return2ozma@lemmy.world to Progressive Politics@lemmy.world · 9 days agoTo Tax the Ultra-Rich, We Need to Go After Their Wealth—Not Just Incomeinthesetimes.comexternal-linkmessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1264arrow-down12cross-posted to: usa@midwest.socialusa@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1262arrow-down1external-linkTo Tax the Ultra-Rich, We Need to Go After Their Wealth—Not Just Incomeinthesetimes.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Progressive Politics@lemmy.world · 9 days agomessage-square31linkfedilinkcross-posted to: usa@midwest.socialusa@lemmy.ml
minus-squareNotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·9 days agoIf you tax income then the ultra wealthy can find some financial construction to ensure that they have zero income. Of course, this is also true for wealth (see: the Gates Foundation), so maybe there is no good solution. 😅
minus-squareAkasazh@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·9 days agoIf magazines like Forbes can make up a system to measure the wealth of the richest, then there is a way to tax them.
minus-square☂️-@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-28 days agoand if there are rich people in the first place, there is a way for them to squirm their way out of taxes like they always did.
minus-squarecadekat@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 days agoAs long as you make the conversion from “financial construction” to “personal benefit” a taxable event, I’m not sure I have a problem with that.
If you tax income then the ultra wealthy can find some financial construction to ensure that they have zero income. Of course, this is also true for wealth (see: the Gates Foundation), so maybe there is no good solution. 😅
If magazines like Forbes can make up a system to measure the wealth of the richest, then there is a way to tax them.
and if there are rich people in the first place, there is a way for them to squirm their way out of taxes like they always did.
As long as you make the conversion from “financial construction” to “personal benefit” a taxable event, I’m not sure I have a problem with that.