Bill Gates on a Wealth Tax

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. LOL

these uber rich have quite a sense of humor

[evertonfc]

2. valid argument

Bill is a humanitarian too. A wealth tax , it is phrased anyway, is a loser in GE

[pfeiffer]

4. Yep...

Both Bill and Melinda are wonderful humanitarians. Wealth tax? I agree, total loser in GE.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

18. In case you missed it...

Wealth Tax Is Supported by Basically Everyone Who Is Not a Politician
https://itep.org/wealth-tax-is-supported-by-basically-everyone-who-is-not-a-politician/

And

The Hill-HarrisX survey released Wednesday found that 74 percent of registered voters back an annual 2 percent tax on people with assets over $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on people with assets in excess of $1 billion.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of

[Hoyt]

26. You missed her healthcare funding proposal, she doubled the wealth tax last week.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

5. If billionaires like Bill paid all they should pay

we wouldn't need humanitarian billionaires.

And I believe the majority of Americans disagree with you:
The Hill-HarrisX survey released Wednesday found that 74 percent of registered voters back an annual 2 percent tax on people with assets over $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on people with assets in excess of $1 billion.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of

[pfeiffer]

10. So...

...if we didn't have humanitarian billionaires, then who would our humanitarians be?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

15. Your question suggests that one must be a billionaire to be a humanitarian.

That assumption is false.

[ArcticFox]

29. If we could build a just and humane society

There'd be no need for billionaire humanitarians.

[PhoenixDem]

40. People are always supportive of taxing other people. n/t

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

3. Any individual who has one billion should STFU.

No, seriously. A billion is enough to buy a a presidency and no one should have that much money or power.

[brooklynite]

7. How much does J.K. Rowling "deserve" in your system?

[pfeiffer]

11. Aha!

Great question!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

14. I don't know how much she "deserves."

But I don't believe it's a billion dollars. Nor do many others.

Abolish Billionaires
A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It’s the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality.

I like to use this column to explore maximalist policy visions — positions we might aspire to over time rather than push through tomorrow. Abolishing billionaires might not sound like a practical idea, but if you think about it as a long-term goal in light of today’s deepest economic ills, it feels anything but radical. Instead, banishing billionaires — seeking to cut their economic power, working to reduce their political power and attempting to question their social status — is a pithy, perfectly encapsulated vision for surviving the digital future.

We’re already seeing these effects now. A few superstar corporations, many in tech, account for the bulk of American corporate profits, while most of the share of economic growth since the 1970s has gone to a small number of the country’s richest people.

But the problem is poised to get worse. Artificial intelligence is creating prosperous new industries that don’t employ very many workers; left unchecked, technology is creating a world where a few billionaires control an unprecedented share of global wealth.

But abolishment does not involve only economic policy. It might also take the form of social and political opprobrium. For at least 20 years, we’ve been in a devastating national love affair with billionaires — a dalliance that the tech industry has championed more than any other.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/opinion/abolish-billionaires-tax.html

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

20. Here's some more thoughtful reasoning you and your snarky pals can snootily sneer at:

Perhaps a way to cut through the murk would be to change the question: Once we've made the changes necessary to create a truly just society, would billionaires still exist? If we made a world where opportunity is abundant and prosperity is shared, would the rejiggering of resources and money flows still leave room for billionaires to become billionaires?

I think it's safe to assume the answer is "no."

But let's sit with that question of "deserving" for a moment. The CEOs of America's largest companies make something like 300 times as much as the typical worker. Is anyone willing to defend the idea that any human being is really able to provide society with labor that is 300 times more useful than another's? Keep in mind the lowest paid workers in the U.S. include jobs such as farm workers and personal home health care aids. These are the people who sweat and toil to make our food; the people who care for our family members or ourselves when we can no longer walk or exercise or shower or take our medicine or use the bathroom on our own.

But the most fundamental problem, the problem that drives all of these other problems, is that money — or, more precisely, wealth — is power. A billionaire has gobs of capital to invest in new enterprises, dictating to the rest of us what jobs will be created, for whom, to do what, and paying how much. More than that, it's billionaires who, by virtue of the power that makes them billionaires, control the financial system and the corporate governance that shapes all the economic activity in the country. What jobs we do and can or can't get, what we're paid and under what conditions we work; these are all huge aspects of Americans' everyday lives. And billionaires run all of it like feudal lords.

Yes, some billionaires also donate immense sums to charity. But in many ways this just recapitulates the problem: The small population of billionaires gets to decide the goals and priorities and organizational values of so much of the philanthropic work across both the U.S. and the globe.

https://theweek.com/articles/848221/no-should-billionaire

[Blaukraut]

25. Thank you n/t

[brooklynite]

32. Okay,I'll play...

Nobody was compelled to give money to J.K. Rowling to read her books or watch the movies her books inspired or buy the toys and costumes based on her books. At what point should she have stopped receiving payments?

[USALiberal]

8. LOL, ok! nt

[pfeiffer]

12. And...

...Oprah?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

16. Same.

[oldsoftie]

13. If that was the case we'd have had Pres Perot & Pres Forbes.

Money buys ads. It wont buy votes

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

17. Well, I used the presidency as shorthand. It doesn't have to be that exactly.

It doesn't have to be votes. Obviously money can buy power in politics. Lobbyists, for instance. The Koch's can explain that to you.

https://www.opensecrets.org/influence/

[MrsCoffee]

46. So you have no problem with Citizen's United?

[oldsoftie]

48. I have an issue with it, but money doesnt get you elected. YOU have to perform.

It only gets you noticed. Then its up to you. I'm not going to cry over CU when someone I dont like wins.
Do you think we'll have a Pres Steyer? He's the richest one running. He can buy ANY number of ads he wants to. Whats he got in the polls?
Meanwhile, Pete Buttegeig is running 2nd in Iowa. A young, small town mayor. Nobody thought Obama stood a chance in '08. Clinton had twice the money Trump did.

The main problem i have with CU is that it equates spending money with speech. No one is prevented from SPEAKING their mind if they're prevented from buying ads. But that would have to apply equally to every group; unions, teachers groups, cops, Koch bros, and any other group. IMO anyway

[ritapria]

6. Gates would pay 1.2 billion dollars annually under a 2% wealth tax

[oldsoftie]

19. Which shows you how little a "wealth tax' will raise. Its just a show.

We need trillions.

[Eko]

21. Gates is worth 106.8 billion

2% of that is over 2 billion.

[Midnight Writer]

36. That would leave him with only 104 billion. And that's just the first year.

And if he did pay 100 billion (which no one is proposing), then he would only have a little over 6 billion to try to live on.

No wonder the poor guy is worried.

[Eko]

37. Ya,

I only pointed out the faulty math. Im cool with a 10% wealth tax myself and am open to even more.

[Midnight Writer]

42. I'm with you. I was just looking at your numbers and thinking of what Gates said.

[evertonfc]

9. tax

is another pipe dream but whatever. Run with it

[Hoyt]

22. To fund everything Warren or Sanders promising requires lots of mil/billionaires.

[dansolo]

43. That is the irony of this plan

In order to keep that tax revenues flowing, there would still need to be a lot of wealthy people around.

[oldsoftie]

49. How does no one ever get this? There arent enough of them NOW to raise whats needed.

[Prosper]

51. If wealth was put to work instead of creating more wealth

prosperity would abound, IRS revenue would pay completely for all healthcare and education and environmental solutions to ad infinitum. Based on discretionary money almost everybody donated more to humanitarian causes than every billionaire. If gates gave away 100 billion dollars he would still have 6 billion in discretionary money.

[Kurt V.]

23. no person has ever earned a billion dollars. That's policy failure. gates being a great example

[Rstrstx]

24. So Bill Gates is worth 50 TRILLION?

That's what he'd have to be worth to pay 100 billion.

[guillaumeb]

27. The poor oppressed billionaire.

My heart cries out.

[zaj]

28. So he's worried about the rate?

[TheFarseer]

30. Income tax is the fairest tax

If you make money you pay some of it in taxes. Where it gets unfair is when passive income is taxed different and when Jeff Bezos lives like the Emperor of the World but on paper makes $80k. That shit needs to stop. A wealth tax probably doesn’t even hit him. “Amazon owns all those mansions and private jets. I have nothing.” Right, Jeff, you asshole.

[oldsoftie]

50. No, its not. Because 100s of billions, if not trillions, go untaxed & unaccounted for.

The IRS mainly tracks W2 & 1099 reported income. Its the only way to reconcile income with reporting. But if you have neither of those, you can report anything you want.
The income tax is only a part of an efficient tax system.

[TheFarseer]

55. If you're talking about income from a business

Yes, you can make up a bunch of stuff and end up at a tax liability of zero, I agree. That needs to be reformed. If you mean overseas accounts, yeah, that should be taxed. If you mean a billion dollars in a savings account, we tax the interest. If we’re talking about a warehouse full of classic cars, it produces no income so I think it’s fair to not tax that. Others may disagree but that’s my opinion. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, so I can’t really make a specific argument.

[oldsoftie]

56. "stated income" jobs. Forget offshore stuff & assets. I'm talking straight income.

Think of all the professions that are stated income; AC repair, attorneys, construction, plumbers, therapists, auto repair, landscaping, designers, builders, single realtors, equipment rentals, apartments, etc. The list is LONG and the dollars are HUGE. None of those people have reported income. No W2 or 1099. They simply put down a number on the 1040. Certainly the IRS can investigate you, but they'd have to have a staff of a million to get everyone. Its not about getting to a zero tax liability, its about what you DO claim.
I know at least a dozen people who report this way.

[TheFarseer]

57. So

You’re primarily talking about people with their own business. There’s definitely a problem of too many loopholes and not enough documentation or oversight. That said, can you imagine the tricks people would use to get out of a wealth tax? They’d transfer assets anywhere to anyone, anything and all their pets and you just have an enforcement problem again. I just don’t think it will fix all our problems like some do.

[oldsoftie]

58. I definitely agree. Taxes rarely ever generate the "projected" revenue

Especially when they do that ridiculous "over 10 yrs" nonsense.
Most of the super rich get those huge valuations by owning company stock. I wonder how much Bezos is worth if you take away Amazon? Just a week ago, he lost 10% of his "worth" when the stock took a hit. 9 billion! And then the stock went back up. but if he had to pay a billion in taxes, he'd HAVE to sell stock. Which would impact the price downward. Not to mention the short sellers would hit it before "tax day", knowing what was coming.
On a MUCH smaller scale, its kinda like when you see these people who win a huge house. Its worth 750k. Then the tax bill comes and they have to sell the house to pay the tax!!

[TheFarseer]

59. Right

Interesting points. Would be fun to see Bezos pay 6% of his trillion dollars and then there’s an accounting scandal at Amazon and stock is worth nothing the next day!

[oldsoftie]

60. Heres a story that will make you laugh & laugh:

A friend of a friend was talking to me at a party. I knew a bit about her; i knew she got a million dollar home in Ireland in a divorce. So she was telling me about her husband cheating on her with the secretary (how cliche'). He was an executive at a large company & he was SO scared of her getting part of his company stock (he had a ton) that he agreed to giver her the house and a large sum of money. She seemed very satisfied with the settlement & i asked her did she think she made the right decision. She said "Oh yes I sure did. (sips wine) Did I tell you the company he worked for was Enron?"

[Turbineguy]

31. I don't know why this wealth tax is tied to M4A

or Public Option. Society pays for our current system already. We are trading one method for another and getting a better health care system out of it.

People who do not want M4A are going to make it look as expensive as possible. But we are already paying.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Warren says hello

Link to tweet

[Joe941]

34. Billionaires should not exist. Period.

[USALiberal]

35. If obtained legally I am fine with it. Just have them pay more taxes. nt

[Joe941]

39. I'm not fine with it.

[SKKY]

38. Who is saying Bill Gates should pay $100 Billion in taxes???

I’ve never heard that number, or anything close, mentioned.

[PhoenixDem]

41. 3% per year on billionaires

means in 33.3 years, they will be penniless.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

45. Assuming they keep their billions under their mattress.

[MrsCoffee]

47. Right?

[Prosper]

52. No because it is 3% of what you have left after 3% is deducted.

Inverse of compounded interest results.

[MrsCoffee]

44. What you have left over is still more than any one human should ever have.

Womp womp.

And why does he suck at math? Sounds like a made up number to me.

[Prosper]

53. Cursory observation of replies in this thread appears

Biden supporters trending more defensive of billionaires. Reflected by popularity of “Lifestyles of Rich and Famous”.

[Joe941]

54. Honestly I dont care what the rich's opinion on the matter is.

They get 1 vote like the rest of us.