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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sneptaur@pawb.social 136 points 1 year ago

This plan is so very soft on the billionaires and yet we are going to see it being resisted violently and with extreme prejudice.

[-] ATQ@lemm.ee 69 points 1 year ago

By temporarily embarrassed millionaires, no less.

[-] slicedcheesegremlin@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

Even most of the extremely rich aren't effected by this, if you calculate it out you need over 31,000,000 dollars before the lowest bracket kicks in.

[-] joekar1990@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Uh my house will totally be worth that much so I hate this!

/S

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure thats the point.

Showing that the billionaires will react to practically nothing like it will destroy them. And hopefully maybe a few more people will realize they're full of shit

[-] twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind it's a wealth tax, not an income tax, so these numbers hit way harder than the income tax ones you're used to.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

It hits the same as property tax hits, because property tax is also a form of wealth tax.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, percent should be about 10x what has been recommended.

[-] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 105 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For everyone saying this is not harsh enough, it is a WEALTH tax. Not income, wealth. All owned assets. Meaning any of these people who don't increase their net worth by at least the amount of the tax each year will lose more and more of their total wealth year over year.

It isn't intended to strip all mega rich people of all their stuff immediately - that obviously could never pass - but still is intended to open the door to wealth taxes and redistributive policies more broadly.

It's a great move. If we can get anything like this passed, it is a significant victory.

[-] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

Just getting something like this out of committee and on the floor for debate would be huge. Unfortunately it stands no chance with the current congress

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

In other news, renting a house has never been more popular! On secondary news, rent has raised across america by 8% unilaterally

[-] Stoneykins@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Are you describing right now or making a prediction I can't tell

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

I think it is more the state of American media. Similarly to before 08 housing crash, many home builders got stuck with over valued houses no one would buy. So they rented them out so that it would generate income and not have to take a write down. If you watch CNBC it tells you how the housing market is somehow doing amazing if you look at perfectly curated numbers that do not add up. One of the common media pieces at the moment is how popular this new rental home trend is and how its so helpful and gracious to those who can’t afford homes. Example: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/homes/build-for-rent-homes/index.html

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

I really love the floating design of the tax pegged to household income, but I'd probably oppose it due to exactly what you say: it opens the door to wealth taxes, which are by and large a bad idea.

We've proven time and time again that congress can't properly tax the wealthy, and will always eventually default to squeezing revenue out of the middle class. 50 million as a minimum sounds nice and high until they add a bracket at 25 million, then 10, then before you know it there's a non-inflation adjusted tax at 1 million or 500k. All that serves to do is hurt savers and the elderly (who will naturally have higher nest eggs being closer to retirement). This will 100% eventually come to pass, because taxing wealth is a further nudge towards a consumption (and therefore growth) based economy that publicly traded companies need to continue extracting wealth from consumers, so it will be lobbied for by all monied interests, both the rich and industry.

There are tons of other issues with a wealth tax like creating a new bureaucracy to measure wealth (not impossible, as some people say, just expensive), the fact that people are taxed for gains they may not have realized or just for leaving money in the bank or stock market, something that is actually good for the economy, and other complaints. It's also just inferior to a better income tax, and expanding income taxes to eliminate the loopholes the megarich use, chief among them borrowing against collateralized debt. If someone gets a loan but puts up stock or properties as collateral, that loan should count as income. There are tons of other loopholes, and the fact that we're ignoring low-hanging fruit and talking about wealth taxes shows me this is about scoring political points, not actually trying to reform how our government gets money.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 57 points 1 year ago

It's got a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere, but it's nigh time a wealth tax entered the realm of possibility

[-] zerkrazus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, we have a better chance of pigs flying, getting struck by lightning, and winning the lottery all at the same time on the same day simultaneously than this has of actually passing both chambers and getting signed into an actual law. This type of thing will never pass when the very oligarchs it seeks to tax own the very government responsible for making it a law.

[-] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Eight whole percent. I can hear their boots shaking now /s

Go with the Bernie plan. Anything over $1B is taxed at 100%. Shit, I think even that is too soft. Nobody needs even a fraction of that to for themselves and their children's children's children's ... to live like kings their entire lives.

Also, it's always hilarious how American politicians are so obsessed with overly on-the-nose acronyms for legislation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

What a travesty. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of the brows of everyone he's screwed over to amass his fortune? Sure, I might not have two cents to rub together between paychecks but I'd better oppose this just in case I get rich some day.

[-] 4ce@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago
[-] extant@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Isn't the issue that they are currently hiding and obfuscating their income? Increasing the percentage is a great idea and all but 1% or 8% of zero is still zero.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago

It literally says "all wealth" and doesn't talk about income at all.

This is exactly the kind of tax we need. I think its a very interesting idea to tie it to median wealth, though using household as opposed to individual wealth I'm not sold on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] neeeeDanke@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wealth taxes are super easy to avoid, so I'd much rather see something like cap gains+"luxury" sales/income taxes and such, but it's a step in the right direction

Now raise taxes on everyone making over 100k and we're really cooking with gas

[-] MisterCreamyShits@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago

$100k aint that much and those people already have a heafty tax burden. Plus luxury taxes are easily avoided when yachts and planes are purchased in the Bahamas. What we need are 50% taxes on the money they borrow against their assets. Want to buy another mansion? Cool 50% tax on the money Goldman Sachs lends you against your Amazon stock. If I have to pay a tax to borrow against my 401k so should these assholes.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

But income tax on paper is already higher for the $100k tax bracket than what the ultra rich pay. The ultra rich do everything in their power to not have an "income". Hence why there's this effort of taxing wealth instead.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Saneless@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Good thing the people who have to vote on it aren't impacted by these brackets at all!

[-] Irv@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago
[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

"Veto" isn't the correct term, but you are otherwise entirely correct.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago

My understanding is that this would be x% of your total wealth, which is much more reasonable.

So you would pay an extra 2% of your total worth every year. So at a billion that's 20 million, at 980 million 19 million and change, etc.

The numbers could be much higher, but this is a lot of funds. It also would take several generations for the inheritance to drop below "you'll never spend this" to just "you can live on the interest". Even with zero interest on their investments (which is absurd - so really this would more be a source of funds than anything). At least it would be a starting point

[-] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Can someone ELI5 with examples? Is this based on income?

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Based on wealth. Like the tax we pay on houses but on total wealth. Stocks etc too.

But only for very wealthy people. It starts at 1000 times median wealth. So people 1,000 times richer than the median household.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
617 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18621 readers
3572 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS