Why should you, I, or anyone care where they get the money from?
A simple answer would be they could sell some of the assets they have which contribute to their classification as a billionaire. If they don’t have the collateral to pay the tax, they’d be able to prove it by no longer being classified as a billionaire, in which case the goal would be achieved with another billionaire being euthanised.
Also, is you get rid of a billionaire, how does that help the people? I’m give you an example. We take all of elon musks assets and socks. Go to the open market to sell them. No one buys them because they don’t want the stocks taken from them, so the people buy them. The sticks are now worth 1/100 of the original value because elons companies are high P/E stocks. So know you turned a “trillion” into 100 billion that the people paid for. You then use that 100 billion to pay for services. It’s gone in 8 months.
Next year you are have no service, no money, and possibly down companies that failed.
Eliminating billionaires will neutralise their ability to manipulate society at the level they currently do.
Money doesn’t originate from the private sector, if it did it would be fraud. The funding of services, in an economy with sovereignty of its currency, originates from legislation through the budgets passed by the relevant agents.
Permitting any entity to grow more powerful than the entity responsible for regulating it is carcinogenic, if not suicidal.
Why are you defending the tolerance of sociopaths?
If they can’t find a buyer for their assets, they’d could give them away or destroy them. It’s irrelevant how they diminish their hoard, the point is that they cease their possession of it.
But the problem is the “horde” isn’t real in some cases. Like with elon, his wealth is tied to 350 p/e stocks. Overnight his wealth would drop 700 billion of he was removed from ceo or investors priced the stock at 35 p/e.
We just need to extend graduated tax brackets all the way up. Currently the highest tax brackets end somewhere at like six figures, and anything above that is taxed the same.
Even 90% taxes on a billion dollars still leaves you with a hundred million in spending money. There’s no way someone needs more than that. In one year? That amount alone could be put in a CD with a 3% APY and you’d make $3,000,000 in interest in one year. There’s no way someone needs even a net-worth higher than $100,000,000, but no one can complain about “only” making that much after taxes in a year.
Especially when you consider that tax rates only apply to the income above the amount specified in the bracket. That 90% would apply to your second billion made in a year. Everything below the first billion gets taxed at the same rates as everyone else in a given bracket, i.e. your first $100,000 in a year gets taxed the same as anyone else’s first $100,000…
Billionaires have no room to complain.
Oh, and those graduated tax brackets should apply the same between capital gains and regular income. Currently, the highest capital gains tax rate in the US is about 20%… comparable to someone making about $45,000 a year in regular income…
That means the highest tax rate someone making money primarily from investments would pay is the same as someone who would be considered at or below the poverty line in most states… And the billionaires are only paying that rate on their “taxable” interest, meaning it ignores all the money they launder through shell companies and writing off large purchases as business expenses…
Poor people can’t write off rent, food, and utilities on their taxes… so why can billionaires write off mansions, yachts, and paintings…?
Why should you, I, or anyone care where they get the money from?
A simple answer would be they could sell some of the assets they have which contribute to their classification as a billionaire. If they don’t have the collateral to pay the tax, they’d be able to prove it by no longer being classified as a billionaire, in which case the goal would be achieved with another billionaire being euthanised.
Also, is you get rid of a billionaire, how does that help the people? I’m give you an example. We take all of elon musks assets and socks. Go to the open market to sell them. No one buys them because they don’t want the stocks taken from them, so the people buy them. The sticks are now worth 1/100 of the original value because elons companies are high P/E stocks. So know you turned a “trillion” into 100 billion that the people paid for. You then use that 100 billion to pay for services. It’s gone in 8 months.
Next year you are have no service, no money, and possibly down companies that failed.
I don’t see the point.
Eliminating billionaires will neutralise their ability to manipulate society at the level they currently do.
Money doesn’t originate from the private sector, if it did it would be fraud. The funding of services, in an economy with sovereignty of its currency, originates from legislation through the budgets passed by the relevant agents.
Permitting any entity to grow more powerful than the entity responsible for regulating it is carcinogenic, if not suicidal.
And you think that kind of system would work? And who is buying the assets?
Why are you defending the tolerance of sociopaths?
If they can’t find a buyer for their assets, they’d could give them away or destroy them. It’s irrelevant how they diminish their hoard, the point is that they cease their possession of it.
But the problem is the “horde” isn’t real in some cases. Like with elon, his wealth is tied to 350 p/e stocks. Overnight his wealth would drop 700 billion of he was removed from ceo or investors priced the stock at 35 p/e.
It’s fairy dust.
We just need to extend graduated tax brackets all the way up. Currently the highest tax brackets end somewhere at like six figures, and anything above that is taxed the same.
Even 90% taxes on a billion dollars still leaves you with a hundred million in spending money. There’s no way someone needs more than that. In one year? That amount alone could be put in a CD with a 3% APY and you’d make $3,000,000 in interest in one year. There’s no way someone needs even a net-worth higher than $100,000,000, but no one can complain about “only” making that much after taxes in a year.
Especially when you consider that tax rates only apply to the income above the amount specified in the bracket. That 90% would apply to your second billion made in a year. Everything below the first billion gets taxed at the same rates as everyone else in a given bracket, i.e. your first $100,000 in a year gets taxed the same as anyone else’s first $100,000…
Billionaires have no room to complain.
Oh, and those graduated tax brackets should apply the same between capital gains and regular income. Currently, the highest capital gains tax rate in the US is about 20%… comparable to someone making about $45,000 a year in regular income…
That means the highest tax rate someone making money primarily from investments would pay is the same as someone who would be considered at or below the poverty line in most states… And the billionaires are only paying that rate on their “taxable” interest, meaning it ignores all the money they launder through shell companies and writing off large purchases as business expenses…
Poor people can’t write off rent, food, and utilities on their taxes… so why can billionaires write off mansions, yachts, and paintings…?