Comments 1 - 40 of 46 Next » Last » Search these comments
They already tax wealth; it’s the death tax, quaintly called the estate tax.
So, don’t worry; governments will get the money as soon as the 655 rich people die, as they must.
Another way to look at it is that wealth is control over labor.
It's not like they've been doing nice things with the money have they.
So long as it's temporary (sunset written into the bill) and only goes after the uber rich like bezos I'm okay with it.
Patrick saysAnother way to look at it is that wealth is control over labor.
Correct. Money is a claim on resources and labor is a resource.
The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.
Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of dollars in their basements (on top of owner...
The 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts.
Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of dollars in their basements (on top of ownership of assets above ground either in co...
Reality saysThe 655 (or any number less than 100,000) are mostly products of government policies. For example, the Bezos' company could grow (or even survive) for decades on losing money on every shipment because of low interest and targeted funding; Gates got his start (and continue to collect most of his company's revenue) because his money sitting on the IBM board of directors negotiated a sweet-heart deal for him: the OS monopoly, relying on ridiculously strong "privatization" of what is essentially a public utility under the name of "IP." Both companies (and most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts.
Those 655 visible ultra high networth individuals are actually the more market oriented (although manipulated market) components of the ultra wealthy. There are at least 6,550 or at least 65,500 UHNWI out there in the world who pile up billions of...
What 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.
WineHorror1 saysWhat 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.
Not true. North Korea and Cuba have very low nominal wealth inequality. OTOH, Leichtenstein and Singapore have very high nominal wealth inequality. Hongkong had very high nominal wealth inequality half a decade ago, now getting lower. Venezuela used to have very high nominal wealth inequality 20+ years ago, now lower.
Thirdworld sh*tholes are sh*tholes because there is a lack of competitive entrepreneurs/capitalists offering workers a better deal than government officials/monopolies do.
It's not the wealth gap thst matters, it's the wealth floor.
As for communist countries sure the majority is equally poor but the government and the connected are extremely rich compared to those poor.
need practical solutions once you got where we're at now.
People don't like paying taxes , specially rich who control politicians.
WineHorror1 saysWhat 1 thing do all third world countries share? Wealth inequality.
Not true. North Korea and Cuba have very low nominal wealth inequality. OTOH, Leichtenstein and Singapore have very high nominal wealth inequality. Hongkong had very high nominal wealth inequality half a decade ago, now getting lower after communist take-over showing its teeth. Venezuela used to have very high nominal wealth inequality 20+ years ago, now lower after the country going full socialist and turned what used to be the richest country in Latin America into a literal sh*thole of mass starvation.
Thirdworld sh*tholes are sh*tholes because there is a lack of competitive entrepreneurs/capitalists offering workers a better deal than government officials/monopolies do.
most of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.
KgK one saysPeople don't like paying taxes , specially rich who control politicians.
The ultra rich love raising taxes (both Buffet and Gates promoted raising taxes for decades) . . . because the tax burden would fall on the middle class and those who do not control politicians, whereas the tax revenue through government spending would go to the ultra rich's monopolistic holdings.
I think it is a mix...socialism is ascendant when wealth/income inequality becomes extreme. People will vote for it because they see no other way.
The ultra rich love raising taxes (both Buffet and Gates promoted raising taxes for decades) . . . because the tax burden would fall on the middle class and those who do not control politicians, whereas the tax revenue through government spending would go to the ultra rich's monopolistic holdings.
Yeah but they advocate for raising income taxes mostly, not wealth or gains taxes. Because most hardly earn any income but have massive wealth and gains.
Reality saysmost of the other rock-star high tech companies that produced young billionaires) are In-Q-Tel fronts, and In-Q-Tel itself is a front/conduit.
You mean Zuck is not a genius?
What about Musk? He seems pretty smart.
Hahaha. What do you think of Elizabeth Holmes? The residue freedom of expression/information did her in half a decade ago. With today's restrictions on truth in media, Holmes might still be a high-flying star. She was born too early by about 5 years.
this home ended up in government's hands? Why did it end up in government's hands?
She never delivered anything and, from accounts of actual people involved in R&D there, was not going to deliver. Not anywhere near Musk by any stretch of imagination.
Eric Holder saysShe never delivered anything and, from accounts of actual people involved in R&D there, was not going to deliver. Not anywhere near Musk by any stretch of imagination.
Musk has created a commercially viable reusable rocket with mostly his own money. He has profitable launches that don't depend on government subsidies anywhere to the degree his competitors do, and has more launches than most countries including China. His launch costs are so cheap he's made the R-7/Soyuz, an ancient and reliable and comparatively dirt cheap rocket family, obsolete. Arianespace and ULA are totally non-competitive without lots of Pork Aid from the EU and Uniparty.
All of his industry competitors are subsidized from top to bottom AND often don't deliver at all (SLS aka Aries aka SDHLV in Development Hell for 30 years based on a 1970s design that is already retired, the ...
If I remember correctly, Musk got a ton of tax subsidies.
Comments 1 - 40 of 46 Next » Last » Search these comments
Taxing wealth (not income) temporarily is a useful tool to address these extraordinary imbalances in an eventually zero sum game. I'd rather have a very low flat income tax plus add on wealth tax on extreme wealth than the current status quo of high and progressive income taxes and no wealth tax.