Comment on Borrowing money against their stuff to get more stuff to borrow money...

• GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It’s almost like we have that exact system in place for income.

  source

  • Zoot@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s just a shame that it’s completely backwards with those making less money paying a higher % of their money than those with more money.

    source
• damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Not likely. First of all, the net worth numbers you see for these ultra-wealthy people are all educated guesses. To actually legally impose anything based on total net worth, you need to actually audit net worth and get a real figure. The resources it would take to do this are very unlikely to yield more tax revenue than they cost, especially because there is so much one can possess whose value is pretty much completely arbitrary (the high-end artwork, etc.).

  It’s actually all-but-certain it’d be a net loss of tax revenue. There is a reason that every time such a policy targeting only the wealthiest is put into place (it’s been tried numerous times over the years in a bunch of European countries), it’s gotten rid of soon thereafter, or ‘dialed down’ to be just another ‘mundane’ tax that falls primarily into the lap of the middle class.

  source

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    To actually legally impose anything based on total net worth, you need to actually audit net worth and get a real figure.

    So, what’s wrong with that? You have a wealth tax on all wealth over $100 million. If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value. Everyone with that level of wealth already hires accountants. It’s a trivial additional burden. If your wealth is no where near the tax threshold, you don’t need to bother hiring an accountant to get a precise figure.

    There is a reason that every time such a policy targeting only the wealthiest is put into place (it’s been tried numerous times over the years in a bunch of European countries)

    I’m calling bullshit on this. There are all sorts of taxes that fall heavily or solely on the wealthy. The reason the wealthy don’t all leave is that they don’t actually want to live in places that have low taxes. You can get low taxes in a war-torn hellhole, but most don’t actually want to live like that.

    source

    • NannerBanner@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      So, what’s wrong with that? You have a wealth tax on all wealth over $100 million. If you have wealth anywhere over say, $50 million, you hire an accountant to assess your business’s value. Everyone with that level of wealth already hires accountants. It’s a trivial additional burden. If your wealth is no where near the tax threshold, you don’t need to bother hiring an accountant to get a precise figure.

      And I’m going to say, it’s a great means to go after the assholes if they try to claim their assets are worth something different. I think we have a recent case of 34 felonies about that…

      source
  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Accepting your premise as true, that still doesn’t make the tax valueless. The real value in a wealth tax is breaking up the money from individuals, the revenue is just a bonus. Even if it is all used to pay the accountants, that’s still money that’s now actually moving through the economy rather than zombie wealth sitting in some rich fuck’s paws, doing nothing but contribute to inflation.

    source

    • damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The real value in a wealth tax is breaking up the money from individuals, the revenue is just a bonus.

      And the mask comes off, revealing the true motivation. You’d happily waste the taxpayer money that is the poor’s lifeline in many cases, reducing overall tax revenue, because hurting the rich matters more to you than helping the poor.

      money that’s now actually moving through the economy zombie wealth sitting in some rich fuck’s paws, doing nothing but contribute to inflation.

      1. Net worth is a valuation, a price tag on something that’s already been transacted on, how could it possibly contribute to inflation? What nonsense.
      2. The ultra-wealthy don’t have Scrooge McDuck vaults full of cash, their wealth consists of investments in businesses that run within the economy.

      source

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Taxes in the US are overwhelmingly used for the military and to enrich rich fucks, not to help the poor. Don’t be disingenuous. Rich fucks sitting on assets aren’t “not hurting anyone”. Their assets have real world value, that’s why they’re valued like that. By letting someone sit on them to “allow them to appreciate” is letting someone doing nothing accumulate the wealth gains of society that we all work for. Because those assets appreciate faster than inflation, they create inflation pressure as more asseted people have income to burn that doesn’t reflect actual economic movement. Decreasing the value of money that other people need to use to buy things to live.

        No one lives in a vacuum and letting people hoard assets has a negative impact on everyone else. So yes, wealth redistribution is a net positive not because “it punishes rich people” but because it allows our money to better reflect who actually produces the value in society. The workers who do the labor of running everything, rather than rich fucks who normally reap all the monetary benefit of that with almost no actual contribution to the effort it required.

        If everyone became a laborer with proper compensation, society would thrive. If everyone became an asset hoarder, society would break apart as there would be no one to operate the machinery of society. Increased wealth inequality pushes us towards the second scenario(asset ownership is rewarded over value producing behaviors, pushing individuals towards more asset accumulation in order to not be left behind, increasing the price of those assets, devaluing other ways of earning money, creating more pressure to own assets), reducing wealth inequality pushes us towards the first.

        source
  • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Do you consider Switzerland to be a European country. It has had forms of wealth tax for centuries, and the current tax generates roughly 4% of Switzerland’s total revenue. It seems to work just fine there.

    source

    • damnedfurry@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Switzerland’s wealth taxes, depending on area (there is no country-wide wealth tax) starts at the equivalent of ~$100,000 on average, putting it very squarely in the

      ‘dialed down’ to be just another ‘mundane’ tax that falls primarily into the lap of the middle class.

      category I mentioned before. That is absolutely not a tax aimed exclusively at the ultra-wealthy.

      source