>You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year.
1. I see that being 14 trillion. That would in fact fund the government for a year. even for 2 years.
2. taxes aren't about achieving perfect equality. But it's in part to incentivize people to not hoard wealth and spend it in the company. Few of the busnesses in the 50's/60's paid close to the tax brackets they had back then (Which would give modern billionaires a heart attack, despite that being "the times to return to).
Except is not 14 trillion (in the US) It is closer to 8 trillion.
Even if it WAS 14 trillion, the fact that such an insane measure wouldn’t even fully fund the entire government for two years shows you can’t just confiscate your way out of things. It is spending.
I mean when you just make up a number, you should expect to be called out for it, lol.
And I did engage with the real point. Even if it WAS 14 trillion dollars, that wouldn't fund the government for 2 years. And then what? Why is the solution for government bloat and inefficiency always just taking more?
You did not and still are not. This isnt about making billionaires cover the entire country's budget. Its about making sure power doesn't consolidate in any one person.
Do I really need to repost the other 80% of my comment (the entire 2.point?) Which part of "high corporate taxes mean business owners invest in business" needs clarification? Are we suggesting that the tax codes in which the baby boomers boomed under did not in fact make America Great?
You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.
I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.
The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.
There are arguments to be made how much those policies contributed to the boom of that decade, but those are separate to arguments about the practical, legal, or efficiency concerns with just imposing a 5% levy across all assets and net worth
>but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.
Yes, thanks for reiterating my main point.
Now if we use that same mindset and apply it to a wealth tax...
Hence my main point. Taxes aren't all about extraction of money, they also help to nudge people to do things they normally wouldn't do. So nudging them to actually help the area they are in is really powerful.
Or they can leave. If so: good. Make room for those who do want to innovate and not extract money from the people (and more beach space).
Not all billionaires are "job creators", especially given the actions taken the last few years. That's why some of the legitimate "millionaire flights" that do happen don't necessarily impact the way that's predicted on paper.
If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.
Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.
I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)
1. I see that being 14 trillion. That would in fact fund the government for a year. even for 2 years.
2. taxes aren't about achieving perfect equality. But it's in part to incentivize people to not hoard wealth and spend it in the company. Few of the busnesses in the 50's/60's paid close to the tax brackets they had back then (Which would give modern billionaires a heart attack, despite that being "the times to return to).