I never understood what you guys mean when you say they should be taxed more. Like… they are taxed for their income under the same laws you are?
Billionaires are not literally sitting atop a pile of a billion dollars in cash. Their “wealth” is unrealised, which means it’s the net worth of assets that they haven’t cashed in. In most cases they can’t cash in their wealth in even if they wanted. How will you tax them on money they just don’t have?
Regardless of their wealth being in M1, M2, or M3, it is wealth taken off the backs of the working class and given to the hands of a few people. Taxing it is the most conservative approach to giving it back to the people who actually created that wealth; it’s a solution that works within the existing political system.
Money itself is an abstraction for wealth. Sometimes, it can be a useful one. But take the abstraction away and think about the stuff it actually represents. Taxing that “unrealized wealth” may reduce GDP in a technical sense, but GDP is an abstraction built on an abstraction. Constantly rising GDP is not a good end goal in itself. Ensuring that everyone has their basic needs met is a much better one.
It won’t be just a “drop in GDP”. It will be investments falling apart, industries closing down, credit getting scarce, unemployment, misery, destitution and death.
Money is a very real driver of the world. It is also the realest manifestation of wealth. Only a fool would call it an abstraction.
What else would it be but an abstraction? As I said, it’s sometimes a useful one, but it’s an abstraction. It’s not dirt or concrete or computer chips or food.
Maybe we shouldn’t build a whole society around an abstraction like that?
I feel you, and that’s a problem because if you want to tax a billionaires “unrealized” profits, you probably also have to tax some poor shmuck’s unrealized 401k profits when they have like 100k stashed away. I’d be cool with higher consumption/sales taxes for ultra rich person items: third or fourth homes, property in the “x” percentile of value above the average, luxury items like yachts or Ferraris. Theres a whole world of solutions, if only we could get the the politicians to enact them.
Or hell, just make them sell their stocks and pay tax on unrealized profits for anyone above like “x” millions. They’ll be fine at the end of the day, and it’ll dilute their corporate ownership once the company gets too big anyways.
I have a significant 401k savings. If it means building a society that takes care of people’s needs better–including my own when I’m too old to work–then I’m totally fine throwing that away. Edit: to add, it gets me to where I wanted to be with a 401k, but by a different route that works for more people.
Honestly, if they are, then I’m. It rich enough to have heard about it–in the US at least.
How would making a CEO sell their stock crash market prices? If anything, it would just moderate values slightly by increasing supply. Who says this stock market system is the right system anyways? If dethroning assholes like Musk crashes the system, then we need to modify our system.
Investors put money on ventures and industries precisely to build wealth. If they are to be forced to divest at any point, they won’t be interested in investing at all. Credit will dry up, overall liquidity will fall. Recession.
I never understood what you guys mean when you say they should be taxed more. Like… they are taxed for their income under the same laws you are?
Billionaires are not literally sitting atop a pile of a billion dollars in cash. Their “wealth” is unrealised, which means it’s the net worth of assets that they haven’t cashed in. In most cases they can’t cash in their wealth in even if they wanted. How will you tax them on money they just don’t have?
Tax them on loans against those assets. If they can spend it, it’s fucking income. Enough bullshit.
Fair enough.
Regardless of their wealth being in M1, M2, or M3, it is wealth taken off the backs of the working class and given to the hands of a few people. Taxing it is the most conservative approach to giving it back to the people who actually created that wealth; it’s a solution that works within the existing political system.
Money itself is an abstraction for wealth. Sometimes, it can be a useful one. But take the abstraction away and think about the stuff it actually represents. Taxing that “unrealized wealth” may reduce GDP in a technical sense, but GDP is an abstraction built on an abstraction. Constantly rising GDP is not a good end goal in itself. Ensuring that everyone has their basic needs met is a much better one.
Lots of big words but nothing of value. Answer the question buddy, how will you tax people on money they don’t have?
They will sell it.
That’s why I say it’s going to cause a drop in GDP, but that’s only a problem if you hold tightly to the abstraction.
It won’t be just a “drop in GDP”. It will be investments falling apart, industries closing down, credit getting scarce, unemployment, misery, destitution and death.
Money is a very real driver of the world. It is also the realest manifestation of wealth. Only a fool would call it an abstraction.
What else would it be but an abstraction? As I said, it’s sometimes a useful one, but it’s an abstraction. It’s not dirt or concrete or computer chips or food.
Maybe we shouldn’t build a whole society around an abstraction like that?
I feel you, and that’s a problem because if you want to tax a billionaires “unrealized” profits, you probably also have to tax some poor shmuck’s unrealized 401k profits when they have like 100k stashed away. I’d be cool with higher consumption/sales taxes for ultra rich person items: third or fourth homes, property in the “x” percentile of value above the average, luxury items like yachts or Ferraris. Theres a whole world of solutions, if only we could get the the politicians to enact them.
Or hell, just make them sell their stocks and pay tax on unrealized profits for anyone above like “x” millions. They’ll be fine at the end of the day, and it’ll dilute their corporate ownership once the company gets too big anyways.
I have a significant 401k savings. If it means building a society that takes care of people’s needs better–including my own when I’m too old to work–then I’m totally fine throwing that away. Edit: to add, it gets me to where I wanted to be with a 401k, but by a different route that works for more people.
Are luxury items not already taxed more? AFAIK they are in most countries.
That will tank the share market, close down industries and cause even more unemployment and widespread misery.
Honestly, if they are, then I’m. It rich enough to have heard about it–in the US at least.
How would making a CEO sell their stock crash market prices? If anything, it would just moderate values slightly by increasing supply. Who says this stock market system is the right system anyways? If dethroning assholes like Musk crashes the system, then we need to modify our system.
Investors put money on ventures and industries precisely to build wealth. If they are to be forced to divest at any point, they won’t be interested in investing at all. Credit will dry up, overall liquidity will fall. Recession.
Or maybe they’ll just have to invest in a diverse group of assets like how mutual funds are already setup?
Or in their own workforce or making their products cheaper for consumers? The money doesn’t just exist in a stock market/tax vacuum.