this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)
Personal Finance
3829 readers
31 users here now
Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!
Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Almost like the wealthy should be taxed 90% and healthcare should be free, and rent should be strictly regulated, and everyone should have a labor union.
How about this. If you make it to a net worth of $1 Billion, we get you a nice gold plaque that says, "Congratulations! You have won capitalism." Then, any income you earn after that is taxed at 100%.
Income and net worth are different concepts though. You can have a car and be too broke to buy gas.
I think you might be failing to envision just how much money a billion dollars is. If your net worth (Assets - Liabilities + Equity) = one billion dollars, you are among the wealthiest of the wealthiest people in the world.
Now, that probably isn't all just sitting in investments. I'll be very conservative and say half of it is. If you earned 4% annually on that $500M, which is a pretty decent average, you would gross $20 Million.
I don't know about you, but if I had $20 Million, I would never have to work another day for the rest of my life. You see where I'm going with this?
Wouldn’t the $20 Million be subject to the 100% income tax at that point, meaning the net worth billionaire wouldn’t be able to earn any income as it’s all taxed away?
Sure, but let's say they spent 20m. Then their net worth would be under a billion and the next couple of years of earnings would have a lower tax rate.
Even if they never were able to make money again, 20m goes into a billion 50 times. They could overspend for 50 years without making a cent on investments.
I'm sure they'd come up with fun new accounting loopholes though so their assets didn't appear to increase.
What incentive is there to keep working at a 90% tax burden?
They did in the 40s and 50s when wealth ttaxes were that high. 10% of a billion is still a 100 million.
Well if they stop working they make 0. 10% of any income is still more than zero, and this would likely be bracketed so high that there'd be at least a million or two in lower tax bands.
Edit: also strictly, the comment you replied to said "the wealthy" this could refer to a wealth tax rather than an income tax, where stopping working would just remove the income but not affect the tax burden at all—i.e. a pretty terrible idea if you want to remain wealthy