• GarbageShoot [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    ownership which is only worth a certain amount because the stock market says it is.

    Market value and use value are not the same thing. Cases like Musk obviously display wild overvaluing, but the practical use a repatriated asset can provide is not the same as its price tag unless your only use for it is to sell it.

    • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      So how do we calculate wealth if it isn’t based on what the market says it’s worth? If we are going to tax Musk on his wealth, most of which is stock, how do you figure out the “real” wealth to tax?

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the case of stock, when we say it is “overvalued”, that is implicitly based on the idea that there is a better evaluation that we can at least estimate, wherein (using more Marxist terms) the use value and market value are more correlated.

        How a wealth tax should be implemented depends a lot on the society in which it is implemented. If we are assuming it is just the US but with a wealth tax, then I think ignoring what I said and taxing people more when their stock is higher makes sense, because market-dictated wealth represents really the ultimate ability to direct society within the US. In other countries with more checks against the wealthy, another approach may be more justified.

        Really, I don’t like wealth taxes compared to other models like a higher capital gains tax, but anything that takes money disproportionately from all billionaires is probably going to have my support merely for that fact, because anything that mainly hurts them is likely to be a good thing relative to the nothing we have.

        • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          What about the middle class that relies on stocks to retire? If you aren’t aware, retirement accounts are usually mostly stocks, do we tax the middle class retirement money?

          I think your last paragraph is pretty telling, just blindly supporting anything that hurts billionaires simply because they are billionaires, no matter how unfair or unjust it is, or even his bad the consequences would be for the country.

          I think there is a reason the most successful companies are from the US, you would have them move their bushes elsewhere that’s more supportive of their size?

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Obviously I don’t want to fuck over retirees, so it should be a progressive tax, since those retirement accounts don’t reach 8 figures, let alone 10 to 12.

            I was pretty careful in my phrasing about it hurting billionaires specifically rather than hurting a larger swath of the population that included billionaires. Given that, I don’t think it would hurt “the country” very much at all, and indeed benefit the country because billionaires are a perpetual malus on us.

            I think there is a reason the most successful companies are from the US,

            There are several reasons, and I think you probably aren’t adequately accounting for the US being the global hegemon and engaging in brutal imperial exploitation as being chief among them. The US literally goes to war using the most over-funded military in the world for the sake of oil companies. It backs juntas to get cheap deals on lithium. It authors puppet governments for fucking bananas.

            Regarding capital flight: It’s awesome if billionaires want to flee. If they try, seize everything from them. They play ball or fuck off, no need to accommodate them playing God.

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Even a progressive tax is going to fuck over retirees, unless you are suggesting 0% below like $10M. Even then they are still paying taxes either when they put the money in or when they take it out, so taxing on the value is just double tax dipping.

              So you are actually suggesting if billionaires want to move we steal everything from them? How is that even remotely ok?

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Even a progressive tax is going to fuck over retirees, unless you are suggesting 0% below like $10M. Even then they are still paying taxes either when they put the money in or when they take it out, so taxing on the value is just double tax dipping.

                Retirement funds are still not going to exceed like 5 million in the vast majority of cases, but sure! Let’s have it be marginal below 10M, that’s fine with me. The petite bourgeois should mainly be targeted with things like higher taxes on housing they rent out, and that’s really a secondary concern in most places.

                So you are actually suggesting if billionaires want to move we steal everything from them? How is that even remotely ok?

                Yes, I am. It’s as easy as “don’t engage in capital flight” to not get hit by it. We can even be generous enough to leave them just a tiny bit, say 1% if they have exactly 1B, since 10M is quite a lot for a human.

                Why should they be entitled to gut factories where they used the labor supply and infrastructure to make their money, destroying the local economy and putting many people out of work? “Property rights”? This is going to blow your mind: human welfare is more important than the property rights of people who are richer than God and could get by in insane comfort while never working a day for the rest of their lives anyway.

                If I had to weigh the wholesale destruction of communities against John Locke feeling disappointed, I’ll gladly accept the latter and travel to England to piss on his grave.

                • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Yes, I am. It’s as easy as “don’t engage in capital flight” to not get hit by it. We can even be generous enough to leave them just a tiny bit, say 1% if they have exactly 1B, since 10M is quite a lot for a human.

                  You are suggesting the most immoral thing I’ve heard yet. To just take everything from someone and leave them with nothing just because they want to leave the area that is hostile to them. Oh wait, nevermind, this sounds exactly like someone as communist would say, and something communist countries have done in the past.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    lmao 10M is “nothing”. I hope one day you realize that you can do better things than lick boots. If you’ve got a problem with immorality and robbery, take it up with the billionaires who are actually doing just that and not leaving people with piss, let alone 10M for picking the forewarned bad option. Where I’m from, trying to move something across borders when it is against the law is called “smuggling” and it’s normal to seize all of what is smuggled rather than 99% (unless it’s, like, people or something).

            • @Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              It would be worthless if half the ideas in this thread were enacted. Luckily they won’t be and tons of middle class people will be able to retire thanks to the stock market.