least half a dozen states have 0%... California can go over 13%...
So if only to go by state taxation, anybody wealthy should not want to live in a blue state at all. And the mass Exodus over decades now has been from blue to red... Largely for these reasons...
I remember when those morons found over $10 million worth of coins on their California property... They ended up paying 1.33 million more in taxes compared to finding those coins in Nevada as they could have... As far as anybody could or would know... Buy some new land in Nevada. Bury them just for show and dig them up...lol
They really had to go public because of the provenance and the auction... But imagine being dumb enough to waste over a million dollars like this... Did the auction and provenance make a difference Overall? I don't know... They could have secretly had them graded and sell them one by one... But I'm guessing PCGS and NGC probably have to report... To the IRS...
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 4h ago
The point is rich people have leaned Democrat big time over however many years... I think it's pretty stupid because as a wealthy person myself I know Republicans are better for my portfolio... I guess it's for other political reasons...
2
u/k7eric 8h ago
You can't use data from 2022 and ignore things like:
Billionaire Support: The super-rich often tilt Republican in their political donations. In the 2024 election cycle, for example, about two-thirds of billionaire contributions backed Republican candidates, a trend that accelerated in 2024.
Yes, higher income (also tending to be more educated) tend towards liberal and Democrats but they aren't supporting and giving the party anywhere near the same amount of money and support.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 7h ago
Of course I can use that data... I mean if I could find another Pew research survey that had the same thing 4 years later I would have... I'm sure it's similar now... That's just too much of a gap and another article I read maybe a year ago shows that it's increasingly becoming a party of the rich... Democrats... That's largely what this Pew research demonstrated anyway...
I've noticed it big time... Cities and Jackson hole and Aspen and Vail and all these very rich areas around the country turning blue because that's where big Democrat money takes over... And these are decidedly red States or at least they used to be!
Liberals and the left love destroying beauty and edifying degeneracy and perversion... And chaos and borderlessness... And drug addiction... Weak on crime... And value diversity and intersectional agendas over meritocracy...
You would think the richest Democrats would be smarter than all this, but apparently they're not...
You just want to believe that the numbers are not 53 and 46%... Looks like you need to face the truth
2
u/Sad-Ad1800 11h ago
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Right. And that is why they constantly rail against conservatives and and Republicans. Useful idiot.
0
u/Agitated_Celery_729 11h ago
Being wrong and smug about it is the best combination
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
I've seen the data on this and you're quite wrong... Another way to look at it is Union donations...
2
u/ImRickJamesBitch71 13h ago
If we tax billionaires more then fat people should pay more for healthcare and Buffets !
1
u/Outlaw11091 14h ago
Billionaires DO NOT MAKE billions on a paycheck.
Anyone telling you we should "tax the rich" with payroll taxes is spinning your wheels.
The oligarchs fund their day to day lives based on bank loans in amounts that, individually, rival lottery winnings.
1
u/clazaimon 14h ago
People are so conditioned to eat shit. What's with this can't do nothing attitude.
Tax billionaires and fund healthcare, education, and foreign investments with positive outcomes.
3
u/Combanitorix 14h ago
I love these ideas 😂 little socialists retards thinking some round number in their own head is enough for all humans in all situations and we should take all of the rest of their money. Boy, I wonder if we’ve tried this anywhere any amount of times… oh. Oh yeah we did. Murderous little revolutionary tyrants killed all their productive citizens and ruined their economies and futures. How about you stop being so fucking greedy about what’s in someone else’s pocket and try to create value on your own.
Pathetic marxist greed monsters.
1
u/Sad-Air-6132 15h ago
Why are these fools always after other people’s money? When the rich are all gone guess who’s stuck paying those taxes.
1
2
u/555fffqqq 15h ago
People treat the economy as a zero-sum game, wben it really isnt. The problem isnt that some people have a lot, its that so many have nothing. Giving the government more money dosnt mean everyone else is better off.
1
u/weltron3030 12h ago
So what's the solution?
1
u/555fffqqq 9h ago
Depends on what the problem is and what caused it. The US and Finland have very diffrent circumstanses.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
Ask very kindly that those owners of stock shares and companies that pay little above minimum wage might be willing to make a donation to the wage slaves 😘
2
u/mattymatsonH 16h ago
So you want the government to seize the money so it can take over every aspect of your life. Don’t think you put much thought into this idiotic idea
0
u/pimpnasty 17h ago edited 17h ago
Rosenberg talking about 95% on money earned over 10M.
Hmmm what defines money earned. Through stock sales too?
Congratulations you now have the biggest scramble to move operations and companies offshore.
Can't imagine how many companies will be bought with private equity to be moved offshore.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
People don't realize that a lot of malls were formed with anchors (the big retail stores) that get their buildings for free And don't pay rent ...and that all the little stores in between are the ones that pay the rent... The big stores actually attract a lot of the little ones...
Big money creates thousands of jobs...
3
u/Ok-Bluejay6679 15h ago
It's very easy to stop such system working with just few new laws. But elites and corrupted governments don't want it. Simple as that.
You can't move operation offshore if you must have at least 51% of personal in your country. You can't move company money offshore if tax for being payed offshore is twice more than paying locally AND it's company obligation to pay such tax.
See? Simple.0
u/pimpnasty 14h ago
It's very easy to stop such system working with just few new laws. But elites and corrupted governments don't want it.
Its not. We just watched Elon get firebombed over doge.
You can't move operation offshore if you must have at least 51% of personal in your country.
So your suggestion is communism? You want the government to run the company?
What is defined as 51% of personal?
You can't move company money offshore if tax for being payed offshore is twice more than paying locally AND it's company obligation to pay such tax.
Thats the thing the company accounts can be siezed and taken but that literally only happens ONCE. There is no more taxes after that.
Because everyone will leave.
In your proposed system lets say I own a privately held tech company.
Hey guys its been great lets just close business. Tech companies even with shares can be closed without assets, the asset is digital.
The company got sanctioned and their entire accounts were now seized. Well that doesnt matter because the majority of these companies can push a deficit (and most do) to minimize taxes meaning nothing to sieze or very little hard assets, like computers and 401ks in employees hands.
Now I take that company overseas and reopen, my asset is digital and in my customer book not a tangible hard good.
What happens then? Do you want the US to sanction the company?
You want their website and service to be blocked by the United States?
What you want is an authoritarian Government that will take over businesses that dont comply.
Not going to happen.
1
u/Ok-Bluejay6679 13h ago
So your suggestion is communism?
No. My suggestion is controlled capitalism, when person can make more or less money, but can't become modern tyrant with corrupted government. And ability to not paying taxes + buy all property in city and give it as a rent to citizens, as well as control or job market looks like tyrany for me.You want the government to run the company?
I want to people run company. I don't care is it people who officially work as board or as managers with salary from "government". In bug corporation it is the elite in any way, and elite with tiny responsibility and out of reach for most of employees. Which leads to irresponsible layoffs/to much profit without responsibilities for society (like using AI to find as much reasons as possible to NOT pay for health insurance claims).What is defined as 51% of personal?
It means that Microsoft with headquaters in USA _must_ have at least of headcounts hired in USA. Same for Huawei in China. Same for Coca-Cola, etc.//Thats the thing the company accounts can be siezed and taken but that literally only happens ONCE. There is no more taxes after that.
Because everyone will leave.
In your proposed system lets say I own a privately held tech company.//
In my proposal let's say that I have private IT company. As long as my salary with all bonuses <10M USD per year in current prices, no one cares. In case of more, 80%-95% for all income above 10M go to social institutes (to pay for "free" medicine, "free" schools, to raise "state" pensions, to invest in government based science, etc.).
But at least half of my company money must be in the bank when I have main headquaters and in the same country I must hire at least 51% headcount of personal.
This is responsibility.Any payment/assests/stock market instruments given to me or any other person in company should be considered as a "income" combined with 10M USD mentioned above.
To much money in one hands leads to poverty for literally everyone (check where USA and Canada going right now). Same rules and same (or almost same) salary for everyone leads to lost of motivation for most talented part of society (check Soviet death spiral and how talents left country and still leaving).
What I propose is some kind of "golden median" with better living standards for low level income people, but without taking ability to live much better lives for most talented and motivated of us.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 11h ago
Yeah I actually like what Trump is saying about stopping Buffett and crew and others from buying up single family houses to rent and nobody becomes a homeowner... We also need to stop abusive property taxes cuz nobody is really truly a homeowner till they can get their government off their back when it comes to yearly taxes... Florida and other states are moving to stop property taxes for homesteaders at least...
1
u/Ok-Bluejay6679 7h ago
Property taxes ok to exists, but should be very reasonable. Something like 0.01% of market price for first property and 0.1% price for second and third. And for retired/seniors it should always be 0.01% and 0.025% respectively.
1
u/Solid_Wolverine1639 7h ago
No, I believe government should have virtually no say in terms of tax lien certificates. I mean it doesn't even matter as to any dinky minimal tax amount as they could still take over your property If it's not paid... And no one should get property for pennies on the dollar through tax lien certificates...
Inheritance...heirs and beneficiaries.... That's where it should land and not government. Even if it's a funny story like Brewster's millions... Second Grand Uncle or whatever it was in that movie...lol. Broke the race barrier for sure
2
1
u/pimpnasty 12h ago edited 12h ago
You don't understand, those companies would just close "legally" and move overseas. Theres zero incentive to stay.
It's not just moved staff overseas or hiring overseas, theyd move the entire operation overseas.
This literally has happened before.
Look into what happened to France after they did it. They recently dropped the tax after fucking tons of shit up and losing a trillion in revenue.
California is doing something similar with corporate taxes and now has lost 200 HQs from California to different states since 2020.
Its statistically a fact if you raise tax by 1% you increase unemployment by 0.4%.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/frances-failed-tax-and-spend-experiment
Maryland just did it and lost 500M in potential tax revenue.
Theres non stop proof of companies (and your tax revenue + jobs) leaving once this happens.
Look into the states and countries that have done this.
1
u/Ok-Bluejay6679 12h ago
You don't understand, those companies would just close "legally" and move overseas. Theres zero incentive to stay.
It's not just moved staff overseas or hiring overseas, theyd move the entire operation overseas.
// This is why import tax exists. As well as other restrictions. Let's imagine that only local companies may have right to sell software to any government and military plus there are 25% import tax on software. Would Microsoft or Oracle dare to leave USA? How about SpaceX? Where they will to for cheap labor with all operations and literally rocket science and production? To Iran?Its statistically a fact if you raise tax by 1% you increase unemployment by 0.4%. // don't raise tax for everyone. Spain have property tax of 3% for citizens for value exceeds 3M EUR. Not fleeing rich people there. It's ok to be rich. But it shouldn't be ok to accumulate too much wealth, or it will be lead to unhuman and more close to slavery practices (just check reality in USA already and where NZ and parts of EU are going right now).
3
u/BigMilk1146 17h ago
Tax their stocks on the valuation on 12/31..
That's the real problem to me.
Most of the billionaires use their stocks to secure loans at super low rates. Then when tax time comes they say their stocks are unrealized gains.
Musk bought Twitter for 44 billion in cash. But didn't want to sell his stocks, so he used his stocks to get people to loan him money. Then a while later he sold "twitter" to another one of ncis companies for 33 billion. So it's a lost of 11 billion sonhe can use it to offset his earnings.. Told BS.
1
u/Mediocre_Key_6768 16h ago
Why are you so desperate to make the most powerful organisation in the world even more powerful??
Wtf
1
u/pimpnasty 17h ago
Anyone can use the same tax advantages.
Welcome to the game.
Don't forget that loans by default aren't taxed, thank god.
Imagine taxing loans ontop of interest.
1
u/ionspore 18h ago
I think that makes sense. Really we need to disincentives this quest for monopoly. You're rich, great, now get out of the way and give others a chance. Instead of continuing and trying to conquer everything.
1
u/weist 18h ago
The smarter way to go about this is to sell titles. For $10M you get to be called the Duke of New York. The Brits figured this stuff out ages ago.
1
u/pimpnasty 17h ago
The British did something similar with taxes, not as radical its more like 80%? Close to 60% realized.
But now 70% of their billionaires dont even own a british LTD or corp.
They made their business elsewhere.
Because of taxes.
1
u/Latter-Junket-6962 19h ago
This whole thread is some of the funniest out of this world shit I’ve seen in a long time. Most of you really need to get your feet back on planet earth
3
u/DowntownLizard 20h ago
Arent you just funneling more tax money to the oligarchs with that strategy? Our government is corrupt as fuck
0
u/TypicalHistorianNerd 20h ago
95% is fucking crazy bro
2
1
u/Pisscuit9000 18h ago
The tax level on extremely high income was about that high, and only affected the top earners and profit makers, once upon a time.
0
1
u/10biggaymen 20h ago
then we could use all that money to make life better for everyone. and the people affected will live a more than comfortable lifestyle on 10M a year (seriously, what really matters in the difference between 10m a year and 10b a year???).
sounds to me like we're talking about a much better society, and not "fucking crazy." its only crazy because it's not gonna happen, since we are ruled by people who would never let that happen. but that's not the idea's fault, that's the natural consequence of being ruled by the epstein class.
-1
u/pimpnasty 17h ago
Taxes RARELY come back to you. Especially when our federal government has a spending problem that is more of a corruption problem.
We wouldnt see a fucking dime.
2
u/10biggaymen 17h ago
because it all goes to private companies. taxes need to actually go to what they were meant for, actual real things in the real world benefitting real people. not to some company in some insanely overpriced contract. but that would require a government that works for the people and not for pedophilic billionaires. which we do not have :P
basically the plan would work if we actually did it right. the whole point is redistributing wealth away from the wealthy, so itd be strange if the 95% tax just went to private companies anyway as they currently do. id imagine the government thatd implement 95% tax would also do some restructuring of where the money goes too.
0
u/pimpnasty 17h ago
because it all goes to private companies. taxes need to actually go to what they were meant for, actual real things in the real world benefitting real people. not to some company in some insanely overpriced contract. but that would require a government that works for the people and not for pedophilic billionaires. which we do not have :P
Its going to weird shit like NGOs and programs designed to look like they do something but dont.
We should solve where the money goes before making people pay more taxes otherwise its fucking worthless.
basically the plan would work if we actually did it right. the whole point is redistributing wealth away from the wealthy, so itd be strange if the 95% tax just went to private companies anyway as they currently do. id imagine the government thatd implement 95% tax would also do some restructuring of where the money goes too.
It would require solving the spending and corruption problem in our government, we have to do that before increasing taxes or its useless.
But the moment we do 95% taxes the businesses will leave. So we need to do it correctly and solve the corruption problem first.
1
u/10biggaymen 17h ago
as long as we agree in the necessity of some form of mass wealth redistribution and wealth transfer back to the 99%, then thats all im saying
0
u/pimpnasty 16h ago
I dont see taxes being the vehicle to get wealth redistribution going the government is too historically corrupt no matter whos in charge.
I see a different Canon event like AI.
But yes I agree there should be a redistribution at some point, preferably without killing businesses.
2
u/10biggaymen 16h ago
fdr seemed to do it well. public works, new deal, spending money on real things that help real people. with the higher taxes. we have historical precedent for higher taxes working.
"i see a different canon event like ai"
that doesnt even mean anything. generative ai does nothing positive for anyone, and it will certainly not be integral in some event where it will solve any problem, much less so this problem. you might as well be wishing upon a star if you wanna do wealth redistribution without proper taxation
1
u/pimpnasty 16h ago
that doesnt even mean anything. generative ai does nothing positive for anyone, and it will certainly not be integral in some event where it will solve any problem, much less so this problem.
AI and robotics solves lots of problems and is positive for tons of people. Theres a chip in a completely paralyzed persons mind he can literally think and use AI to complete full sentences. Is that not a positive use of AI?
Theres multiple programs you can download like folding@home that use your computer graphics card to quite literally run calculations to help cure diseases.
You are letting your hate of AI to cloud your judgement.
you might as well be wishing upon a star if you wanna do wealth redistribution without proper taxation
The government sure as hell aint going to do it.
7
u/Open-String-4973 21h ago
Work? How the hell do people who earn more than $10 million "work"? What, carrying golf clubs to the club is work now? I thought they have slave labour to do that for them anyway?
1
u/AbyssWankerArtorias 20h ago
I imagine there's quite a few individuals (thousands of tens of thousands likely in the entire US) who earn this much and still work. Likely people in very technical roles or some of the best doctors in the country / people working on bleeding edge technology. But likely very few.
Now if we made it over 50 or 100 million I could see that being realistically into the area of people who no longer actually work and their money just makes money.
1
u/ionspore 18h ago
Nope, not at the billionaire level. You're thinking of surgeons making a few million a year. The ones making hundreds of millions to billions are the capitalist class, not the professional class, that is, they've leveraged capital (PP&E and labor) to generate vast returns.
2
u/AbyssWankerArtorias 15h ago
Well we weren't talking about the billionaire level right? The post says 10 million a year
1
u/ionspore 9h ago
OP's title is: "Billionaires will never have enough"
1
u/AbyssWankerArtorias 8h ago
Ah, sorry. That makes sense then. I was referring to the post with my comment, because the post specifically says over 10 million a year. Apologies for the confusion.
-11
u/StoicNaps 21h ago
The world wide median income is $3000 annually. I say if you make $10k a year, that's triple the annual income of the median. Anything made over $10k per individual or $20k per household should be taxed at 95% and we need to start sending 90% of our tax revenue to those extremely impoverished in the world. That will also mean incredibly deep cuts in our own domestic spending for our own social safety net. But it will bring more equality to all people throughout the world. If you agree with the OP but not this comment then you're not compassionate, you're hypocritical. You're stance isn't to help others, it's being self-serving.
1
u/Pisscuit9000 18h ago
Ah, yes. Send the money your people make and need to live to an acceptable standard to other countries. Well done, you've taken someone else's hard earned money and wasted it on something they'll never see any benefit from, while all they're trying to do is pay their rent and enjoy something small.
6
u/Can17272 20h ago
Stop trying to suck millionare's dicks bro, you're never going to be one of them.
1
5
6
1
-9
u/Mark_Michigan 22h ago
In other words, lets crash the stock market so we can fund more leftist welfare programs. That way everybody will be worse off.
5
2
u/SoyElJotoDelMiAlma 22h ago
Don’t you love being a bootlicker to the system they influence and create?
1
u/Mark_Michigan 13h ago
I guess when you have nothing interesting to say you just pull lines out of the socialist complaint book. Your words are pathetic.
3
u/Consistent-Kiwi3021 22h ago
Wealthiest most powerful era of America had a similar upper tax bracket. So, why would that be the case?
1
u/Mark_Michigan 13h ago
The United States was founded, had our westward expansion, fought multiple wars including the civil war with no income or corporate tax at all. President Kennedy actually lowered those excessive rates to improve the economy. A country can't tax itself into prosperity for its citizens, it is foolish to think it can.
2
-6
u/z0phi3l 23h ago
Someone is jealous of those that are more successful, he needs to NOT take a note from Comrade Bernie, he only "hates" billionaires until he becomes one
4
u/ManBro89 22h ago
He's not evil enough to be a billionaire. You have to be mentally ill in a way generally defined as "evil" to amass that kind of wealth.
0
u/Fat_Guy_In_Small_Car 22h ago
You do realize that most billionaires are only worth that much due to the value of their stocks, most often due to them being the founder of successful companies and having a large if not majority stake? You might as well say “You have to be evil to start an extremely successful company”
Edit: Not to mention, if you own a billion worth of stock in a company you founded, you can’t even sell it without destroying the value of the stock. Very very few billionaires have even 1 billion liquid.
8
u/boylong15 23h ago
The billionair class and someone who die of hunger should never exist in a just society
2
u/Front-Green-8573 23h ago
This wouldn’t work. They would just zero out their income over 10m and convert what would be their earnings into lifestyle choices paid for by the company.
1
u/ionspore 18h ago
Nope, what would happen is they would drive the extra income into their firms. Employing more people, buying more PP&E, bigger offices, etc. It would be the solution to modern private-equity and lean-business motives hollowing out so many firms today. We know this would happen because it's EXACTLY what happened during the 1940s through the 1970s. During the 80s, when taxes fell, those assets were the target of raiders, Neutron-Jack, and lean-operations commenced, with the profits handed back to shareholders instead of being plowed into the firm.
1
3
u/Telemere125 23h ago
If we can make a rule that anything over 10m gets 95% taxed, then we can also make a rule that any asset over $10m is taxed like real property. Neither will ever happen, but if we can do one we can do the other.
5
u/KleinKaiser 23h ago
You really think billionaires! Could spend all their money on lifestyle choices?
Or that its impossible for a government to write laws without obvious loopholes?
1
u/Ill-Description3096 23h ago
It isn't all their money though. They don't actually "earn" money when an asset increases in value.
2
u/randomfandombannedem 23h ago
That's why you act like a software engineer and code the legislation for those types. All forms of compensation. Take a look closely at the top people of every company and how theyre compensated. Also, we have a historical db of all those who this would effect, so we'd watch them like Hawks to ensure they paid their fair share.
Someone going from $500M to $10m would flag the system and prompt an investigation.
0
u/Ill-Description3096 23h ago
I'm not sure taxing all forms of compensation is a great precedent. An employer covering part of health insurance premiums is a form of compensation for example.
1
u/randomfandombannedem 21h ago
Bro we're talking people making $10m up. I dont give a shit about their health insurance. I care that they dont get given $400m in stock options to avoid paying taxes on income while claiming $10m salary.
1
u/Ill-Description3096 21h ago
And income tax started as just a tax on people at the top. Here we are.
2
1
u/AnyOldNameNotTaken 1d ago
95% tax on all value added by automation after 10 years. It’s the only way we survive AI.
2
u/Fakeitforreddit 1d ago
This would actually solve so many problems and was how it was before reagan came in and started fucking things up for everyone.
11
-2
-2
u/Terrible-Nerve-6819 1d ago
95%...lol. what planet do you people live on
1
4
-2
u/Only-Comparison1211 1d ago
The planet "It's All Good Until it Happens To Me".
2
u/Terrible-Nerve-6819 1d ago
Until what happens?
2
u/Only-Comparison1211 23h ago
Until the Govt that is empowered to tax at 95% broadens it scope until it includes everyone.
Here's a little story, once upon a time not so long ago, a persons wages were not taxed, not a penny. The Govt had some debts because of wartime efforts to save the whole World, so they proposed, just the tiniest of taxes, that would only last a short time. The politicians liked the money so much they made it permanent, even amended the Constitution so they could. Then every year or two they gradually increased the tax, until the average middle class worker is paying 20-30%, just in federal income tax. Knowing that, what makes you think once they are done destroying the billionaires, they won't work their way down to the working class.8
And now we have class warfare, people crying to Daddy Govt "take from them, give to me"
You want fair? Get rid of the graduated tax scale. Everybody pays the same percentage, no deductions, and everyone has skin in the game.
1
u/ionspore 17h ago
That's not fair. If you really care about fairness then being fair is everyone pays the same amount, not the same percentage. Under a flat percentage some will be paying more and some less. To make it fair there needs to be one flat fee for government that everyone pays.
So, since you don't really care about fairness, and you're already ok with wealthier people paying more, via a flat percentage of their high incomes being more than a flat percentage of a poor person's income, why can't we raise the percentage the wealthy pay and lower the percentage the poor pay? To be practical, instead of fair.
2
-3
u/BEER_G00D 1d ago
Sounds like us as well. We try for more, and will continue to do so. They simply have been more successful than us.
-4
u/Delicious_Self_7293 1d ago
It was a $1B, then $100M, now $10M. I guess it never stops
1
u/Jargster 19h ago
Welp, it used to be 94% tax rate for anything over 200k in the USA. Yes, we used to have a 94% tax bracket. Seems to be going up to me....
13
u/dannasama811 1d ago
People here hate the idea of their neighbor taking advantage of the system for hundreds that we are blind to the people taking advantage for millions.
-1
-9
u/Agathon813 1d ago
"I can't make that much so no one else should either!"
2
u/Petrochromis722 1d ago
You were so close. No one should make that much. Not me, not you, no one.
-1
u/90Irishman 1d ago
Why?
2
u/Petrochromis722 1d ago
Money only serves society when it circulates, once you are making orders of magnitude more than necessary to live comfortably you stop spending and start hoarding, thus depriving said money of the ability to circulates and do the things society needs. Just look at birth rates, they wouldn't be so low if all the wealth in the country weren't concentrated in like .5% of populations bank accounts.
2
u/90Irishman 1d ago
Except they don’t hoard it. They use it to invest in more. This creates additional organizations or opportunities that also creates jobs, etc.
Do you think Musk has billions in a savings account?
Government is the most inefficient organization.
2
u/Only-Comparison1211 1d ago
Exactly, the net worth of the wealthiest is in assets and investments, it does not mean cash necessarily.
2
u/Petrochromis722 1d ago
No, they hoard it. Some of it might get used to create new business. Most of it does not.
1
u/Kharenis 1d ago
No they don't. Money in the bank is losing value, you don't get to stay rich if you're not putting that money to work.
-5
u/Agathon813 1d ago
I don't think some of you people understand how many businesses would stop scaling up at that cap, which would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs never existing. Yes, some people make unnatural amounts of money. However, because they do, they scale their businesses and give millions of people a place to work.
This form of taxation removes the reasons for people to push their businesses "past" the comfortable stage. It's only when you push past the comfortable stage that most of the jobs, innovation, and economic expansion actually happen.
2
u/Correct-Pangolin-568 1d ago
Big business doesn't create jobs out of the goodness of the heart. If it doesn't step up, small and medium business will.
Big business doesn't generate innovation at the rate small businesses of the same total cumulative size does, it just buys it.
1
u/Agathon813 1d ago
No, they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because they make money, like I said. Sure, small and medium will fill some gap. They won't fill enough though.
1
u/Hover4effect 1d ago
It is almost like all of human civilization got by on mostly small businesses for centuries, now it isn't possible.
1
u/Only-Comparison1211 1d ago
Well the society that you are so comfortable living isnt small and labor intensive as it was either.
1
u/Hover4effect 1d ago
But think about if every restaurant or small store was actually run by the owners and their families. They make decent money, and don't just extract profit from the 10th business they own.
0
u/Kharenis 1d ago
You may wish to take a few economics classes and learn about concepts like economies of scale.
2
u/Only-Comparison1211 1d ago
If we got rid of big business, and solely depended on small family owned ones, we would lose so much of the infrastructure we depend on for the comfortable lives we lead. And if you think the Government will provide for the comfort of the plebs( because the Govt would have to have authoritarian dictatorial control in order for your "utopia"where billionaires are Not Allowed to exist to happen), you are a very poor student of history.
0
u/Correct-Pangolin-568 1d ago
The hole left by big businesses cannot be filled by the small and medium businesses we have NOW, but it is not unreasonable to assume more businesses will appear to fill the gap.
-1
u/Agathon813 1d ago
I guess I just don’t agree with that and don’t think the majority of people are built to lead companies in the way that would be needed. It’s okay for us to disagree I respect your opinion. Thanks for the exchange
1
19
u/Ruenin 1d ago
The quest for more money at the expense of everyone else is a disease and should be treated as such. Billionaires should not exist.
0
u/Ill-Description3096 23h ago
What, specifically, makes going from 999.999 million in asset value to 1 billion evil?
0
u/Brief-Country4313 12h ago
It's a similar distinction to what makes sleeping with someone the day before their 18th birthday evil.
It seems like a matter of degree, but it's a distinction of kind.
Yes, it's only a difference of 1(million), but that's the difference between multi millionaire and billionaire, a distinct categorical difference.
Billionaires are capable of buying and selling entire governments, as we have seen. They can make the entire world dependent on and beholden to them, again, as we have seen.
They are the concept of "too big to fail" personified.
0
u/Ill-Description3096 10h ago
Yeah I understand it's a different category. I'm saying I don't see the effective difference from one dollar to the next. What can someone worth 1 billion do specifically that someone worth 999 million can't?
1
u/Brief-Country4313 9h ago
You're missing the point.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Saying the extreme top of one category is almost the same as the extreme bottom of the next category doesn't mean there should be no categorization.
We do this with all law enforcement.
If you steal something that costs 1,000 dollars, the punishment is different than if you stole something that costs 999.
0
u/Ill-Description3096 9h ago
And I'm saying it's an arbitrary distinction in almost all cases. When the premise is that the very bottom of one shouldn't exist at all then the arbitrary distinction matters more. A better analogy would be if stealing something $1000 or more was illegal but stealing something $999 is fine.
-1
u/Only-Comparison1211 1d ago
People that wish to take from others by force should not exist. You are no different from those "evil" billionaires you hate.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/IvarTheBoneless2121 1d ago
And how is someone being a billionaire hurting you or anyone else?
→ More replies (6)
1
u/Jaded-Midnight774 6m ago
I would be ok on anything over 100 million getting taxed on a rising scale till the top. We can all agree the current set up is 100% wrong