Assuming billionaires were going to get a special tax, how would you actually determine how much to tax them? Sure some would be straightforward like Musk where it’s entirely derived from a few companies with known ownership stakes, but what about all the others?

We don’t even know the names of most of the billionaires. With all the games they can play to hide money, now made even easier thanks to the changes Trump made in his first few months, how would you even figure out who and what amount to tax? They don’t have a normal salary or easily documented income like everyone else.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Listen the IRS has routinely made clear that every time it’s forensic accountants get to sink their teeth into a billionaires financials, the return on that effort is enormous. Don’t ask “how are going to tax billionaires,” first demand that they actually BE taxed.

    We’ll figure it out later, man. Realistically, just have a team of specialists that focuses solely on the ultra-wealthy, and then let “unrealized gains” be taxed if they were ever used as collateral for a loan.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      let “unrealized gains” be taxed if they were ever used as collateral for a loan.

      This simply makes no sense as a concept. Collateral is something that you tell the one you’re borrowing from “you can have this if I fail to pay my loan back”. If the loan is repaid, literally nothing happens to the collateral, and it plays zero part in the actual transaction. There is zero non-arbitrary reason to tax an asset just because it was used as collateral.

      Also, all home equity loans would fall under this definition, as well.

  • Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    In several different ways. The trick is to attack the problem of excessive wealth accumulation by making the system feed more aggressively on accumulated wealth.

    A wealth tax is important to prevent the excess accumulation of capital. Money is only really working if it’s in motion. Once it stops moving it stops adding value to the economy which is fine sometimes and in small amounts.

    Tax disuse. Vacant real estate should be taxed extra. If they don’t want it taxed it should be actively used in a non-extractive way. This means low impact agriculture, preservation, or occupancy not mining, dumping or logging.

    Tax non-resident ownership. You can own as many houses as you want but each additional one beyond your primary residence is going to incur a scaling tax penalty. Two probably would be manageable Three would be difficult once you get to four and five houses you’re going to find it extremely difficult to make any money. And the scaling tax penalty would apply to the most expensive one first.

    If they’re extracting resources from it or doing heavy agriculture they should be paying a premium and not externalizing wastes. They could be taxed to ensure compliance and enforcement is adequate. They should also be taxed in advance to fund potential cleanup of any toxic or environmental hazards. The money can be held in escrow but it needs to not be held by the same people who have a financial incentive to cut corners.

    See I don’t actually believe the problem is rich people or income inequality broadly it’s the runaway effect of the accumulation of wealth in the absence of any kind of functional theory about how money is supposed to actually work in the economy.

    There are people that are going to just work like crazy people and they will in any fair system acquire more resources than most other people.

    I think in a fair system the people who are likely to end up with more resources would look very different than the people who end up with more resources in our systems.

    Something people don’t often understand about American dollars and American taxes is that the function of the government’s tax policy is not to pay its bills. Our government doesn’t need taxes to pay its bills. The function of the government collecting taxes is to delete money from the system.
    They need to be deleting money from the places where there’s too much of it. Otherwise that money crowds out legitimate money that is the representative of economic value produced through labor. If labor has no voice, then the economy stops functioning.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    There are two loopholes to close:

    1. Capital gains taxes - income is income, not one guy pays 50% less tax than another based on how the money is defined. ie. plumber pays 45% taxes but if a guy invests in a plumbing shop, he only pays 30% or less. And for no good reason, hedge fund managers only pay CGT. Get rid of CGT and make lower income taxes.

    2. Borrowing money against stock values -this is a huge form of tax evasion.

    3, heavily tax any money taken offshore.

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    outlaw wealth at 10x median, same way they have civil forfeiture for drug crimes in the US.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s actually easy if you think about it.

    Rich people love comparing their wealth to others, so they can feel better about themselves. So we know quite precisely how much each billionaire is worth, cause they really like measuring those dicks.

    Anyways, we can use this against them. You just tax the wealth. Not the income. Not the surplus or the profit. You tax the wealth.

    For instance, during the Danish election, there were some parties who proposed the idea of a wealth tax such that all wealth above, say 30 million DKK would be taxed by 0.5% to 1% (depends what party you ask) every year. Someone worth 100 million Danish kroner would therefore need to pay 70*0.01 million or 700.000 kroner in taxes every year.

    You could do more than 1% and 30 million for billionaires if you ask me.

  • Joloxino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Set up a flat tax to close to 40%.

    Can be paired with an automatic credit for around half of the poverty line.

    Tax=(income × 0.40) - (poverty / 2)
    
    

    The poor people get a negative income tax, while the people who earn more pay more.

    No capital gains or any other loophole.

  • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    I wouldn’t tax rich in any special way.

    I’d get rid of all income taxes, and tax the shit out of luxury good consumption

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Take all of it every year. They are claiming that they are smartest people on this planet so they figure something out.

  • bless@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Make assets not count towards wealth.

    What’s that? Your wealth can’t be taxed because they’re not really money? Oh, I guess you’re not really rich then. No Forbes lists for you :(

  • oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    I fall to see any argument for one person controlling even 8 digits, much less any more.

    If you have even half a million of disposable money to spend, you shouldn’t be even close to be allowed a loan in any form. Being rich shouldn’t be a collateral for more money.

    Given that it’s a common way they increase their worth, they should be barred from utilizing it.

    Every dollar past 10 million should be gone right off the top, no exceptions.

    Enacting it should either be completely secret, or enforced on everyone here now, regardless of where they move after this point.

    That payday would fix a lot of immediate problems.

    Bring obscenely rich should be meet with obscene “punishment”. At least they would call being cut down to size punishment.

    I’d argue that stealing that much wealth and health care should be a capital crime. If I could bring them back so they could experience a capital punishment more than once, that would be justified IMO. That’s a harder sell to some, but there are no billionaires that should be allowed to live. Even the squeakiest clean (ethically speaking) one should be taxed and fined out of existence.

  • graycube@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    You have a special division of the IRS whose job is to identify the top few hundred wealthiest individuals and then tax them. These people wouldn’t have to self report like the rest of us.

  • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    8 days ago

    Two prongs. One, tax loans against stock options and publicly traded shares. Two tax foreign investment dividends that constitute more than 10% of the total value of a publicly traded company. Step one makes them live off of dividends and realized assets. They can’t live off other loans of other people’s money and just keep hording assets, two pins them down and keeps them from trying to take their money and run to a tax haven.

    They will eventually find a way around those, and you will have to adjust the tax code to accomodate, but that’s going to be true regardless. It’s a bit like digital hygene and cyber security. An endless arms race between states trying to build more effective risk management tools and people trying to exploit and the system and thus the people living within the system.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’d refine that slightly - tax loans on anything except those for a primary residence, and loans used to create businesses that employ less than 100 people, or any business in service of the loan recipient. I’m sure that could be refined quite a bit. The intent being that they can buy a primary residence like anyone else and not be taxed on it - restrictions would apply like they’d actually have to live there, not sell it for “x” years and not build another primary residence for “x” years or then be taxed on it. The businesses would have to be big enough to be useful, not a business of rich guy’s 2 buddies that would just use the “fake” business to throw venture capital back in the rich guy’s business, or the rich guy buy a yacht and the “business” be him paying his own crew through a shell company to drive him around in his own yacht.

      • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        The specifics are going to need refinement, yes. The broad principles should hold though. One tax that forces them to spend down accumulated wealth, one to punish trying to offshore profits to tax havens.

      • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        That’s going to take a lot of math and market analysis to work out the specifics of. I’m just one rando on the internet. This was more of a high level framework to start from. With a team of wonks and a bit of time you could pin down precise numbers.

          • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            So, most billionaires just sit on unrealized assets and take out loans against them that are untaxable. This way they avoid capital gains taxes from spending down their assets, as long as they never sell them, they never have to pay taxes and can sit on them until they die. Then it’s their kid’s problem. If you put a tax on those loans that exceeds capital gains tax, now they’re losing money by living off loans, and they’re actually better off selling some shares and stock options to pay for their Bugatti and super yacht.

            The foreign investment profits tax means if they skip town and try collecting income from the companies they own from a beach in the Cayman islands, (or a brothel in Thailand) they are still paying tax on it before that money leaves the local market. That’s going to cool off the market for foreign investment but it’s also going to mean that even if they skip town, they can’t dodge the taxes on income from domestic businesses.