>“Deliberate fake news that tries to cloud the judgment of sovereign people who make policies is an enemy of democracy”.
Hear hear. It's long overdue that politicians start calling out the blatant manipulation of democratic electorates by industry groups who are literally paid by the companies they represent to manipulate (I.e. lie to) voters into taking actions that are more often than not contrary to their best interest.
Ya sure, but calling something “fake news” doesn’t exactly resonate with many people right now.
Far too many politicians attempt to discredit truthful news.
I tend not to look to politicians to tell me what to believe and think. I form my beliefs and then find people to vote for who I believe are most like to act in line with those beliefs.
It was literally news based on a rigged paper so calling it fake news here is pretty spot on. I get what you're saying but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking the term back where and when appropriate.
It's good for everyone. Even the rich (since they will get a better society with improved infrastructures and more productive workers and informed citizens)
People love portraying wealth taxes as a new idea that's never been tried.
Capital flight in France or Norway? Fake news! The actual revenue these taxes end up bringing in compared to initial estimates? Don't worry about it!
In the US calls for a wealth tax have also replaced more traditional forms of taxing the wealthy. You rarely hear anyone advocate for repealing the Bush and Trump income tax cuts anymore. Or raising the SS income cap, capital gains taxes, etc.
Everyone seems convinced instead that a (probably unconstitutional) form of taxation that's failed everywhere it's been tried is the way to go because they think billionaires all have Scrooge McDuck vaults of gold just sitting around.
Much of the developed world seems to be abandoning evidence-based policy and liberal economics in favor of Latin American-style populism.
Have $100m in stocks with a cost basis of only $20m. Should pay capital gains tax on that $80m when recognized, right?
Nope. Just will it off to your kids. They inherit the $100m at a $100m cost basis, wiping out any taxes. They can sell it the next day for zero tax. Invest $20m, spend $80m, rinse repeat.
Same with homes - kids inherit them at the market value at time of death.
Cost basis should either not reset at time of death, or should reset with taxes paid from the assets. He’ll, let the kids choose (sell some stock to pay the tax, keep the home and pay the tax when you sell it).
Just remember that leaving your country is one thing in order to avoid the tax, but changing states is pretty simple. For states that are considering this - like CA - it falls into the FAFO category. While everyone seems to love bashing billionaires these days, they do in fact pay far more in taxes than you and I (people focus on income tax percentage and conveniently overlook all other taxes along with actual dollar amounts) and tend to make enormous charitable contributions, they employ thousands of people, etc. If CA doesn't value these people, other states certainly will along with the jobs they bring. Be careful what you wish for.
The employ many people angle is a bit of a boondoggle. Companies can and do shop locations around already. A wealth tax would be about the owner's place of abode, not the locations of the company's campuses.
ForMoreYears | 6 hours ago
>“Deliberate fake news that tries to cloud the judgment of sovereign people who make policies is an enemy of democracy”.
Hear hear. It's long overdue that politicians start calling out the blatant manipulation of democratic electorates by industry groups who are literally paid by the companies they represent to manipulate (I.e. lie to) voters into taking actions that are more often than not contrary to their best interest.
Moffload | 5 hours ago
Hear hear. Exit taxes exist for a reason. Wealth needs to be taxed as income are. Its time to end the billionaire privilege.
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | 4 hours ago
Tax everything at a fixed rate.
ForMoreYears | an hour ago
Lmao so you want a regressive tax??
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | 42 minutes ago
Yes.
ForMoreYears | 38 minutes ago
Found Bezos' account.
Also, tax the rich 🤘
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | 36 minutes ago
Paying the same 25% per dollar is fair. Progressive taxation is not.
ForMoreYears | 34 minutes ago
Lol, lmao even. Go simp for the Epstein Class to someone who cares. Muting this nonsense.
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | 21 minutes ago
Surprise: Everything costs more when you're poor. Greetings to your antifa loser friends.
Pjpjpjpjpj | 31 minutes ago
Ya sure, but calling something “fake news” doesn’t exactly resonate with many people right now.
Far too many politicians attempt to discredit truthful news.
I tend not to look to politicians to tell me what to believe and think. I form my beliefs and then find people to vote for who I believe are most like to act in line with those beliefs.
ForMoreYears | 29 minutes ago
It was literally news based on a rigged paper so calling it fake news here is pretty spot on. I get what you're saying but I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking the term back where and when appropriate.
oulipo | 2 hours ago
TAX. THE. RICH.
It's good for everyone. Even the rich (since they will get a better society with improved infrastructures and more productive workers and informed citizens)
wackOverflow | 13 minutes ago
Nah, that’s what the robots and AI they’re building is for.
Hoodrow-Thrillson | 3 hours ago
People love portraying wealth taxes as a new idea that's never been tried.
Capital flight in France or Norway? Fake news! The actual revenue these taxes end up bringing in compared to initial estimates? Don't worry about it!
In the US calls for a wealth tax have also replaced more traditional forms of taxing the wealthy. You rarely hear anyone advocate for repealing the Bush and Trump income tax cuts anymore. Or raising the SS income cap, capital gains taxes, etc.
Everyone seems convinced instead that a (probably unconstitutional) form of taxation that's failed everywhere it's been tried is the way to go because they think billionaires all have Scrooge McDuck vaults of gold just sitting around.
Much of the developed world seems to be abandoning evidence-based policy and liberal economics in favor of Latin American-style populism.
cupofchupachups | 49 minutes ago
Why not both?
Some of the wealthy have income but many of the super wealthy do not have traditionally taxable sources of money.
Pjpjpjpjpj | 27 minutes ago
SO many things can be fixed.
Have $100m in stocks with a cost basis of only $20m. Should pay capital gains tax on that $80m when recognized, right?
Nope. Just will it off to your kids. They inherit the $100m at a $100m cost basis, wiping out any taxes. They can sell it the next day for zero tax. Invest $20m, spend $80m, rinse repeat.
Same with homes - kids inherit them at the market value at time of death.
Cost basis should either not reset at time of death, or should reset with taxes paid from the assets. He’ll, let the kids choose (sell some stock to pay the tax, keep the home and pay the tax when you sell it).
Massive-Beginning994 | an hour ago
Just remember that leaving your country is one thing in order to avoid the tax, but changing states is pretty simple. For states that are considering this - like CA - it falls into the FAFO category. While everyone seems to love bashing billionaires these days, they do in fact pay far more in taxes than you and I (people focus on income tax percentage and conveniently overlook all other taxes along with actual dollar amounts) and tend to make enormous charitable contributions, they employ thousands of people, etc. If CA doesn't value these people, other states certainly will along with the jobs they bring. Be careful what you wish for.
devliegende | 59 minutes ago
The employ many people angle is a bit of a boondoggle. Companies can and do shop locations around already. A wealth tax would be about the owner's place of abode, not the locations of the company's campuses.