• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    5 days ago

    We need the 91% top-tier tax bracket.

    We also need capital gains taxed at the same (or greater) rate as income tax.

    We also need a 1-2% annual tax on registered securities, payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. No more than 1% of total-traded volume will consist of liquidated shares. Up to $10 million worth of securities will be exempt from this tax, if held by a natural person.

    • Airfried@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      We need the 91% top-tier tax bracket.

      Why stop there? A 91% top-tier tax bracket got us here. Let’s make it 100% this time for good measure.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Abandoning the 91% top tier rate is what got us in this mess. “Trickle Down” actually worked when there were consequences to not spending your excess earnings.

        91%, 100%, 150%, 10,000%, doesn’t matter: nobody paid it. The point of it was to get people to avoid it. What they had to do to avoid the top-tier tax rate is what drove the economy.

        • Airfried@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 days ago

          My point was to de facto criminalize billionaires. The law would state you are not allowed to own this much. Full stop. People would very quickly see obscene wealth much more critically if it was a crime.

            • MrKoyun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              I agree, but we would need to definitively define what greed is in a way that is consistently enforceable. Maybe we should make it mandatory for them to like have mental stability check ups done by a third party.

              • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                The definition is easy: if their net worth exceeds 10 million (locked in as a ratio with the minimum wage, so it grows with it).

                Get that rich, get locked up.

          • Dragomus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            Frankly, I’d say start with anyone being valued over $1B, including stocks, locked funds, properties and international assets etc. should have everything over that $1B taken away and divided for proper causes benefitting the populace.

            On top of that they yearly pay a fair percentage of their assessed value as taxes. Also, no interest free loans for these people, nor drowning their possessions in loans to companies or whatnot. Stocks in companies are both directly taxed and under yearly taxation.

            The US already taxes it’s citizens abroad so yhe above shouldn’t be too hard to implement.

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 days ago

          But then what incentives would the creators of the soul-crushing-machines have to invent the next soul-crushing-machine???

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      We also need capital gains taxed at the same (or greater) rate as income tax.

      Can we amend that so the poors are a bit exempt? That could be useful to uplift people.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Income tax is already progressive, with “the poors” already exempt. Treating cap gains the same as income tax would exempt “the poors” in the same way.

        Taxing cap gains at a lower rate than income is an insult to labor.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Buddy, you clearly aren’t paying attention. The proposal raised capital gains taxes. Capital gains is where the wealthy make most of their money.

            The proposal also introduced a type of wealth tax. It would take 1-2% of the stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments (“registered securities” - the things regulated by the SEC) held by the ultra-wealthy. Securities are the specific investment vehicle the ultra-wealthy use to amass their tremendous fortunes. The poor, middle class, and moderately wealthy would be able to exempt up to $10 million of their investment portfolio.

            You specifically asked that the poor be exempted; I pointed out that under this proposal, they would be exempt: the securities tax only applies to people with greater than $10 million in stocks and bonds. Capital gains would be taxed the same way as income; the poor are already exempt from income tax.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Adding to that, why not have capital gains tax be progressive tax brackets too? That way you don’t disencentivize poorer people investing and have high rates for wealthy people.