We have an income tax, so we should tax income. A dollar I earn through labor, a dollar my other dollars earned through investment, and a dollar my parents leave me when they die, are all worth one dollar. Yet they are each taxed radically differently.
The 1% has three basic choices, because the current path is unsustainable. We can’t continue to have all the wealth accumulating into the hands of a select few, if for no reason than a population that is 99% broke can buy all the shit corporations produce.
Those choices are:
1. Pay more in taxes and address income inequality.
2. Brace for the pitchforks and torches.
3. Keep pumping money into rightwing authoritarian movements to keep peasants brainwashed and compliant.
Working people of this world uniteSide by side we for freedom shall fightAnd when the wealth of this world we have gainedTo the grifters we'll sing this refrain:
You shall eat by and byWhen you learn how to cook and how to fry(How to fry!)Chop some wood, do you goodAnd you'll eat in the sweet by and by(That's no lie!)
Or maybe higher. I am less inclined to heavily tax first-generation "new money" as they used to call it, since some of that actually does come from doing good stuff (although a lot of it was stolen, like Bill Gates stole from everyone). But inheritors who usually don't actually know how to do anything tend to focus on keeping what they did not create. And that is where it tends to get ugly. I hope everyone who complains about Bezos does not shop at Amazon. I very rarely do. Don't have a Tesla either but they are doing good things, and not stealing the technology. It might be true that generally, people who do amazing things are not nice, but that doesn't mean they should be crucified.
I think a high income tax is more important than a wealth tax, since every time you use that wealth to generate more wealth it should count as income, and every time you inherit wealth, it should count as income too. A high enough progressive* income tax would mean that the billionaires can stay billionaires if they want to, but their kids won't get to start out as billionaires themselves.
*For example, add 10% to the tax percentage for each digit in the yearly income (tiered system, so you only pay for what you earn over the tax bracket's limit). That would mean that no-one can earn more than (0.9*9) + (0.8*90) + (0.7*900) + (0.6*9,000) + (0.5*90,000) + (0.4*900,000) + (0.3*9,000,000) + (0.2*90,000,000) + (0.1*900,000,000) = $111,111,110. Anybody not happy with 111 million won't be happy with a cent more anyway. The same calculation with steps of 20% starting at the fourth digit leads to a maximum of $ 2.222.199. Still a reasonable amount to motivate anyone, especially if you consider that they can earn that each year. The main point is the inheritance tax, if you earn 2.2 million and save 2 million each year for 4 decades, then you can give your kids 80 million, but they will be taxed on that too, so the first 70 million will be taxed at 100% and they will end up with the same € 2.222.199 as you had each year. Or in the 10% per step system they will end up with 111 million, no matter that you saved 111 million a year for 40 years.
Bezos's ex is a cautionary tale. She is sincerely trying to give it all away, but she rakes in so much from her stake in Amazon that she just keeps getting richer in the process. Not much says "unsustainable system" more than this.
A brief googling tells me that she could give ten million away every day and have enough for the next nine years.
That’s assuming her money isn’t earning interest, which it obviously is.
We have an income tax, so we should tax income. A dollar I earn through labor, a dollar my other dollars earned through investment, and a dollar my parents leave me when they die, are all worth one dollar. Yet they are each taxed radically differently.
Tax the rich. Or eat them. I don’t care; vegan.
That's the enjoyable part of the game.
Good. Then fkn FIX IT!
"because Matt BunchofNumbers from the Internet fears he may be hit with an oppressive millionaires' tax just as soon as he has $50 million in assets."
"the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Plus ca change, Dok...
The 1% has three basic choices, because the current path is unsustainable. We can’t continue to have all the wealth accumulating into the hands of a select few, if for no reason than a population that is 99% broke can buy all the shit corporations produce.
Those choices are:
1. Pay more in taxes and address income inequality.
2. Brace for the pitchforks and torches.
3. Keep pumping money into rightwing authoritarian movements to keep peasants brainwashed and compliant.
Guess which one they will choose?
Just outta curiosity, do Bezos and Musk deign to rub elbows with mere multimillionaires, and attend this shindig for the lower classes of plutocrat?
Preferably, as much as everyone else put together.
Working people of this world uniteSide by side we for freedom shall fightAnd when the wealth of this world we have gainedTo the grifters we'll sing this refrain:
You shall eat by and byWhen you learn how to cook and how to fry(How to fry!)Chop some wood, do you goodAnd you'll eat in the sweet by and by(That's no lie!)
Or maybe higher. I am less inclined to heavily tax first-generation "new money" as they used to call it, since some of that actually does come from doing good stuff (although a lot of it was stolen, like Bill Gates stole from everyone). But inheritors who usually don't actually know how to do anything tend to focus on keeping what they did not create. And that is where it tends to get ugly. I hope everyone who complains about Bezos does not shop at Amazon. I very rarely do. Don't have a Tesla either but they are doing good things, and not stealing the technology. It might be true that generally, people who do amazing things are not nice, but that doesn't mean they should be crucified.
Because of tax breaks for donations it is practically impossible to become poor by making charitable donations.
I think a high income tax is more important than a wealth tax, since every time you use that wealth to generate more wealth it should count as income, and every time you inherit wealth, it should count as income too. A high enough progressive* income tax would mean that the billionaires can stay billionaires if they want to, but their kids won't get to start out as billionaires themselves.
*For example, add 10% to the tax percentage for each digit in the yearly income (tiered system, so you only pay for what you earn over the tax bracket's limit). That would mean that no-one can earn more than (0.9*9) + (0.8*90) + (0.7*900) + (0.6*9,000) + (0.5*90,000) + (0.4*900,000) + (0.3*9,000,000) + (0.2*90,000,000) + (0.1*900,000,000) = $111,111,110. Anybody not happy with 111 million won't be happy with a cent more anyway. The same calculation with steps of 20% starting at the fourth digit leads to a maximum of $ 2.222.199. Still a reasonable amount to motivate anyone, especially if you consider that they can earn that each year. The main point is the inheritance tax, if you earn 2.2 million and save 2 million each year for 4 decades, then you can give your kids 80 million, but they will be taxed on that too, so the first 70 million will be taxed at 100% and they will end up with the same € 2.222.199 as you had each year. Or in the 10% per step system they will end up with 111 million, no matter that you saved 111 million a year for 40 years.
Bezos's ex is a cautionary tale. She is sincerely trying to give it all away, but she rakes in so much from her stake in Amazon that she just keeps getting richer in the process. Not much says "unsustainable system" more than this.
Maybe I'm not rich enough to understand, but I think if I was that rich, I'd rather spend my money to go somewhere else besides the Hamptons.
Creepy, weird losers?
Oh wait, that does describe me. I mean...