How? Most people this rich have next to nothing in their bank accounts. The ridiculous numbers you see are not ban account balances or sports cars and yachts. Its primarily shares of the companies they manage. E.g. if you tax them conventionally, you force them to close the factories and everyone becomes poorer. If you just confiscate the company, now the government owns companies, and we saw how that goes plenty of times: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, …
Comment on But how would they be able to live on that?
Etterra@lemmy.world 2 months ago
F that. Shave then down to a few million, tops. There needs to be a wealth cap.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
…or you have the workers communally run the factory and elect the person to run it and if they don’t do a good job, they lose the position. Which seems like a pretty good incentive to succeed. In fact, “do this right or you’re fired” rarely seems to apply to the person at the top.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Lets pretend they would not become corrupt. What about unpopular decisions, such as layoffs? As much as people hate them, they are sometimes necessary to keep peoples work productive.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Again, if they do a bad job, they can be taken out of office by the other workers. If they handle layoffs the right way, they won’t be taken out of office.
Where does the corruption enter into it?
escaped_cruzader@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Guy want companies to become the government
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
No, guy wants companies to be owned and run by workers rather than just be wealth machines for the investor class.
paulcdb@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Or you give the shares to people, but the company would still need to be managed by someone who no longer has a proportional incentive to make it succeed, causing the same result as if it was government run.
Would it? Give the shares to the workers and they have a huge incentive to run a company well. Right now a CEO’s only priority is to maximise shareholders return. A workers led company would maximise both shareholder return AND have an incentive and pride in doing a job properly instead of the low morale and poorly built crap we have today.
History has shown anytime control is in the hands of the few, it’s run into the ground in order to maximise the wealth for the few so giving control to the masses of workers in companies would lead to more compromises and might sound bad at first but would likely work better the more people required to make drastic changes.
And as said many times, no billionaire has ever ‘earned’ that. They’ve all gained it through exploitation and wage theft either directly or indirectly!
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So how do the workers run the company? A vote on every little decision? If not, you have to still have a CEO, for whom it is now far more profitable to make decisions that profit them rather than the company. And even if you vote on every decision, could most workers really understand what they are voting for.
Also, what about layoffs? While everyone loves to hate layoffs, they are part of keeping peoples work productive. Are the workers going to vote/approve them?
paulcdb@lemmy.world 2 months ago
then that’s for the workers to decide on. If 51% of the workforce agrees, thats the decision! If that doesn’t ‘fit’ with the workers, make it 60% or 75%, or whatever number the majority agree on!
It really isn’t that difficult. There are plenty of voting systems, the issue comes down to people and a change of thinking how companies are run.
You can make any argument why it wouldn’t work when you don’t want something to work but given the current system is working soooo well… new ideas are better than no ideas! 😎
Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
And even if you vote on every decision, could most workers really understand what they are voting for.
Yeah because 32hrs would become 40 and we would discard another 8. 6hrsx4. When that happens we are no longer deprived of time edilucate and discuss the matter with the relevant folks.
And even if you vote on every decision, could most workers really understand what they are voting for.
Yes. Because of the above.
Also, what about layoffs? While everyone loves to hate layoffs, they are part of keeping peoples work productive
No. They aren’t. They actually doing the exact opposite. Your statement to contrary of the obvious is a sucker delusion. Stop consuming sugar to begin with and finish by stopping to listen to money.
Are the workers going to vote/approve them?
Yup. Your delusion is thinking that mass is any kind of importance. Its not when it is compared to life because shit might come from the magick of people but there will never be life as a part of them unless they were to begin with and in that case, you were never the creator. Workers MUST have the right to make decision where they work or the entire planet will die. No fucking exceptions with any financial delusions because ALL of it is doing and being exactly that.
r9seng@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Bro what.
Are you saying we need to lay off workers to scare the rest into line?
Crackhappy@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Winco
somethingp@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I agree a wealth tax is difficult to implement, but that alone is not a reason to dismiss the idea. Also, for shares, you can always sell shares to pay the taxes that are due. The point of wealth tax is to wealth, not income. Much like a property tax.
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Better than a wealth tax is a land value tax. Key properties are that it doesn’t cause capital flight (you can’t move land), it’s almost impossible to evade (you can’t hide land), it’s economically efficient (it literally doesn’t even harm the economy in the slightest to implement it), it can’t be passed on to tenants (both in economic theory and in observed practice), and it’s progressive.
Plus, it incentives denser, transit-oriented city development and disincentivizes wastage of prime real estate (which contributes to the housing crisis). All in all, a terrific policy that people aren’t talking nearly enough about imo.
somethingp@lemmy.world 2 months ago
At least in the US, most people already pay local and state property taxes that are higher in high population density areas. The problem with this tax is that it still disproportionately affects middle class home owners instead of only affecting the billionaire class. Also, land is just 1 aspect of wealth. Most of the wealthy in the US don’t keep any significant part of their wealth in land.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Sell them to whom? You are taxing everyone.
somethingp@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You make it sound like factories don’t actually net them profit LMAO. Even after paying taxes they’re still making money. If they weren’t, it would be a terrible business. Also what do you mean sell them to whom? Other billionaires that still exist even with a wealth tax, non billionaire investors, international investors. If they can’t find someone to sell their shares to, then clearly their shares are overvalued and that’ll take care of some of the problem in itself.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I agree a wealth tax is difficult to implement, but that alone is not a reason to dismiss the idea.
What about the fact that it’s been tried and failed a ton of times already in a bunch of countries? That’s a pretty good reason, I think.
In the only countries that still have a ‘wealth tax’, the thresholds are so broad that they are primarily a burden of the middle and lower classes, making it effectively no different than a more conventional/mundane tax, versus what everyone talking about a “wealth tax” in these kinds of discussions invariably expects; namely, a tax that only/primarily targets the wealthiest.
Before the income tax was implemented, there were promises it’d only be aimed at the rich, too.
somethingp@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Youre right about income tax and to some degree income tax does primarily effect the wealthy except the brackets haven’t been updated to reflect inflation and the new ultra wealthy class appropriately. The other thing is, many of the wealthy don’t have incomes in the traditional sense, and it makes no sense to differentiate capital gains from regular income. The argument that you don’t want retirement investment income taxed as regular income tax is a little moot since that’s why we have tax advantaged retirement accounts. If those accounts aren’t enough for all retirement investments, maybe those limits need to be increased or the way the tax advantage works for them needs to be changed.
Past failed attempts are also a good point, but to me they sound more like administrative failures rather than a failure of that type of policy. In the US we already have some wealth taxes on the value of homes and cars. Some of these failed European policies seemed to define wealth poorly and as a result either weren’t fully taxing wealth or spending more resources on administration than collections. But banks already do a great job of assessing an individual’s wealth. This is how the ultra rich are able to get huge lines of credit to play with rather than having to use their own capital directly. I don’t see how the government can’t use similar systems to calculate an individual’s total wealth. And the argument about the wealthy fleaing the country are also a little moot in the US. The wealthy in the US make money off of American tax dollars. Amazon/Bezos is rich because the US government started using AWS. Tesla is successful because the US uses their influence in South America to cost effectively obtain raw materials for batteries (not to mention those tax credits on EVs). There are all the military industrial companies, and the insurance companies. If the government had the backbone to say Americans who got wealthy using the American market have to pay taxes in America or they lose their right to sell to the American market (government or to the public), no one is going anywhere.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why should we have a stock market in the first place? Seems like all it does is act as a means for the rich to shuffle their wealth around, funnel it to the top and claim they have next to no liquidity.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If you think that, you obviously don’t know what the stock market was created to do. Just google it. No point for me to write it here.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Original intention isn’t relevant when the current purpose is to fuck over anybody who isn’t the rich.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Production should be run by the workers via a democratically run and accountable worker-government.
The government owning companies is not a bad thing. The US Postal Service and Fire Department are state-run and operated, and are highly popular. Why do you think a profit-motive is necessary when it’s the source of enshittification?
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Emmie@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Wealth is there to motivate people to do something more than dwell and ruminate. If there was a wealth cap or maximum amount of money you can have no one would have motivation to do all these things we have like companies and such.
Wrench@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Call it at 20m. That’s a great fucking motivation to me. That’s a couple nice houses,a boat or two, several over the top cars, and pretty much any possession you can think of within reason. You could lead a very comfortable life on 20m net worth.
Humanity does not need private keys, mega yachts, mega mansions, etc.
There would be no personal motivation to siphon every penny away from your employees as you can if you’re at your wealth cap. Employees who should be sharing in the company’s success in meaningful terms.
There would be no motivation for enshitification to reduce costs to the bare minimum for every last penny.
Etc.
The extreme greed that “motivates innovation” is such a crock. Yeah, obscene wealth dues fuel venture capitalism atm, but those investors are also who twist the knife on CEOs to make short term decisions that end up destroying companies at the detriment of employees and customers alike.
CEOs aren’t in it for the long haul. Investors aren’t in it for the long haul. It’s all rape and pillage under the current system.
R2DPru@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If it’s such great motivation, what is stopping you now? The potential to earn that is there for you, right now but from what I gather you’re not doing it. Why would you have MORE motivation to make 20M if it was capped but have no motivation in the current environment?
Wrench@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I think you’re missing the point. I am asserting that 20m cap or capless, people including myself are motivated to try to be monetarily successful. The American dream is everyone is a future million/billionaire.
The current wealth distribution and lobbying only serves to make the rich richer and kick the ladder out from behind them.
A wealth cap changes that. It means there’s little point for the rich to keep clutching to power for more money, because you can’t keep it. But the goal of 20m is still very appetizing to the working class, where they could retire in comfort for the rest of their lives.
Emmie@lemm.ee 2 months ago
But if you cap it there is no reason to improve things, make them more efficient etc. The world runs on greed and it’s very important for progress as long as it can be directed and constrained in a sensible manner.
Wrench@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ok. Let’s do a little exercise, then.
Assuming you’re a working class person, are you motivated by the hope of becoming a billionaire? Is that what drives you to go to work or take a chance at starting a business of your own?
If that dream was capped at 20m, would that stop you from trying to be successful? Is there anything in the world that you covet that exceeds 20m? Or even 10m.
I won’t wait for your personal answer. I don’t think it’d far fetched to say that for most people, their answer would be that it doesn’t make a difference. Achieving 20m would be a dream and give them a far more comfortable life than they have now.
And if they reached that 20m, they’d either retire and give the next generation a chance at the reins, or keep working but necessarily focus more on their employee/customer happiness, because there’s no reason to be exceedingly greedy except as a ego scoreboard thing.
That doesn’t stop innovation, it just means that more will innovate and thrive because fewer will clutch onto their throne and kick others down.
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Netherlands if I remember correctly currently is doing something in that direction
It’s not. Nothing remotely like that is going on here.
Emmie@lemm.ee 2 months ago
In April 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19, Amsterdam’s city government announced it would recover from the crisis, and avoid future ones, by embracing the theory of “doughnut economics.”
Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If there’s a minimum wage, there should be a maximum wage
xpinchx@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Billionaires: ok no more minimum wage then. /s kinda
Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Billionaires don’t have wages.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
agreed but good luck enforcing it without a literal revolution
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
Hell, I’d be okay with 100 million total in both liquid and non-liquid assets as a wealth cap. We could even tie it to inflation, so long as we also tie the minimum wage to inflation (let’s say, starting at $30/hr federally, then increasing as needed locally).
Mango@lemmy.world 2 months ago
$100m can even be fine. Let them have their Bugatti and mansion. There’s big toys aplenty to have them motivated without being complacent and not milking the rest of the world for all it’s worth.
Syrc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Even capping it at 1 billion would do wonders. That means, for example, Elon would have to pay more than 200 billions to the government. Imagine what we could do with 200 billions.
And yes, they could split it with family and friends, but I find it hard to believe he (or anyone actually) knows 200 people he can trust with 1 billion each.
occhineri@feddit.de 2 months ago
F that. Shave them down to a loincloth and a bouncing ball
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A wealth cap and a maximum wage in my opinion. The idea of a minimum wage without a maximum wage is odd to me to begin with.
Nelots@lemm.ee 2 months ago
What the ultrarich just heard: “So you’re okay with us getting rid of minimum wage, then!”
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You’re probably right, sadly.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Sorry guys, I checked the legislative schedule and they said they don’t have anything for a maximum wage or wealth cap.
But they did say if we can get 200 million to sign a petition they will ignore it indefinitely. Hope that helps.
Clent@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They’ll just claim aren’t paid in wages, see it’s a performance bonus. Totally not a wage. That’s for the poors.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 months ago
We also need to end bullshit loopholes like that. Bonuses, benefits, stocks, everything and anything in-between needs to be counted as income.
Doesn’t matter if your employer pays you in bananas or bitcoin, everything the employer does to reward an employee must be counted.
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They are counted as income. When company grants stock, it appears in W2, for example.
The rub is when their extrapolated value changes, and this would be fine if they sold, as there is a tax system for handling that too, but there are gaps with borrowing where they can game the system by borrowing against the value instead of selling. By needlessly living in debt, they can manage their tax burden in ways unavailable to mere mortals.
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
It gets tricky when you get paid once and then never get paid again, but the original thing you were paid with (i.e. company stocks) goes up in value over time, effectively replacing wages. Do we count that value increase as well? What if you get paid in cash, you buy something with that cash (could be the same company stocks), and that thing goes up in value? Or you buy another asset that your company has a lot of influence over?
Wrench@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That’s why it’s a wealth cap. That’s net worth, not income.
You exceed the 20m cap, you have to pay the excess to taxes. If it’s locked in company shares, you have to sell them and pay that in taxes.
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The tricky part is that has implications for business control. Other people speculate the market cap into 50m and then they take over control if your company, because you are forced to sell off your stake. So an arbitrary coalition of 3 rich dudes can just take over your company on a whim, if it is vaguely important enough. A coalition of rich people is not likely going to treat the customers or employees better.
bitwolf@lemmy.one 2 months ago
Thankfully bonuses are already taxed very highly.
Clent@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That’s so missing the point, I can’t help but think you’re a cheerleader for the billionaire class.
If there is a maximum wage but no maximum bonus their income would be all bonus to get around the maximum. The thing we’re discussing.
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
Yeah. Every bonus that I’ve ever seen has been raced at something like 40%. We really need to both make capital gains equally taxed to earned income and have a wealth tax.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Bonuses don’t get taxed any differently. What happens if your employers payroll software sees additional income above your wages and without any tax-exempt lines (like health insurance) subtracting from taxable income. It ends up calculating a higher tax rate.
Come tax time a dollar of income is a dollar of income. Your tax burden is calculated in total income and bonuses are treated no differently than wages.
menemen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
While I have nothing against a “maximum wage”, the wealth tax is much more important.
KittyCat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not a maximum wage, a maximum controled assets. On the board of 100 billion dollar company, no one can own more than 1% of the voting shares.
Find yourself with more assets than you can split among owners? Better start reinvesting it into the company and your employees.
BrinkBreaker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Not a max wage. A max multiple of minimum wage.
You can only ever make more than 5x/10x/etc… the minimum wage. They want more money? Then everyone needs to make more money.
They can feel free to increase their riches, but tie it exclusively to the rest of the population.
aidan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
What does a maximum wage and wealth cap even mean? What happens when you start a company and it gets too successful?
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Probably a bit extreme but taxes could scale up in a way that the more you earn, the harder it is to earn even more, so your wealth reaches a plateau
or maybe minimum wage has to scale to the wealth of a company
aidan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
But wealth isn’t a wage. The value of the company goes up, do you have to sell the company?
T156@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The loophole is that they aren’t paid that amount in maximum wage anyway. The actual wage is some degree of modest. They just get paid in bonuses and stock options, which don’t count for one reason or another.
stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
i mean technically your maximum wage is what you earn - number of employees * minimum wage