617
submitted 1 year ago by ATQ@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

According to a summary of the bill released by the Patriotic Millionaires—an advocacy group that helped craft the measure—the wealth tax would have four brackets:

  • 2% for all wealth between 1,000 and 10,000 times median household wealth;
  • 4% for all wealth between 10,000 and 100,000 times median household wealth;
  • 6% for all wealth between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times median household wealth; and
  • 8% for all wealth over 1,000,000 times median household wealth;

"In the unlikely event median household wealth fell below $50,000 from its current level of about $120,000, the thresholds would be fixed at $50 million, $500 million, $5 billion, and $50 billion respectively.”

The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's it? The highest one is 8%? Wtf is this, a joke? No one needs billions of dollars. No one should hoard billions while others sleep in the streets. Hell, billionaires shouldn't exist at all.

Edit: also where is the "assets" and stocks tax?

[-] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

8% seems fine considering it's a wealth tax, not an income tax. In 7 years that takes away 56% of their wealth.

Granted, I'm not at all clear on what sort of assets constitute "wealth" here. How much of Musk's $242.4 billion net worth that google currently spits out would be affected by this?

[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

It's not like their wealth is not increasing. Fuck them, I wish I could tax them 90% after their first billion. No one needs one thousand million dollars. Holy shit! It's a lot of money they'll never ever spend. Also, I'd tax everything they own, even their stocks and other "assets" they use to avade taxes.

[-] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

8% is a good figure. 8% gets real change and it gets it fast. This rhetoric helps nothing. Wealth taxes are very different from income taxes.

[-] Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It’s so soft and yet there is still 0% chance of this going anywhere. That’s where we are smh.

[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yup. I've literally given up hope on this government. At this point, I'm just waiting for a total collapse of this country. It will happen, but I don't know when.

[-] absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds like where I'm at. The Paranoia Agent OP just keeps getting louder and louder in my head with every passing year.

[-] rabbit_wren@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Paranoia Agent...now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

[-] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago
[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It's common sense. You can't have infinite growth from a finite source. It just doesn't work that way. Billionaires know this, that's why some of them are actually building bunkers and "post apocalypse" places for themselves. They know it burns, yet, they keep playing with fire. Education and health of societies are very important, like the article says, but capitalism doesn't care. Those short term profits are more important until they don't mean shit anymore, or don't even come by. I'm waiting patiently. I'll be in my 50s. I grew up very poor in a 3rd world country and I know I will survive it easily.

[-] absentthereaper@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think that report took into account the effect of feedback loops. I give it like ten, at the rosiest.

[-] _cerpin_taxt_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why the fuck do I pay like 30% percent on my income? Fuck the IRS. Go after every single last billionaire tax dodger or stop taxing in general.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Wealth taxes are much different than income taxes, and as such have a lower percentage.

[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I actually agree with you. There should not be tax on labor. I'm already helping society with my labor, why would you double down on me?

[-] drphungky@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

8% on wealth is actually insane. Stock market growth is only 10% on average, and average inflation of 3%. If they had average growth they'd be losing significant money (like 1-2%) each year. So in practice 8% is just a really slow seizing of all wealth, and prevents them from making any more money unless they're taking huge gambles and getting huge paydays that beat the market (which they would be incentivized to do). I'm all for taxing the hell out of the rich, but that's not a well designed system and creates really perverse incentives.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Considering that 8% only starts at one million times average household wealth, I've gotta say who the fuck cares. There is no justifiable reason for any singular person to have that much wealth. Not one.

this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
617 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18821 readers
4990 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS