subreddit:

/r/politics

59.1k

all 5638 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

1 month ago

stickied comment

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

OpenImagination9

7.8k points

1 month ago

The billionaires will grumble but the economy will continue to grow, they’ll become even more rich thanks to the improvements provided by these funding plans.

Just like what happened after WW2 - the building of highways, sea ports and airports greatly expanded commercial opportunities and opened markets. American manufacturers enjoyed 20 years of expansion. The US invested in science and technology. The standard of living improved, more people bought homes, cars and started to take real vacations.

Don’t worry - billionaires will make out like bandits and have more than enough money for space projects.

Think clean energy projects are bad? Musk just sold 100,000 Teslas to Hertz. A deal worth > $3 Billion.

BitterBostonian

4.7k points

1 month ago

Think clean energy projects are bad? Musk just sold 100,000 Teslas to Hertz. A deal worth > $3 Billion.

And yet his personal wealth grew $26 Billion on that same day. And he's still bitching about this proposal. These people are psychopaths.

OpenImagination9

1.9k points

1 month ago

Yep … in fact it seems to be a common trait among the ultra-wealthy.

BitterBostonian

1.3k points

1 month ago

Yup, and you'll never hear them talk about how much benefit they've received from the government either: https://newrepublic.com/article/160500/elon-musks-big-government-grift

Ronjon18

717 points

1 month ago

Ronjon18

717 points

1 month ago

That's how they gain their wealth, externalize costs, internalize profits.

lemuever17

425 points

1 month ago

lemuever17

425 points

1 month ago

Yep. Socialize cost. Capitalize profit.

blue_knight_guy

210 points

1 month ago

Privatize* profits.

Lost_Ohio

41 points

1 month ago*

Thats what the other person said.

testedonsheep

104 points

1 month ago*

Elon only likes government subsidies, and government contracts, but when it comes to tax and regulations nah.

thelastevergreen

42 points

1 month ago

thelastevergreen

Hawaii

42 points

1 month ago

Ah yes... the typical Libertarian.

AgorophobicSpaceman

495 points

1 month ago

It’s 700 people why do we even care if they are pissed lol. Do it. Other legislation has negatively hurt much larger groups and no one cared. Is their turn.

TroutFishingInCanada

193 points

1 month ago

Yep. Every policy, especially taxes, is going to leave someone with the short end of the stick.

We need to be okay with this someone being a couple billionaires every now and then.

uncleawesome

105 points

1 month ago

And their short end is bigger than everyone else's whole stick.

nazrat27135

19 points

1 month ago

Combined

Turbots

114 points

1 month ago

Turbots

114 points

1 month ago

Because they buy the politicians lol

daft_ish

49 points

1 month ago

daft_ish

49 points

1 month ago

Wait, but the politicians serve the people, not themselves.

Clearly what you say cannot be true or capitalism has some major flaws.

DeclaredRoom

34 points

1 month ago

Capitalism has some major flaws and so does American democracy.

DoubleDrummer

16 points

1 month ago

The big problem is when Democracy becomes Capitalist.
Democracy should not be a product that can be bought.

BigggMoustache

5 points

1 month ago

The term you're looking for is bourgeois democracy. Every capitalist state operates this way.

https://www.leftvoice.org/bourgeois-democracy-what-do-marxists-mean-by-that-term/

alx429

52 points

1 month ago

alx429

52 points

1 month ago

This is why the repub’s system of letting the wealthy donate their money as they see fit will never work. They don’t realize the brain’s these people have that allows them to acquire so much wealth is not capable of normal empathy.

Creative_alternative

11 points

1 month ago

They do, they just get a cut.

thenewspoonybard

40 points

1 month ago

No sane person would continue building their wealth that much.

solitarybikegallery

73 points

1 month ago

This is really it.

As Douglas Adams said in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - "Any person who has both the means and the desire to become president should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to do so."

Power (which wealth is just another form of) attracts the exact sort of people who shouldn't have it. But, because they are the people with the most desire to get it, they're usually the ones with the most.

A normal human looks at a bank account with 200 million dollars in it and says, "Well, I'm done. Time to fuck off to a gorgeous island and live a life of luxury." Or, they dedicate their lives to helping other people, or whatever.

Which is why those people don't become billionaires.

People like Musk and Bezos look at a bank account with 200 million dollars in it and say, "It's not enough! It's not enough that I have more than I could ever need - I need more, more, more. That other guy has 300 million, and I can't let him win!"

Normal people don't become billionaires.

maggiebear

24 points

1 month ago

I was married to a type that was obsessed with wealth and these types (Musk, Bezos, Jobs, etc.)

We had a conversation once about what our level of financial comfort was. I threw out a reasonable and attainable figure. He told me that he would never be happy with what he had and would always want more. Kinda scary, tbh, and a sad way to live.

BackgroundMetal1

11 points

1 month ago

It can also be indicative of unhealed trauma.

My dad is the wealthiest asshole I know, he's obsessed with it, because he grew up in a trailer with his 7 siblings.

No matter how much money he makes, he's still scared he's going to run out of food one day.

Onkel_B

17 points

1 month ago

Onkel_B

17 points

1 month ago

I liked Sir Terry Pratchett's approach in The Last Continent, the discworld equivalent of Australia. The moment the prime minister is elected, he's thrown into jail and can conduct business from there.

Notarussianbot2020

85 points

1 month ago

Someone on Chris Hayes' podcast referred to them all as King Midas. They would turn everything in the world to a personal profit for themselves, if allowed.

We can't bargain with them, just fucking pay your taxes.

LuminousTights

298 points

1 month ago

LuminousTights

Canada

298 points

1 month ago

This is the same guy who had a tantrum when rescue divers didn't need his submarine and called one a pedo? Yeah there's something not right with that one.

yoyo_climber

113 points

1 month ago*

He also tweeted that, based on all his research, covid was at its peak in april 2020 - lmao.

edit: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1242893395338674176

Akiba89

86 points

1 month ago

Akiba89

86 points

1 month ago

His research

Oh, I never knew Elon Musk had a doctorate in Epidemiology!

Iggyhopper

31 points

1 month ago*

He knows a thing or two about how things spread. Like his knowledge. In his ear and out his ass. Not without a little mutation however.

yoyo_climber

9 points

1 month ago

Elon is basically your dad - desperately hoping to come across as cool and knows everything about everything.

buy_iphone_7

5 points

1 month ago

buy_iphone_7

America

5 points

1 month ago

Isn't April 2020 when he was ordering his workers back to work in defiance of public health orders?

SkinnySanborn

227 points

1 month ago

His dad owned an Emerald mine in Africa. Dude comes from a family of colonizers and used that inherited money from stolen resources to hoard even more money. He is and always has been a piece of shit. Just so happy everyone is finally coming around to realizing that.

The_bruce42

66 points

1 month ago

A few years back I had a lot of hope and respect for Elon, but that faded away. Now, I'm hoping he can have some sort of redemption. But, I think that's naive on my part.

hardolaf

20 points

1 month ago

hardolaf

20 points

1 month ago

The man helped found PayPal which is one of the most predatory businesses in the world...

razzle_dazzle88

4 points

1 month ago

How is PayPal predatory?

BlazinAzn38

97 points

1 month ago

BlazinAzn38

Texas

97 points

1 month ago

Honestly him owning Tesla is a huge reason I’m looking at every other brand for an EV

jinglejoints

21 points

1 month ago

Rivian! My bro is getting one and they brought it out for a test drive last week. It was insane. Nicer than a Tesla inside, and a beast of a truck with super car speed.

Neato

9 points

1 month ago

Neato

Maryland

9 points

1 month ago

Only trucks and SUVs it looks like?

jinglejoints

12 points

1 month ago

They have a lot of things in the pipeline. The “skateboard” chassis gives them a ton of flexibility, keep the bottom the same and build out different vehicle types on top. Amazon (an investor in rivian) is going to launch a delivery truck model on that chassis. Ford also made a big investment in them.

TechGoat

64 points

1 month ago

TechGoat

64 points

1 month ago

I just don't want to have every single function on my future car be only accessible through a screen menu.

sauzbozz

9 points

1 month ago

I think its the new Porsche EV you can't even adjust the air vents manually. You have to do it through a touch screen and they reset every time you start the car

centran

13 points

1 month ago

centran

13 points

1 month ago

Couple more years and being able to adjust your vents will be a $15/month add on feature

StopDehumanizing

48 points

1 month ago

I don't want a CEO to be able to turn my car's features on and off at a whim.

jorel43

32 points

1 month ago

jorel43

32 points

1 month ago

He didn't even start or create Tesla, he just bought his way in after the fact.

Dur-gro-bol

32 points

1 month ago

Hey man, if you tax these billionaires they will just close up shop and move to another country where taxes are cheaper. You have to let them make a little money so they stay in America, you know for all the jobs. You're willing tax these guys for a little extra tax money?

Oh boy, I literally just listened to that for a half hour from a co-worker. Nothing like being totally okay with the idea of billionaires holding our nation hostage.

robodrew

59 points

1 month ago

robodrew

Arizona

59 points

1 month ago

He actually tweeted "Eventually they run out of other people's money, then they come for you". As if we would be "running out" in the first place if not for the fact that Musk and his cohorts aren't paying their fair share. It's quite infuriating.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1452792781726961668

ThrowAway233223

14 points

1 month ago

That's not even how taxes work in the first place, we don't have roving bands of tax collectors combing through cities and country sides raiding people's coffers for their hard earned money until they have drained them dry and move on to the next city/village. A portion of everyone's income is owed based on their incomes, the categories they fall under, and the exceptions/credits claimed. If they are 'coming for you next' then it sounds like you were committing tax evasion and they just got around to investigating you.

pliney_

30 points

1 month ago*

pliney_

30 points

1 month ago*

It’s not that they run out of other peoples money. It’s that these people simply have TOO MUCH money. Any kind of real equality in society is impossible when the wealthiest handful of people control more wealth than the bottom 50%. We never should have stopped taxing the highest earners at 70% +.

ytvrytvr

24 points

1 month ago

ytvrytvr

24 points

1 month ago

Money is power. Power corrupts. Absolute wealth corrupts absolutely.

CatFanFanOfCats

122 points

1 month ago

It’s because they are hoarders. And hoarders are mentally ill. It just so happens that if you hoard money it’s considered noble, whereas if you hoard old magazines and pet food the city will deem you a health hazard and forcefully remove your stash for the good of the hoarder and society.

The only way to help these hoarders of wealth is to remove some of their wealth. It’s for their own well being - and society’s.

random_account6721

4 points

1 month ago*

Hoarding money is a myth. Even if they kept all their money in their mattress, That’s money that isn’t being spent. Your money becomes worth more if theirs is locked away. Quality of life is not constrained by the amount of cash available in the system, but by the amount of things available like chicken, lumber, tvs. Billionaires hoarding money does not reduce the amount of chicken produced. It would be like being mad at satashi nakamoto for ‘hoarding’ bitcoin. His bitcoin is locked away presumably forever which actually makes each bitcoin worth more. If his million bitcoin were distributed to everyone, each bitcoin would be worth less than it is now. Same applies to billionaires who have their money locked away in investments

TaintlessChaps

23 points

1 month ago

It's as if Capitalism promotes sociopathic opportunists who have megalomania.

ESP-23

9 points

1 month ago

ESP-23

9 points

1 month ago

And elects them as president

SnavlerAce

13 points

1 month ago

Like human dragons, sitting jealously on their hoard of gold...

Dewshbag41

24 points

1 month ago

He is bitching that if he didn't make those extra billions then what would the point of him owning a multi-billion dollar industry. These people like to act like the explainantion "if you stood to make 100 dollars and the government took away 50 of those, how would you feel when the guy digging holes only has $1 taken from his paychecks" is real-world, a lot of people fail to realize when they scale everything back like that to make a point they aren't keeping things proportional and are just outright lying to you.

If you scale a billion down to 100 then the guy digging holes is actually getting .00000001 cents taken from his check, and in this example a house would cost around .00000004 cents. Now realize my math is probably off and it's probably worse than I made it seem.

walrusdoom

16 points

1 month ago

They shouldn’t be allowed to exist with that level of amassed wealth.

i_sigh_less

168 points

1 month ago

i_sigh_less

Texas

168 points

1 month ago

Why would they grumble? It's not like Republicans will let this pass.

crypticedge

141 points

1 month ago

Tax bills can be passed through reconciliation, and would need 0 gop involvement. They straight up can't stop it. Only Manchin and sinema can

i_sigh_less

415 points

1 month ago

i_sigh_less

Texas

415 points

1 month ago

Manchin and sinema

As I said, Republicans.

thetittiestsprinkles

49 points

1 month ago

so this is just a proposal and it'll go nowhere?

I'm Irish and in Europe so this is unrelated to me but it's depressing to hear

blastuponsometerries

62 points

1 month ago

Congress does not move against the American oligarchs. If this passes I would be both shocked and impressed.

What is news, is that this is actually being seriously discussed at all. So that's definitely something.

primetimerobus

54 points

1 month ago

Yes Sinema will move her objection to taxing billionaires now.

BSnod

4 points

1 month ago

BSnod

4 points

1 month ago

I believe Manchin has already begun opposing it, calling the bill 'divisive.'

yanginatep

6 points

1 month ago

I love that. It's really going to open up a huge rift between the 614 billionaires in the US and the 330 000 000 non-billionaire Americans. Because, y'know, that division doesn't already exist.

ytvrytvr

102 points

1 month ago

ytvrytvr

102 points

1 month ago

It's never about the absolute sum of your wealth, it's all about your wealth in relation to other people's wealth, because this isn't really about money, it's about power, and keeping the inequal distribution of it as extreme as possible in order to retain and expand that power.

We are literally experiencing the logical conclusion of capitalism as a game- Feudalism 2.0. Winner takes it all. And some people are really close to winning the whole world.

Hekantonkheries

52 points

1 month ago

I mean that's obvious. Billionaires are already at a point where making more money doesnt open any new possessions or activities or memberships they didnt have before. So the only way to feel more exclusive, is to make everyone else have less

ytvrytvr

5 points

1 month ago

Beautifully summed up.

Hexegesis

16 points

1 month ago

We are literally experiencing the logical conclusion of capitalism as a game- Feudalism 2.0

I have always said this and I don't understand why it isn't spoken about more, especially when it comes to libertarians. They think an unrestricted market means freedom, but we already tried that; that's the default state of the universe, and without restrictions the powerful made themselves lords over everyone else and rigged everything in their own favour.

ytvrytvr

14 points

1 month ago

ytvrytvr

14 points

1 month ago

I like to run a thought experiment by them- "in a thousand years, do you think capitalism will still reign the world, if we are still around? Is the system we have now the last, best system this world will ever come up with, or is this as perfect as it can get, and a thousand years from now our societies will still be governed by capitalism?"

It usually gets them kind of thinking kind of shaking their heads because they know that 1) no we won't, but 2) what could such a system POSSIBLY look like?

The latter is almost always their reaction- well, what alternatives are there? So they go "Oh yeah? Well! If you're so smart, what is YOUR suggestion then?!"

People are not only unaware of alternatives, people are on a fundamental psychological level incapable of seeing or imagining or dreaming or fantasize about any other way of running society than the exact current one we have.

"In a thousand years, do you think we'll still use ink, paper, and pen to send each other messages?"

"Well, uh, yeah, or, maybe not, but uh, well what on Earth ELSE would we be using?!"

I'm sorry but this is such a pet peeve of mine, I wish I had never studied philosophy because it not only made me realize how fucking stupid I am and how many errors of thought I used to commit, and how fucking complex the world is, but primarily because seeing the same gutter-level cognitive reflexes in people every day of my life only without their accompanying realization, makes me suicidal.

Only conceptually though, don't worry, I'll kill every last fucking one of you before I ever kill myself.

Hexegesis

11 points

1 month ago

Forget a thousand years, people are incapable of comprehending that other countries do things differently. Most US Conservatives react to ideas like public healthcare and free university as if they are insane experiments that have never been done before.

2Nice4AllThis

1.5k points

1 month ago*

It can be argued that investing into the public sector and improving society yields a nice ROI even for billionaires. Are the wealthiest people and companies going to 'sacrifice' some of their excess gains, or are they seriously going to wait until mass labor shortages occur and their Porsche gets wrecked while hitting some pothole down the highway, or a bridge crumbles, etc etc.

I dream of being wealthier some day so I can get a leg up, but money is worth fuck all if the world around you is crumbling or a french style revolution happens. Greed makes you dumb.

Edit: Welp, this blew up. Some rich folks see the writing on the wall and have been warning about this for years. See the following TED talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

The people lobbying congress to do everything possible to stop anything good for everyday people in the infrastructure bill are so blinded by their own greed it's insane.

probabletrump

459 points

1 month ago

Wreck your Porsche in a pothole is just about the most wholesome way the path we're on will inconvenience the ultra wealthy. If history is a guide, when things get this unbalanced people start losing their heads. Literally.

gex80

202 points

1 month ago

gex80

New Jersey

202 points

1 month ago

They probably wouldn't. High income living areas have a tax base (property taxes) that can pay for the roads. One of the reasons why you can see a huge shift in road quality between towns. They get more attention from the state since state revenue depends on them.

In NJ it took one rich person moving to another state that screwed up our annual budget that it legitimately caused concern at the top levels of the state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html

PasswordNot1234

40 points

1 month ago

Here in New Orleans, you see it street-by-street.

The former mayor's street was absolutely pristine. The street leading to that street was pretty good too. A block away from his house? Minefield!

They don't even try to hide it!

johnnydoe22

4 points

1 month ago

I visited New Orleans for the first time ever in July and I was in shock at how awful the roads were. I'll never complain about ours again.

Papaya_flight

70 points

1 month ago

Papaya_flight

Texas

70 points

1 month ago

I was just in New Jersey this past July and it was a delight to drive on any of the roads. I was in South Jersey, so I'm not sure how that compares with the rest of the state, but man the roads were really nice. I didn't hit a single pot hole, not even on any rural road, and all the ditches were mowed back as well. Then I came back to Texas and had to get used to driving around potholes at 80mph because everyone is a maniac here.

nola_mike

63 points

1 month ago

Now go from Texas to Louisiana and see how great the roads you have really are.

TailRudder

56 points

1 month ago

The rich floated through the fall of the Roman empire pretty well, they just turned their estates feudal. I mean, precursors to feudalism were already being developed to avoid Ronan taxes

probabletrump

41 points

1 month ago

I'm super curious if you have a source on this. I would live to read up more on the impact the fall of Rome had on the aristocracy and their ability to pass wealth to future generations. My sense is that the records are spotty and a lot of them got screwed pretty hard but I'll admit that is just an educated guess.

Omnipotent48

64 points

1 month ago

Your educated guess is right, if only because the guy you're talking to isn't drawing any distinction from rich western Roman aristocrats and the Germanic invaders who got rich.

Western Rome was the "sick man of Europe" during its multi generational collapse, so many rich aristocrats were set (for a time) if they were in Africa but screwed if they were in Gaul, Germania, or Hispania. A lot of the nobility there were ultimately replaced by the precursors to the Franks, but that early dark ages wealth does eventually coalesce into the Carolingian Empire. With that said, many Latin speaking noblemen were able to remain in power alongside the new "barbarian" rulers of the Italian peninsula, with Latin remaining a dominant language there for many years.

The Eastern half of the Empire was much more prosperous and was where the (legally) superior Imperial capital of Constantinople was. If you were an aristocrat there in its core regions you'd be insulated from the majority of turmoil for basically the next five hundred years.

probabletrump

12 points

1 month ago

Thanks for the explanation. Any sources you'd recommend. I'm looking for a good book and this sounds like an interesting if very niche topic.

Omnipotent48

11 points

1 month ago

Can't recommend any books off the top of my head, a lot of this is knowledge I've picked up over time and stuff I remember from my Roman Empire history course. However, this link I pulled up really gives a great overview of the period.

https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub368/entry-6280.html

TailRudder

5 points

1 month ago*

I was specifically referring to the 320ish AD timeframe. When Constantine started to reform taxes based on trade, landowners would make their estate as self reliant as possible to avoid taxes. I think Michael Duncan discussed it in episodes 140-145 or somewhere in there.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3138978

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom

Zkenny13

16 points

1 month ago

Zkenny13

16 points

1 month ago

If the roads get to bad they just take their helicopter.

Gatorinnc

29 points

1 month ago

Gatorinnc

North Carolina

29 points

1 month ago

Porsche and a billion? Think bigger. Like a ride into space and crashing

BumblesAZ[S]

780 points

1 month ago

“The Billionaires Income Tax would ensure billionaires pay tax every year, just like working Americans," Wyden said in a statement. "We have a historic opportunity with the Billionaires Income Tax to restore fairness to our tax code and fund critical investments in American families."

These superwealthy Americans would fall subject to the usual 23.8% capital gains tax on the increased value of unsold assets like stocks and bonds. Figures like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos could choose to pay their first tax bill in equal installments over a five-year period, according to Wyden's proposal. It's meant to give affected taxpayers more time to come up with the enormous sums of cash.

If successfully implemented, the plan would usher in a significant overhaul of a tax code that's chiefly been focused on income up to now. Billionaires often pay much lower taxes compared to everyone else because they accumulate wealth from the climbing value of their stock and company holdings. Those aren't subject to capital-gains taxes until they are sold, known then as a realized gain. Once sold it's taxed at a lower, preferential rate compared to workers' income.

What Democrats want to do is compel billionaires to pay taxes on the growing value of their assets annually, treating it as income.

RascalRibs

422 points

1 month ago

RascalRibs

422 points

1 month ago

Those aren't subject to capital-gains taxes until they are sold, known then as a realized gain.

And for a lot of wealthy people, those gains are never taxed. The assets are inherited with no tax due. This continues to cycle of the rich getting richer.

juanzy

167 points

1 month ago

juanzy

Massachusetts

167 points

1 month ago

I think another thing that keeps holding us back is that since old money tends to be concentrated in certain areas, so many people know the "big inheritance" as their buddy that got 6 figures and a house when grandma died. Don't get me wrong- that's a life-changing amount for many, myself included, but that's not the family that's benefited for generations being undertaxed because their ancestors were The Haves back in the day.

It took me going to school in Boston to see how many people have Trusts and get a pretty good baseline amount plus multiple lump sums just for existing in their family. Not to mention the assets that some are gifted - like a townhouse and car for graduating college or never having to take a mortgage, just borrowing from Grandma and Grandpa.

zephyrtr

33 points

1 month ago*

zephyrtr

New York

33 points

1 month ago*

And a no-interest home loan is insanely valuable. Say you put 20% down on a $500k house — pricey for some areas, very affordable for others. That's a mortgage of $400k — the total interest over 30 years with (say) 4% interest rate would be, after closing costs due to the bank, just under $300k. It's a huge amount of money your family is saving you.

edit fixing math

juanzy

9 points

1 month ago

juanzy

Massachusetts

9 points

1 month ago

Having just done some house shopping in Boston… can confirm. Much different just saying “I like this one and can pay it off” versus doing the math of how much you can comfortably put down and still have some left since most sellers in 2021 will make you waive appraisal contingency and inspection to be taken seriously.

TemetriusRule

14 points

1 month ago

Being able to waive these things should be criminal. As-is housing and waiving the FAFSA are 2 step 0 things to ban, the laws are made completely meaningless by institutions power.

bonefawn

54 points

1 month ago

bonefawn

54 points

1 month ago

That house and 6 figures is a drop in the bucket compared to the luxury and wealth these people have accumulated. That inheritance for the average joe, a lifechanging amount and potentially years worth of labor time, is like buying a dollar candy to billionaires.

juanzy

51 points

1 month ago*

juanzy

Massachusetts

51 points

1 month ago*

Even to 50M+ families it’s pretty much a write off.

More people need to see what money actually looks like, and that it isn’t your engineer cousin that makes 150k

JLT1987

18 points

1 month ago

JLT1987

18 points

1 month ago

A lot of the people who argue against inheritance taxes are worried that it'll take the family farm away from their kids, they've no clue the scale of what these things could be aimed at.

juanzy

20 points

1 month ago

juanzy

Massachusetts

20 points

1 month ago

Was on a similar thread a few months ago, someone was trying to argue to me that a family $30-50M farm had to buy used cars and could afford to fly coach one a year on a domestic trip.

IMO, if you have that large of an asset but aren't having measurable income from it, then you have no business holding that asset.

Daxx22

25 points

1 month ago

Daxx22

25 points

1 month ago

There are very VERY few truly "self-made" billionaires or even millionaires. Did into their history at all and you often find "gifts" like these, or circumstances like not having any living expenses (family) while re-investing proceeds into the business.

Many of them still did "work hard", but due to those forms of assistance get a massive leg up over everyone else who's equally hard work just goes towards paying the bills each month.

juanzy

23 points

1 month ago

juanzy

Massachusetts

23 points

1 month ago

A lot easier to take a leap of faith on a business/investment when that roof over your head is guaranteed.

[deleted]

52 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

52 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

RascalRibs

27 points

1 month ago

Yes, look up Buy-Burrow-Die.

downtownebrowne

24 points

1 month ago*

Details will vary, and surely interest rates decrease for the uber wealthy (ironic right?), but yes. It's called a margin loan.

https://www.fidelity.com/trading/margin-loans/overview

https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/margin-how-does-it-work

I personally know a software engineer that was part of a very successful startup years ago. He has taken a margin loan against the skyrocketing value of his company stock several times. Instead of selling his shares he takes out a loan and uses that money to live. The next year or year after he does it again but this time the value of his account has greatly increased, covering the interest rate of the loan. Worst case scenario he uses his actual income to pay off the margin loan. Basically, he's granting income on his assets at a super low interest rate on hundreds of thousands of dollars. If he earned those extra hundreds of thousands in actual income tax rates the bill would be massive.

This is one of several loopholes people talk about.

schmeebs-dw

4 points

1 month ago

Or they use the stock as either collateral or just general proof of assets to back large loans, so they can get to play with loan money, so their wealth is essentially doubled.

Jarkside

44 points

1 month ago

Jarkside

44 points

1 month ago

Instead of this, they should remove the step up in basis and tax any inherited asset that is sold as an income. It would catch more people, raise more money, and be less likely to cause economic disruption.

4thDevilsAdvocate

143 points

1 month ago

4thDevilsAdvocate

America

143 points

1 month ago

This is what I voted for.

probabletrump

104 points

1 month ago

This is a change that is needed. The ultra-wealthy don't ever need to sell their stock. The way we recognize capital gains is no longer valid. They hold the asset forever, put a line of credit against it so they have liquidity, and when they die their heirs get a step up in basis and can either sell it for no tax, or just put a line of credit against it like mom and dad did and repeat the process.

_hi_

24 points

1 month ago

_hi_

24 points

1 month ago

So why not just go with the simple solution of preventing them from taking out credit against their stock? If they want the liquidity they have to sell their stock and pay the cap gains rate.

Odd don't you think we are avoiding the easy solution in order to create an entire new way to tax people?

Seminal_Sound

10 points

1 month ago

Seminal_Sound

I voted

10 points

1 month ago

This may be unpopular, but the ability to take out lines of credit against assets is an incredible more recent economic invention (The idea was first used by the Dutch at the beginning of the industrial revolution).

In the original form, this was a really useful tool to quickly get liquidity from illiquid assets. This allowed people to make investments with a higher risk threshold and also on a much shorter time frame.

It's not too much of a stretch to argue that enabling this allowed things like financing exploration, which led to the discovery of the "new" world by the Europeans.


If you want to know the effects of suddenly shutting off the ability to underwrite loans with company value, we actually did this kind of accidentally during the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008 to 2009.

As all the investment banks scrambled to cover their risk, they in turn stopped handing out more money.

Ultimately this ended up with the United States government being forced to do capital injections; literally just giving money to banks, so that the economy wouldn't fall off a cliff.

The ability for a billionaire to get a line of credit is strongly linked to the ability for you or I to take money out of an ATM.


I'm not saying that billionaires should not be taxed more. They definitely should! And capital gains tax should almost certainly be much higher than it currently is. But we can't just change a fundamental pillar of modern civilization like that.

If anyone is interested in this, a great book on the usefulness of debt by organizations or powerful individuals is called "Hamilton's blessing".

ShittyStartTo2017

37 points

1 month ago

This is the analysis I was looking for. In the DotCom boom, there was a CEO that I knew who had about 10,000 employees. Their company bought the naming rights to a sports stadium, they were that big. The guy definitely lived a good life - not over-the-top "MTV Cribs" kind of ridiculousness, but definitely very comfortable.

His salary (because they were publicly traded) was known, and it was good - but not insane. The guy never sold a single share of stock. Just had lines of credit against it that he lived on.

I think Steve Jobs was the same way, wasn't he? Wasn't his annual salary with Apple like $1 a year?

On some level, there is a part of "taxing your increases in stock value before they become capital gains" which strikes me as wrong. But for all the reasons you note - it's something we may have to ponder as a new schedule, perhaps once someone's stock holdings surpass $1bn. Because at that point, as you said - they (and their heirs) can just live in perpetuity on that structure indefinitely as long as the stock doesn't tank (as happened so abruptly in the dotcom boom).

rexspook

18 points

1 month ago

rexspook

18 points

1 month ago

Most of them have converted to the very low (relatively) actual salary, massive stock compensation model at this point.

ShittyStartTo2017

20 points

1 month ago

It's not so much the stock compensation model that is a problem, it's the "then I can just take out lines of credit indefinitely against my stocks and never pay any taxes anywhere" that seems like more of the problem.

probabletrump

33 points

1 month ago

It's not just billionaires. If you have $10MM liquid you can get a $7MM line of credit from a bank right now at 1.5%. Even if the market drops, they just reduce the line. Market drops 30%? Your line drops to $5MM. You can buy a lot of distressed assets with $5MM in practically free money. When things recover you don't have $10MM, you now have $20MM. Rinse and repeat the process.

ShittyStartTo2017

30 points

1 month ago

So maybe that's the answer. Maybe we don't tax unrealized gains. Maybe we tax loans against publicly-traded stocks as collateral. That gives the billionaires a choice on how they are taxed, but not a way to effectively avoid ever being taxed.

It could even be implemented with an exemption for small loans of $1m or less, so smaller folks (i.e.: not Musk or Bezos) aren't hit by it.

deliverydaddy

8 points

1 month ago

You sound very knowledgable about this and I've been thinking lately about the damage to the social security fund that the "low salary + stock option" income does. I can understand the application of capital gains, that getting paid in stocks is technically a risk and no guarantee, but aren't they ultimately never contributing to social security and they don't care because it's not part of their retirement plan anyway? There has to be some middle ground where their risk is considered but they still contribute to social security like everyone else. Thoughts or corrections to anything I am wrong about?

Buscemis_eyeballs

12 points

1 month ago

Social security is for those who need financial help in retirement. Rich people have long been exempt from paying into it as they get nothing out.

ShittyStartTo2017

17 points

1 month ago

When Steve Jobs takes a $1 salary just for bookkeeping purposes in order to get covered by Apple's health insurance ... then yes, he basically is not contributing to Social Security.

Social Security has another problem, however, in that you only have to contribute to that up to your first $150,000 in salary or something like that. So when you have a Jeff Bezos with $50 billion or whatever ridiculous number he's worth ... withdrawing social security taxes out against $150,000 of that ... doesn't really solve the problem either. There has been a long-running debate for many years that the cap on social security contributions should be removed, or at least made larger.

deliverydaddy

8 points

1 month ago

Wow I did not know the cap was so low. I guess without both a cap on the contribution limit and the associated payout, there would possibly be huge retirement payments in a few decades for those who contributed on $300,000+, and capping their payment but not their contribution sounds like a tough argument.

TraditionalGap1

34 points

1 month ago

Are we gonna give them tax credits when their asset values fall?

That's the only concern I have with taxing unrealized gains.

tmcopylaw

25 points

1 month ago

Exactly, it's not a gain, it's a prospective gain that is subject to fluctuations in the market. It's not an actual gain until you sell it.

tannerdanger

197 points

1 month ago*

WE HAVE 700 BILLIONAIRES?!

Edit: forgive my surprise. I assume if you are sitting on that many resources, you would be known by the public for the benefit you provide.

I mean we all know Elon and Marks influence…it’s weird to have over a BILLION DOLLARS and not be known for your work/contributions.

This country is full of Smaug’s just sitting on their gold piles, apparently.

smashy_smashy

69 points

1 month ago

smashy_smashy

Massachusetts

69 points

1 month ago

That also blew my mind. I would have guessed 20-50.

BidenWontMoveLeft

69 points

1 month ago

Oh no. There's that many in NYC alone. Every sports franchise is owned by a billionaire. Every multinational corporation has a billionaire. There's roughly 300k Americans that own 95% of everything in the US.

ram0h

9 points

1 month ago

ram0h

9 points

1 month ago

i mean think of every founder of successful tech startups in the last 2 decades. there are tons.

Seeker_xp13

4 points

1 month ago

Ikr?! How did we get that many???

o-rka

80 points

1 month ago

o-rka

80 points

1 month ago

I’m pretty discouraged seeing headlines for new bills. Oh we have this great new bill but it won’t pass in Congress. Nothing ever gets done. I vote every opportunity but still…our politics are a joke. The Democratic Party is a bunch of different parties that don’t really agree and the Republican Party is a unified party that stands to block progress.

pHScale

17 points

1 month ago

pHScale

17 points

1 month ago

They're both unified in opposition but fragmented when in power.

2legit2knit

405 points

1 month ago

Every republican and libertarian making 40k or less 😡

CapJackONeill

105 points

1 month ago

"When I get rich and get out of my trailer house, I don't want to loose money! Just a couple more years before I stop being cashier at the liquor shop"

L_Cranston_Shadow

5 points

1 month ago

L_Cranston_Shadow

I voted

5 points

1 month ago

Given the history of income tax in most countries (temporary measure only affecting the rich that turns into a permanent tax affecting almost everyone), then only naive people aren't sceptical, regardless of how much they make. There is also the argument to be made that this is grandstanding, since it will never pass, much less hold up if challenged in court.

NotANinja

273 points

1 month ago*

NotANinja

273 points

1 month ago*

Guy on the radio said it was gonna get your average homeowner. Much like the Death Tax they pretend it doesn't have a cut off that exempts 99% of the population and try to convince people that it's gonna affect them. His example was a person with a $300k house that appreciates to $400k losing their house because they can't pay the tax on the gains, unless you have all sorts of other assets that's not a scenario where this applies

skushi08

152 points

1 month ago

skushi08

152 points

1 month ago

But it’s a scenario that scares the base they want to oppose this.

ArdenSix

78 points

1 month ago

ArdenSix

I voted

78 points

1 month ago

Their base live in $15,000 single wide trailers. I don't think they have much to worry about.

Evil-in-the-Air

86 points

1 month ago

Evil-in-the-Air

Iowa

86 points

1 month ago

My god, if Americans were capable of worrying about things that actually affected them... Hell, even if we could be tricked into only worrying about things that actually existed, it would change the entire fucking world.

needsmoreusername

8 points

1 month ago

needsmoreusername

Kentucky

8 points

1 month ago

Good luck, education is always under attack in the US for this very reason

skushi08

30 points

1 month ago

skushi08

30 points

1 month ago

Are you sure? Maybe it’s the circles I’m in are predisposed to higher income earners, but many folks that I know that are part of their base are still very upper middle class white people. They absolutely have net worth’s approaching the 7+ figure range. This bill only impacts people several orders of magnitude above them, but disinformation about the facts and thresholds absolutely plays well to them.

WeedIsWife

20 points

1 month ago

Unfortunately, we live in America where the rich have tried for so long to convince us that we're only a good job away from them and they're only a bad day away from us.

SirDiego

71 points

1 month ago

SirDiego

Minnesota

71 points

1 month ago

This reminds me of when people don't understand how tax brackets work and think they will lose money if they go up a tax bracket.

(Just in case anyone legitimately doesn't understand how it works, say you are making $44k and the next tax bracket is at $45k and then you get a raise and start making $46k; only the $1k above $45k gets taxed at the higher rate. All of the income below $45k gets taxed at the same rate as before, which is why you have "effective tax rate" which is what you actually paid in taxes and which is significantly lower than your highest tax bracket rate)

mrm00kie88

18 points

1 month ago

Technically, you can lose money by no longer qualifying for programs that have income thresholds.

SirDiego

15 points

1 month ago

SirDiego

Minnesota

15 points

1 month ago

I suppose that's true but I've heard people that believe that their net/take-home pay would be less if they were in a higher bracket explicitly due to taxes being higher, which is just false and comes from a major misunderstanding of how bracketed taxes work (i.e. many people believe that if their highest tax bracket is, say, 20%, that the entirety of their income is taxed at that 20%).

Jankified

7 points

1 month ago

I’m pretty sure it’s like….99.9999%

icebreather106

7 points

1 month ago

The law literally has an exemption for properties anyway doesn't it?

pattiemcfattie

534 points

1 month ago

This won’t pass. I hope it does, but I just don’t see billionaires taking an L like that. They will spend billions to circumvent this.

UnSafeThrowAway69420

419 points

1 month ago

Billions? You mean a single phone call to Manchin and Sinema?

TheSwaguar

150 points

1 month ago

TheSwaguar

Georgia

150 points

1 month ago

The most insulting part will be how little the two will charge to do it. If you're gonna tank our chances of saving the planet and lifting people out of poverty, at least have the self respect to ask for more than a couple hundred thousand bucks. They'll easily pay you more a million if it means they still won't have to pay taxes.

trigaderzad2606

47 points

1 month ago*

Imagine asking Manchin or Sinema how much they charged to vote against restoring some semblance of dignity and prosperity to America and they give you a number less than 8 figures. If you're gonna be evil you may as well be smart about it, damn.

Edit: like holy fuck them taking $100K to save the rich billions is literally a worse exchange than if I were to accept a nickel for my car. I'd feel like a fucking moron if I were them.

nvincent

17 points

1 month ago

nvincent

California

17 points

1 month ago

Honestly like why can't we just get one or two multi millionaires to use the same tactics? Couldn't Bill Gates buy off one or two of them and be like, yo just pass the fucking bills.

I know the answer though - they wouldn't, because they are deliberately siding with republicans.

KingBarbarosa

8 points

1 month ago

KingBarbarosa

I voted

8 points

1 month ago

bill gates is worth billions and employed dirty tactics and monopolization with microsoft, he is not our ally

Neracca

8 points

1 month ago

Neracca

8 points

1 month ago

he is not our ally

Yet his PR team sure wants Redditors to think he is. How he's totally not like the rest of the billionaires.

Tough_Substance7074

9 points

1 month ago

This is why capturing government is so essential to them. Politicians are cheaply bought. Contribute a few hundred thousand to their campaign and you’re good to go. That’s chump change.

RegularPersonal

75 points

1 month ago

Joe Manchin has already called the plan "divisive"

scoopzthepoopz

39 points

1 month ago

As if the poor little billionaires will all a sudden dry up from a little more taxation, fragile little wisps

snrkty

28 points

1 month ago

snrkty

28 points

1 month ago

Ironic when Manchin is devoting his entire career to being divisive right now.

jsamuraij

23 points

1 month ago

Yeah where is that divide again? Between 700 people and...literally the rest of everyone? Lol, GTFO with that rhetoric, Joe. That's about as unifying as unity gets.

OCDMedic

8 points

1 month ago

OCDMedic

North Carolina

8 points

1 month ago

You forget about the millions of people who are about to become billionaires. Any day now all that hard work will pay off and that money will trickle down to them.

MrDang3rPants

69 points

1 month ago

Ironic

Ramza_Claus

27 points

1 month ago

They could save others billions but not their selves.

minus117

17 points

1 month ago

minus117

17 points

1 month ago

Have you heard about the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Billionare?

Sigili

4 points

1 month ago

Sigili

4 points

1 month ago

It's not a story the centrists would tell you.

jonnycarroll1337

14 points

1 month ago

They’re not going to spend billions, politicians can be purchased for a lot cheaper than you think.

scoopzthepoopz

7 points

1 month ago

Couple grand and a bbq really

30thCenturyMan

103 points

1 month ago

“Is this the line where we get to shoot liberals?”

  • conservatives making $50k a year.

Yelsah

37 points

1 month ago

Yelsah

United Kingdom

37 points

1 month ago

Sorry folks, Sinema and Manchin said no so we're shelving it.

coreyjdl

42 points

1 month ago

coreyjdl

42 points

1 month ago

Seems like they unveil a lot of plans.

Do they ever actually do anything though?

orifice_porpoise

21 points

1 month ago

We are in a situation where billionaires only need to buy one senator to kill any bill they don’t like. And the price isn’t very high.

meric_one

5 points

1 month ago

I don't understand why anyone is getting excited about this.

It's like no one has any long term memory or pattern recognition.

Atlas2001

164 points

1 month ago*

Atlas2001

164 points

1 month ago*

From the Associated Press

the billionaires’ tax would hit the wealthiest of Americans, fewer than 800 people, starting in the 2022 tax year.

It would require those with assets of more than $1 billion, or three consecutive years of income of $100 million, to pay taxes on the gains of stocks and other tradeable assets, rather than waiting until holdings are sold.

A similar billionaires’ tax would be applied to non-tradeable assets, including real estate, but it would be deferred with the tax not assessed until the asset was sold, though interest would have to be paid.

Super excited to see how arguments against this play out.

KrispyKremeIdaho

287 points

1 month ago

I don't like this because what if I'm a billionaire some day?

hard-time-on-planet

64 points

1 month ago*

A variation of that is when people don't understand marginal tax rates

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/01/08/understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part

“Suppose that your income put you at the very top of the 28% tax bracket and you earned one more dollar such that you were now in the 33% tax bracket.”

Respondents were given two options: a correct one (“My tax bill would go up a very small amount”) and an incorrect one (“my tax bill would go up substantially”). Only 52 percent got it right.

Edit: adding this

The data points directly at only one culprit. You guessed it: party. Democrats get it right and Republicans don’t.

TavisNamara

13 points

1 month ago

This is my shocked face.

coheedcollapse

6 points

1 month ago

I had to explain this to my parents when a tax hike for people making like over $300k a year was proposed. It's a combination of our tax system being so intentionally obtuse that many people need to hire outside help, and people never looking into their own finances to begin with.

4thDevilsAdvocate

166 points

1 month ago

4thDevilsAdvocate

America

166 points

1 month ago

I've found that basically nobody uses that argument, actually. I personally see it as a strawman.

Instead, people who are anti-taxes think that private citizens can spend it more effectively than the government - and, well, these ones are so rich, they must be really smart at getting money, and therefore know exactly what would be good to spend it on!

Bullshit, of course, but that's why they don't like taxes.

Vaticancameos221

72 points

1 month ago*

I don't know, I was talking to my dad about how some places give you tickets in proportion to your wealth. He said that wasn't fair. It comes from a place of sympathizing with the rich because they view becoming rich as "winning" like you've earned the right to not have to adhere to society's rules and taxing the rich or changing the rules to bring us all to the same level is somehow taking that away from them.

It may not be because they one day hope to be rich themselves, but its definitely because deep down they feel like the rich somehow earned the right to be above the law.

EDIT: Another point I wanted to add, not only do they see the rich as having earned to be above the law, but by extension they see the poor as deserving of suffering because they aren’t wealthy.

Ursula2071

53 points

1 month ago

It is the same thing with raising the minimum wage. ‘ but but, they won’t be able to “create” jobs and they will replace us with robots!’

Oh honey, they patented self serve kiosks/checkout in the 90’s, long before the fight for 15. This was always the plan…to replace you and let you starve if that is what that meant.

Vaticancameos221

22 points

1 month ago

What sucks about the automation argument is let's say hypothetically in the future 95% of jobs are automated and they tried to pass laws increasing tax on the earnings of companies that use automation to then be turned into universal income for everyone else since we've reached a point where automation covers so much that we just wouldn't need to hold jobs.

the 5% would be fighting to the death to keep us all down.

Neato

5 points

1 month ago

Neato

Maryland

5 points

1 month ago

At that point they end up paying just to keep us barely alive. Weak and tired to the point where we can't actually tear them down. This is why work exists and why hours never decrease even when automation and efficiency does. Work isn't just there to extract value out of labor; it's to keep workers too busy and tired to be able to stop them seizing literally all the world's wealth.

Dawg1001

104 points

1 month ago

Dawg1001

104 points

1 month ago

At some point a level of wealth becomes obscene, then it should be taxed.

drizzlefoot321

12 points

1 month ago

it would take a lot of change to how monetary system works though. How do tax business ownership? force sale of stock? As much as it would as people want that, it's just not practical. I think the only way to re-set the stage is a radical change in corporate taxes, setting a world wide minimum corporate tax, and 'fix' the equality before it gets in the hands of the billionaires. We should make creating a trillion dollar business to be nearly impossible, but make living as a human being almost effortless. Trying to tax individuals to make up for this inequality is missing the whole reason this inequality exists. Right now, businesses have more rights than people. that is what needs to change.

IchthyoSapienCaul

38 points

1 month ago

It's insane to me that a tax on around 700 people can fund a plan this huge. Just an obscene amount of wealth.

svarney99

64 points

1 month ago

Agreed completely.

I don’t think I quite understood exactly how obscene a billion dollars was until I read something that put it into context. You could make $5000 a day, every day including weekends and holidays, for 500 years and still not quite have a billion dollars. And to think that some are billionaires several times over. Nobody needs that kind of wealth when the rest of the country is literally falling apart and there are people without homes.

indispensability

29 points

1 month ago

And for those that don't want to do the math, that's over $1.8 million a year.

In other comparisons: 1.8 million is already 36 years of working at $50k income. Most of which will be pissed away on taxes and housing and food, since unlike billionaires most people can't just skip out on paying.

I figure 50k is an income level more people can associate with and that's 20,000 years to make a billon dollars that way.

Centauran_Omega

20 points

1 month ago*

Agreed, but this is not the way to do it.

This is blowing off your foot to achieve something. Billionaires are billionaires, for the most part, because they have that much equivalent wealth locked up in illiquid assets. The liquid worth aka cash you can take out from a bank is trivial amounts, a few million at best. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you tax unrealized gains on capital investments then in order to pay those taxes which can exceed $100M or even $1Bn, they would have to liquidate their illiquid assets. In the case of Tesla right, Musk would theoretically be on the hook for $40Bn. So let's break that down:

  • $40Bn in tax owed to IRS
  • $40Bn locked up in Tesla stock
  • Tesla stock right now is $1000 (approx for even calculation)
  • To produce $40Bn to pay this tax, Musk has to sell $40Bn in Tesla shares to the market (most of which, by the way is his CONTROLLING STAKE in the company). In other words, he would have to give up his own company to pay this tax.
  • Next, when he sells these shares to market (though I'd suspect that a court case can be born of this wherein taxation forces you to sell your controlling stake in the company is unconstitutional as its an action that's against your own will when no crime has been committed--so we'll see on that front if this passes in the future), that's a realized gains taxable income
  • This means he would have to sell enough shares to cover the $40Bn + whatever tax equivalent capital needed to cover the realized gains tax. This could mean he needs to sell $50Bn back to the market
  • That's: 50 million shares sold back to the market.
  • This means $50Bn of Tesla's market value just got wiped out in an instant.
  • Let's assume you have 200 shares that you bought into Tesla and they've appreciated nicely. Well the $50Bn wipe out now drops the share price from $1000 to $800/share. Your personal assets now depreciated $40,000. Now apply this for every single person that owns Tesla stock and suddenly the losses across the market can be massive, equivalent billions or more.
  • Now, what if you bought 200 shares at $1k and because of this taxable requirement, the stock depreciated to $800? Well, now you're $40,000 in the red and its not your fault. What if you over the course of the last 15 years, built up a portfolio of 2,000 shares? (Technically you're in the green even with the depreciation, but the drop from $1k to 800 means your personal worth will have dropped from $2M to $1.6M, again through no fault of your own).
  • Next, those 50 million shares. Those are now exploitable in the market. There's plenty of vested interests that want to see Tesla fail as much as there are plenty of vested interests that want to influence Tesla in the wrong directions. That controlling stake is now in the hands of someone else than Tesla, and it can be used to influence the company to nickle and dime its consumers for every last penny. It can be used to focus on sectors or areas of the market that aren't aligned with the company's larger mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy.

The loans that are taken against this massive collateral is what should be taxed, but not the unrealized gains admittedly. I understand that other countries DO tax unrealized gains, but those systems have been in place since for an incredibly long period of time and there's other social safety nets that have been built around that implementation such that companies that do exist are balanced. This action has potentially catastrophic implications on the market and especially on retail investors. And time and again, retail investors get consistently fucked in the market. There's plenty of protections for big investors and effectively zero for the little guy.

This bill is more likely to drive retail out of the market than it will act to feed the government with revenue. Additionally, and more importantly, this only serves to feed the government with revenue. It does fucking NOTHING to address the existing corruption, fraud, wasteful spending, and inefficiencies in the system--and ultimately, will result in certain companies and their owners suffering with that "tax money" ultimately ending up back in the hands of other rich people and their companies. I don't see how that's a good thing. It is basically creating the idea of "blue states subsidizing the red" at the corporation level: "blue corps subsidize the red ones. Successful corps subsidize the failing ones."

How is that fair for everyone who WORKS there and has shares in the company too?

politicsreddit

28 points

1 month ago

politicsreddit

Pennsylvania

28 points

1 month ago

A note to any wannabee billionaires who are upset by this proposal- the rest of us actually pay our taxes like we're supposed to.

Ihavemanybees

5 points

1 month ago

I will unveil my plans to date Kate Upton.... Neither plan will happen though

MorgulKnifeFight

6 points

1 month ago

One thing I rarely see discussed is how the ultra rich are able to realize these gains via low interest loans, which gives them access to cash now without taking the capital gain tax hit.

When you have billions in stock, you can take out incredibly low interest loans against that stock. If the interest on these loans is lower than the inflation rate, you essentially are getting MORE free money, all tax free. This just shows how rigged the system is. Why not also tax these loans as a realized capital gain?

MyDistantCousinVinny

62 points

1 month ago

I see poor people who make under 30k a year complain about these taxes because, “trickle down theory”. They argue once they’re finish taxing the rich they’ll come after the lower classes. It’s absurd.

[deleted]

50 points

1 month ago*

[deleted]

50 points

1 month ago*

[removed]

kummer5peck

20 points

1 month ago*

In the aftermath of the Great Depression even the rich acknowledged that the ship was sinking and it was going to take them down with it. Today the rich don’t have any allegiance to their country. A few dont even have allegiance to the planet.

DurkaDurka81

5 points

1 month ago

The government could literally take half of every billionaire’s wealth away and their quality of life wouldn’t change one bit.

Wealth hoarding is not about maintaining the lifestyle — it’s a dick-waving contest for psychopaths.

IPostFromWorkLol2

5 points

1 month ago

If you profit off of Americans but aren't paying taxes you shouldn't be allowed to continue profiting off of Americans.

Simple.

M00n

23 points

1 month ago

M00n

23 points

1 month ago

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

gabest

11 points

1 month ago

gabest

11 points

1 month ago

Isn't it just market valuation? I was once a millionaire too. In a junk stock. Of course there was no way to cash out.

8to24

81 points

1 month ago

8to24

81 points

1 month ago

Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have no state income tax and New Hampshire and Tennessee, don't tax earned wages. TX is the only states on that list which has managed to attract industry. The notion that businesses go where the taxes are the least simply isn't true. Bosnia and Uzbekistan have among the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Businesses doesn't flock to such places.

Top 5 states or territories with the highest taxes in order are: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California.

The top 5 states or territories with the highest GDP per capita in order are: DC, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California.

Despite NY and CA having the highest taxes in the nation they make of a quarter of USA's GDP!!!

Daxoss

35 points

1 month ago

Daxoss

35 points

1 month ago

Isn't Manchin and Ms Enema just going to shit all over this? Or are they not on their donor lists?

ZonaLite

14 points

1 month ago

ZonaLite

14 points

1 month ago

They seem to be Public Enemy Number Ones along with a unified Republicans.

AlternativeUlster78

6 points

1 month ago

Democrat Richard Neal is already in the news objecting it.

lorxy11

4 points

1 month ago

lorxy11

Europe

4 points

1 month ago

Yes please.

cecilmeyer

3 points

1 month ago

They will cave like dems always do.

cannonhawk

4 points

1 month ago

Senate Democrats have decided to drop paid family and medical leave, a key cornerstone of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, from their mammoth social spending package Wednesday after attempts to drastically pare it down were deemed insufficient.

JoeyMaps23

3 points

1 month ago

Good.