• RidderSport@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 days ago

    You can tax their existing wealth. For example an annual tax for the average wealth you held for the past year for people whose wealth exceeds a total 250 million in all assets

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      At this point we need to tax their wealth at a rate of like 90% or higher. Any laws that pass with the word “tax” in it is not going to go close to that number. We need to use harsher vocabulary and treat it as the crime it is imo.

      • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        3 days ago

        Agreed. From ~1930 to the mid 60s, we were taxing almost everything over a certain amount (90+ %). In addition, corporate tax rates were significantly higher.

        Besides the point really, we need a plutocrat tax/wealth tax, not income tax reform. It’s one of the few direct methods to redistribute the wealth theyve extracted from the 99% and decrease inequality.

        Tax wealth, not workers!

      • binux@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 days ago

        This was actually the norm during the so-called “golden age of capitalism” in the US funnily enough. The higher margins of the wealthy were taxed upwards of 90% and what do you know, it led to prosperity.

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The massive problem with that is that they’ll just move to a country that taxes them less.
      The country wins by getting some of their money, the billionaire wins by keeping most of their money, everyone else from their original country gets fucked

      • RidderSport@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        You see, that’s being said all the time as a counter-argument. But it has been proven to be untrue. First of all, there are exit taxes in most countries, the USA is pretty gung-ho on that for example. Also, the rich are also just people, that have families and friends. They won’t move just because they pay a bit more in taxes. People are lazy and like the environment they’re used to. Bonus if they have kids that don’t want to leave their friends behind. Lastly, where to move to? Many of the EU countries are the countries with the best living conditions world wide. Granted some of the criteria like accessibility and affordability don’t apply to the rich, but freedom of speech, general freedom, state of infrastructure, crime etc. mostly apply to them as well. And there are very few countries in the world that can match. Those that do are also expensive and or far away or have other issues.

      • ragas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That is no problem at all! Get those motherfuckers out of the country if they are just going to suck it dry.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s fine, let them extract the wealth of other countries until they learn their lesson. They don’t add value to society, that does not equate to a loss. It would be ridding ourselves of economic robbers.

        That’s the same logic as saying “if we kick the snake oil grifter out of our town then he’ll just go to the next one!” Good, maybe they’ll kill him after they figure out he’s just a thief since we didn’t have the gumption.

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Nah that’s not the same. Take lessons from history. Get the money back while you can.