>“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.
wealthier people should be taxes more as principle. Their wealth is not created in vacuum and is determined by the state/country they live in and the infrastructure that country provides. which is all public property which these billionaires are leeching off.
imv any amount you gain over a 100 mil should be taxes at 50% flat.
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. Hell, let the kids choose (sell some stock to pay the tax, keep the home and pay the tax when you sell it).
You know there are estate taxes right? Current tax exemptiom is thirty million after that it is taxed, current IRS code. Various states can have their own laws as well.
A discussion can be had about how large the exemption is or what amount it needs to be. Generally the government policy does not want to force estate sales if an estate passes on some type of income producing assets to the heir(s). Think a farm, or some type of family business.
Why are you deliberately misleading about how estate taxes work and their limits.
Generally assets once transfered to the heir(s) after any applicable tax will experience a step up in basis. After that if the heir(s) decide to sell the asset will have to pay capital gains on the sale if it is more than the basis.
>Generally assets once transfered to the heir(s) after any applicable tax will experience a step up in basis. After that if the heir(s) decide to sell the asset will have to pay capital gains on the sale if it is more than the basis.
That is exactly what I said.
And Ok, use your $30,000,000 exemption.
So I can get $3m in stock it grows to $30m over 30 years, I then will it to my kids who get $30m tax free and that is the new cost basis for it. They can sell it immediately for $30m in their pocket and nobody ever pays the capital gains tax on the appreciation from $3m to $30m. Roughly $6.4m in capital gains and NIIT taxes avoided (20% plus 3.8%).
In 2000 there was only a $675,000 exemption and the top rate was 55%. Now your figure is $30,000,000 and the top rate is 40%.
There are also ways to split the assets into trusts, where the federal limit applies to each trust separately. And of course any tax professional will ensure such a large transfer of wealth will take place in a state without estate taxes... only 13 states have state inheritance taxes - not California, not Texas, not Florida. Only 1 of the 10 largest US states has an estate tax.
People love portraying wealth tax as if some poor previous attempts means we should never do it again.
There are many forms a wealth tax could take. It's a large catchall term. Some countries doing a specific version badly before is informative on tactics, not a reason to close the door on the concept. Lots of things fail, especially in economics.
Ask your typical redditor if they will pay $400 for a burger when they can walk across the street and get one for $10. Ask them if they will pay $90 for a pound of apples when they can go to the next store and get them for a buck/lb.
No. They won't. And they understand why.
Ask them if a wealthy person would pay some hundreds of thousands (or millions) per year more in taxes - or jump in their plane and move (relatively) across the street. Your typical redditor (leftist) can't grasp why a wealthy person would do that.
Taxes are the price of government. It's that simple. There is a supply/demand curve for government just as there is for socks or cabbages. It's not nearly as elastic but it exists.
Also, moving is not the only way wealthy people vote. They vote with their wallets as well as with their feet. They just stop taking risks when taxes get to high.
Keep taxing, and they just stop working and get in the welfare line. Thats just the way it works. It's not going to change.
The bottom line is that. You cannot. And you will not. Ever. Legislate wealth equality.
You raise an interesting hypothetical but researchers at the London School of Economics did just this. They asked billionaires if they'd move to another country to pay less tax and the answer was a resounding "no". Even among billionaires, there's a stigma about moving to another country to pay less tax. They said tax havens are "boring" and they said things like access to culture is a far more important factor in choosing where to live than tax - which other studies repeatedly confirm. https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/a-january-2024/super-rich-unlikely-to-leave-uk-for-boring-and-culturally-barren-tax-havens
Applying a supply/demand curve like you suggest makes for a good thought exercise on paper but reality shows that it's just too simplistic in practice and doesn't fully capture everything that goes into people's decision-making processes.
Here's another hypothetical thought exercise I think is interesting: if you won the lottery tonight, would you uproot your whole life, leave behind friends and family, take your children out of school, leave behind your career or business, move to a country where you don't speak the language, where you don't know anybody, where you might even have less legal rights and freedoms, just to pay a bit less tax? To save an amount of tax that ultimately doesn't make a significant difference to your lifestyle or quality of life?
Funny how the "laws" of economics apply always and everywhere. Except where they contradict our pet political persuasion.
Like saying when adding 4+1 we should expect 5. But when adding 3+2 we should expect something different. It does not work that way.
All entities (i.e. companies, billionaires, and paupers) expect value for their money. Not all of the will relocate their corporate HQ when the corp. tax is raised five cents. But one will. And next time, two more.
> There are plenty of polls showing that the superrich across countries support higher taxes:
Yeah and John Lennon wrote "Imagine":
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Lennon made millions selling records to teenagers. Did he share it with all the world? Hell no. It's rumored a homeless man died on the sidewalk outside his NY penthouse.
I am wholly disinterested in any polls. Put a camera in someone's face and they will tell you what you want to hear. And actions speak much, much louder than words.
All the wealthy - I repeat all of them - hire legions of attorneys to minimize their tax bill every year. And they pay those attorneys well.
And none of them pay their janitors $80/hr. None of them pay assembly line workers $90/hr.
All them seek to minimize cost and maximize value. Everywhere, all the time. Again - everywhere, all the time. That's how they got rich.
> would you uproot your whole life, leave behind friends and family, take your children out of school, leave behind your career or
Do you know how the wealthy live? They have mansions in multiple countries. They incorporate their business where it makes economic sense. Uproot? Hardly!
> it's just too simplistic in practice and doesn't fully capture everything that goes into people's decision-making
FYI I'm not even close to being wealthy and I "uprooted" my life because I was taxed out of CA. Gave myself a 25%+ raise in one day. Have never looked back. Millions have done likewise. People DO consider property, income, sales taxes and local and state government fees. It's not the ONLY factor in decision making but for many especially in states like CA where taxes are burdensome it is a big factor.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies that help people move to countries that are cheaper to live in. There are huge ex-pat communities in Portugal, Panama, Thailand, etc., etc.
This is like arguing "Do the laws of gravity apply to everyone". Debating the obvious. People don't educate themselves, take risks, and go to work every day so they can make someone else's life better.
There's literally no evidence to support your claim that holds up to scrutiny. Pretending uprooting your life is as simple as crossing the street to a cheaper supermarket is extremely intellectually dishonest
Ah yes, anecdotal evidence, the evidence for the intellectually dishonest who know facts aren't on their side. You're literally posting this under an article talking about how the millionaire exodus lie is pure fabrication
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.
I was - literally - taxed out of CA. I'm not wealthy by any measure but I moved about a couple hours drive outside the CA border and gave myself about a 25%/year raise. I'm loving every minute of it. Tens of thousands of others have done the same. I told my wife all our neighbors would hate us because we are from CA. Turns out every last one of these fine folks are from CA too.
ForMoreYears | a month 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 | a month 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 | a month ago
Tax everything at a fixed rate.
ForMoreYears | a month ago
Lmao so you want a regressive tax??
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | a month ago
Yes.
ForMoreYears | a month ago
Found Bezos' account.
Also, tax the rich 🤘
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | a month ago
Paying the same 25% per dollar is fair. Progressive taxation is not.
ForMoreYears | a month ago
Lol, lmao even. Go simp for the Epstein Class to someone who cares. Muting this nonsense.
KlapprigerKlappstuhl | a month ago
Surprise: Everything costs more when you're poor. Greetings to your antifa loser friends.
Olangotang | a month ago
Bait used to be believable.
Logical_Team6810 | a month ago
Try harder
akashi10 | a month ago
wealthier people should be taxes more as principle. Their wealth is not created in vacuum and is determined by the state/country they live in and the infrastructure that country provides. which is all public property which these billionaires are leeching off. imv any amount you gain over a 100 mil should be taxes at 50% flat.
Best-Grocery-6475 | a month ago
Found the billionaire /s
Pjpjpjpjpj | a month 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 | a month 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.
Paradoxjjw | a month ago
Except it literally isn't 'truthful news'
oulipo | a month 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 | a month ago
Nah, that’s what the robots and AI they’re building is for.
Hoodrow-Thrillson | a month 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 | a month 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 | a month 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. Hell, let the kids choose (sell some stock to pay the tax, keep the home and pay the tax when you sell it).
SleepingRiver | a month ago
You know there are estate taxes right? Current tax exemptiom is thirty million after that it is taxed, current IRS code. Various states can have their own laws as well.
A discussion can be had about how large the exemption is or what amount it needs to be. Generally the government policy does not want to force estate sales if an estate passes on some type of income producing assets to the heir(s). Think a farm, or some type of family business.
Why are you deliberately misleading about how estate taxes work and their limits.
Generally assets once transfered to the heir(s) after any applicable tax will experience a step up in basis. After that if the heir(s) decide to sell the asset will have to pay capital gains on the sale if it is more than the basis.
Pjpjpjpjpj | a month ago
>Generally assets once transfered to the heir(s) after any applicable tax will experience a step up in basis. After that if the heir(s) decide to sell the asset will have to pay capital gains on the sale if it is more than the basis.
That is exactly what I said.
And Ok, use your $30,000,000 exemption.
So I can get $3m in stock it grows to $30m over 30 years, I then will it to my kids who get $30m tax free and that is the new cost basis for it. They can sell it immediately for $30m in their pocket and nobody ever pays the capital gains tax on the appreciation from $3m to $30m. Roughly $6.4m in capital gains and NIIT taxes avoided (20% plus 3.8%).
In 2000 there was only a $675,000 exemption and the top rate was 55%. Now your figure is $30,000,000 and the top rate is 40%.
There are also ways to split the assets into trusts, where the federal limit applies to each trust separately. And of course any tax professional will ensure such a large transfer of wealth will take place in a state without estate taxes... only 13 states have state inheritance taxes - not California, not Texas, not Florida. Only 1 of the 10 largest US states has an estate tax.
UseADifferentVolcano | a month ago
People love portraying wealth tax as if some poor previous attempts means we should never do it again.
There are many forms a wealth tax could take. It's a large catchall term. Some countries doing a specific version badly before is informative on tactics, not a reason to close the door on the concept. Lots of things fail, especially in economics.
Hoodrow-Thrillson | a month ago
No one, including the article in the OP, is advocating for anything different than what has been tried before.
Taxing unrealized gains is what it is.
petepro | a month ago
Yup. Wealth tax, rent control, communism, etc. Sure, sure, this time it will works. LOL
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
Ask your typical redditor if they will pay $400 for a burger when they can walk across the street and get one for $10. Ask them if they will pay $90 for a pound of apples when they can go to the next store and get them for a buck/lb.
No. They won't. And they understand why.
Ask them if a wealthy person would pay some hundreds of thousands (or millions) per year more in taxes - or jump in their plane and move (relatively) across the street. Your typical redditor (leftist) can't grasp why a wealthy person would do that.
Taxes are the price of government. It's that simple. There is a supply/demand curve for government just as there is for socks or cabbages. It's not nearly as elastic but it exists.
Also, moving is not the only way wealthy people vote. They vote with their wallets as well as with their feet. They just stop taking risks when taxes get to high.
Keep taxing, and they just stop working and get in the welfare line. Thats just the way it works. It's not going to change.
The bottom line is that. You cannot. And you will not. Ever. Legislate wealth equality.
[OP] what_the_mark | a month ago
You raise an interesting hypothetical but researchers at the London School of Economics did just this. They asked billionaires if they'd move to another country to pay less tax and the answer was a resounding "no". Even among billionaires, there's a stigma about moving to another country to pay less tax. They said tax havens are "boring" and they said things like access to culture is a far more important factor in choosing where to live than tax - which other studies repeatedly confirm.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/a-january-2024/super-rich-unlikely-to-leave-uk-for-boring-and-culturally-barren-tax-havens
A poll of millionaires in the UK found that 80% think it’s patriotic to pay their fair share in tax. And 60% think its unpatriotic to leave the country when asked to contribute more. https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/uk-millionaire-poll-2025
There are plenty of polls showing that the superrich across countries support higher taxes: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/nearly-three-quarters-of-millionaires-polled-in-g20-countries-support-higher-taxes-on-wealth-over-half-think-extreme-wealth-is-a-threat-to-democracy/
Applying a supply/demand curve like you suggest makes for a good thought exercise on paper but reality shows that it's just too simplistic in practice and doesn't fully capture everything that goes into people's decision-making processes.
Here's another hypothetical thought exercise I think is interesting: if you won the lottery tonight, would you uproot your whole life, leave behind friends and family, take your children out of school, leave behind your career or business, move to a country where you don't speak the language, where you don't know anybody, where you might even have less legal rights and freedoms, just to pay a bit less tax? To save an amount of tax that ultimately doesn't make a significant difference to your lifestyle or quality of life?
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
Funny how the "laws" of economics apply always and everywhere. Except where they contradict our pet political persuasion.
Like saying when adding 4+1 we should expect 5. But when adding 3+2 we should expect something different. It does not work that way.
All entities (i.e. companies, billionaires, and paupers) expect value for their money. Not all of the will relocate their corporate HQ when the corp. tax is raised five cents. But one will. And next time, two more.
> There are plenty of polls showing that the superrich across countries support higher taxes:
Yeah and John Lennon wrote "Imagine":
Lennon made millions selling records to teenagers. Did he share it with all the world? Hell no. It's rumored a homeless man died on the sidewalk outside his NY penthouse.
I am wholly disinterested in any polls. Put a camera in someone's face and they will tell you what you want to hear. And actions speak much, much louder than words. All the wealthy - I repeat all of them - hire legions of attorneys to minimize their tax bill every year. And they pay those attorneys well. And none of them pay their janitors $80/hr. None of them pay assembly line workers $90/hr.
All them seek to minimize cost and maximize value. Everywhere, all the time. Again - everywhere, all the time. That's how they got rich.
> would you uproot your whole life, leave behind friends and family, take your children out of school, leave behind your career or
Do you know how the wealthy live? They have mansions in multiple countries. They incorporate their business where it makes economic sense. Uproot? Hardly!
> it's just too simplistic in practice and doesn't fully capture everything that goes into people's decision-making
FYI I'm not even close to being wealthy and I "uprooted" my life because I was taxed out of CA. Gave myself a 25%+ raise in one day. Have never looked back. Millions have done likewise. People DO consider property, income, sales taxes and local and state government fees. It's not the ONLY factor in decision making but for many especially in states like CA where taxes are burdensome it is a big factor.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies that help people move to countries that are cheaper to live in. There are huge ex-pat communities in Portugal, Panama, Thailand, etc., etc.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bernie-reportedly-doesnt-pay-his-staff-the-dollar15-minimum-wage-hes-so-into/
This is like arguing "Do the laws of gravity apply to everyone". Debating the obvious. People don't educate themselves, take risks, and go to work every day so they can make someone else's life better.
Electrical-Strike132 | a month ago
Who's talking about legislating wealth equality?
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
Somebody help him please
Paradoxjjw | a month ago
Imagine being so intellectually dishonest you start comparing uprooting your whole life to walking across a street to a different business.
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
Imagine being so stupid you don't know that wealthy people own homes in multiple countries and live where ever they want.
Paradoxjjw | a month ago
There's literally no evidence to support your claim that holds up to scrutiny. Pretending uprooting your life is as simple as crossing the street to a cheaper supermarket is extremely intellectually dishonest
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
this just in:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/mark-zuckerberg-becomes-latest-california-billionaire-relocate-florida-amid-tax-concerns
Paradoxjjw | a month ago
Ah yes, anecdotal evidence, the evidence for the intellectually dishonest who know facts aren't on their side. You're literally posting this under an article talking about how the millionaire exodus lie is pure fabrication
Massive-Beginning994 | a month 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 | a month 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.
AdamMayer96793 | a month ago
I was - literally - taxed out of CA. I'm not wealthy by any measure but I moved about a couple hours drive outside the CA border and gave myself about a 25%/year raise. I'm loving every minute of it. Tens of thousands of others have done the same. I told my wife all our neighbors would hate us because we are from CA. Turns out every last one of these fine folks are from CA too.
findingmike | a month ago
Oregon? That's been happening since the 1980s.