Personally, I would say anything over $100 million (or £ if you wish) should be taxed at 99%.
No one even nees $100 million, so that’s being quite generous.
Comment on But how would they be able to live on that?
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Why take so little? I would recommend a 80% tax bracket above £1b.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
escaped_cruzader@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Are you counting actual money or just the value of assets?
And the value of the assets is defined by whom?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If only there were ways to value assets for tax purposes.
Too bad that’s 100% impossible.
mkwt@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The deal with wealth is that it’s not income. Wealth is income accumulated over time.
So is your 80% top bracket rate a one time thing, or every year?
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 months ago
One time when the tax is first introduced, then per year on all income that increases wealth beyond £1b.
Sprokes@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Why not? No one can accumulate that much money without exploitation.
mkwt@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The thing is that in the presence of wealth taxes, wealth dis-accumulates exponentially in the same way that it accumulates exponentially without the tac.
So you end up needing much lower percentage rates on wealth to get the same effect as an 80% tax on marginal income. Wealth tax rates as low as single % would dramatically alter the distribution of wealth.
paddirn@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You mean like what we had during the 1940s–50s when the wealthy were taxed 90% (here in the US)? The tax rate the Baby Boomers started off with? We barely survived that time of massive economic expansion the first time around, Preposterous!