No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
It's possible, but usually harder because what makes the uber wealthy uber wealthy is that they own assets rather than have huge income.
So when they say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Bezos or whoever has "X" billions, they're talking about the value of assets they own (usually large stakes in successful companies) which has more of a parallel with how the middle class talk about their house (an asset) now being worth (whatever). It's not liquid cash.
Taxes on assets are typically realised when those assets are sold or transferred because their value goes up and down and all over the place. And the uber wealthy do pay tax whenever they sell stock because they're buying this mansion or that yacht. It's just usually comparatively small to their full fortune which remains in stock.
So the difficult thing about taxing stock while it's owned is, like I said, the value goes up and down quite dramatically at times. Should the government collect taxes on the buoyant times but then refund them during market downturns? That would be a nightmare. No government wants to be on the hook for refunds during a downturn.
And it can't (I don't think) just collect taxes when super valuable stocks are on the way up because that's not actually cash. It's just the market value if that stock were to be sold. So the most a government could do would be either to receive some of the stock as a tax payment (not much use to a government that wants to spend it) or force the owners of companies to sell stock and make a cash payment just because they're successful.
Which sounds fine on the surface, but this messes up how ownership of companies works. Let's say some good guy CEO (they do exist) has managed the growth of a multi billion business and to do so has brought in investors which now own 49% of the company, and he - the founder - owns 51%. If the company's value on the market rose 20% you'd get news articles about how the founder now has "XX billion" since last year and that they "earn" so many hundreds of thousands a day compared to your average working class person. If the government forced the owner to part with 3% of their ownership of the company in order to pay this "growth tax" then the founder no longer has overall control of the company. It would be 48% founder owner, 49% investors and 3% whoever the government sell the taxed stock to in order to realise a cash value.
So it erodes ownership. Again I'm sure there are plenty reading this who think "so what?". But I can tell you that much of the market value of stock, the reason it has the value it does, is in many cases because the market trusts the management of the ownership of the companies to continue to make profit. If you force the erosion of that just because the company did well then you destroy the way the market trusts and ascribes value to things. Which is why the way governments tax company is via profits and stock sales, where the value is already realised or where the decision to sell is not forced in the same way.
So what to do about this?
Well you can just increase the taxes on stock sale, or on dividend income. But what happens there is you snare the wealthy middle class with the same rope you were aiming at the uber wealthy. Again some might not think that a bad thing, but it's unlikely to be as effective as people would like it to be. You'd generally be raising dividend tax by a percentage point or two on people receiving low six figure sums. Which would get some extra from the Elon Musks, but also would get the same amount from, say, a consultant surgeon, or a recent tech startup founder etc. My point being, there are not huge numbers of these people, compared to the rest of the population that government spending is spread over. The amount you end up raising is not huge compared to what seemed to be on offer when you look at Meta's total net worth or something like that.
The ultimate answer is about ownership. But it has to be organic (personal opinion) so that it doesn't cause disruption to the markets that end up hurting the most vulnerable (via job losses).
And the best way this is done is to simply suck it up and pay a little more for a non mega corp solution to something. Want Bezos to have less of the pie? Stop buying through Amazon just because it's cheaper. Want Gates fortune to be more wide spread? Save yourself a ton of cash by using Linux instead of windows + office licences. Don't like Elon musk? Stop using twitter, don't buy a Tesla.
If you've done all these things I personally think it's as much as you can do. You should put your efforts into making these boycots as easy for others to follow as possible (support your favourite FOSS project) etc. Pay for the online services you like so they don't feel the need to resort to Google ads and on. Unfortunately in a free market such as the ones many of us live in (thinking Western world) the uber wealthy are mainly that because of the millions and millions of micro choices by consumers who are free to go elsewhere but just often don't choose to.
so, going back to your analogy of thinking of stock like homes, we pay property tax on our homes if we own them. Not much, comparatively, but we pay tax on it nonetheless. If stocks are an asset like a home, they should be taxed based on the value of those stocks.
Companies do pay other taxes roughly comparable to their size, I was just simplifying for the sake of explanation. Employee tax is one example. Don't know how it works in the US but in the UK all businesses will pay a "national insurance" tax contribution for every employee they have. This is a level that can be turned by the treasury. But increasing any tax burden discourages the activity that leads to it. Taxes on employees, although paid by companies, are seen as "anti job" taxes. Taxes on profits are seen as "punishment" for honestly raising a profit in the home country (rather than various offshore licensing schemes). The raw market value of a company could be taxed, but that sort of perversely encourages a company to downplay its value.
Ultimately we want companies to be successful, the only issue with it is when the ownership is concentrated in the hands of the very few. Unfortunately that appears to be what drives success in many cases. Small ownership = focussed quick decision making. Sometimes that really is what's led to an American company seeing the success it does rather than some Chinese competitor gaining the edge.
That's why I throw a lot of this back on consumers. We're the democratic force in all this, and we have a lot of power when we act en masse. Why is there one Amazon instead of two? Because people also choose cheapest and they fail to properly value the fact they can have all sorts next day (even same day) when that service never existed ten plus years ago. If they valued that properly then they'd be more able to see competitor B at $10 is still providing them good value service even if Amazon is selling the same at $7.
I'm not sure that's it's healthy to stop people having free choice of where to shop. People being able to vote with their money is what makes capitalist countries the innovation experts of the world.
The issue is what happens when that capital concentrated into a small number of hands starts to wield anti-choice power and / or political power. So I think people building successful companies and being wildly rich (on paper) is fine, but legislation should stop them hoovering up smaller competitors (anti trust laws). And money should certainly be capped and prevented from undue influence in political processes.
The US and UK are quite different in that regard. Our anti trust laws could be better, but at least our political processes are relatively short and the use of money in them held to a reasonably high level of disclosure. Both could be improved.
And I think they will when the population elects a social-good minded government that's pro business. Typically in the past I'd personally say this mostly lines up with what used to be called New Labour. They certainly did some social good but they made some appalling mistakes trying to partner with business.
I don't know that the equivalent hope in the US is. I see the democrats gets criticised a lot of not being well connected to working class people and too cosy with big business. But campaign finance laws would need to change before the way in which money and politics interacts could ever reasonably change.
Which all feels a bit far off, which is why I come back to what small actions individuals can do... Buy local, from small businesses, be prepared to spend more to spread wealth a little more evenly, buy domestic, not foreign, avoid the services of megacorps wherever you can, enable others to do the same. Who knows? Can you imagine a community run Amazon that cost a bit more but funneled profits back into the local community? Things like this can be tackled by a relatively small band of motivated individuals regardless of what's going on in the halls of power.
Except your argument on small ownership is quick decision making has a counter arguement..... shareholders.. they appoint a small group for daily operations and decisionmaking. But the real power is with the shareholder meeting and a large group of possibly anonymous owners.
Yes that's true, I was trying to make the point that the ownership of the company is usually directly responsible for its success, whatever form that takes. And forcing the dilution of ownership (by taxing a company on its overall market cap rather than its profits) is only going to be disruptive to whatever arrangement made it successful in the first place (be that forcing control out of the hands of a good founder or diluting the control of a group of investors that approved a good board). Don't get me wrong, that might sometimes be a good thing. It's just that the logic "you've made this company is so successful you're going to have less control over it" is unlikely to work out well in the long run. Better to take more taxes from profits if anything (as long as that's internationally competitive) or have stronger laws preventing companies with huge value from muscling in and taking over competitors or whole industries (eg Musk etc)
That would be true if companies did not create elaborate constructions and park money in tax havens.
I'd almost say that companies should be taxed (a different rate) not on profits but on revenue. If they make the revenue in your country, it should be taxed in your country.
Yes, tax havens are a problem
This is what sales tax is though. Tax collected at the point of sale (ie revenue). You can collect it direct from companies instead but all you'd see is the 'sales tax' line of your shopping cart go higher.
Profit is taxed instead of revenue (in general) because companies operate on wildly different margins (the difference between revenue and profit). So let's ignore the fact it would get passed directly onto consumers and assume a revenue tax is borne by the companies... Say your revenue tax was 2% you might have a negligible effect on Apple, they have a large gap between their revenue and costs so they just absorb this as a tiny dent on profits, Tesla might be hit moderately hard (the amount of profit they turn compared to revenue is smaller so a revenue tax makes a much larger impact on profit), and it may have a catastrophic impact on Starbucks (very small gap between revenue and expenses so decreasing revenue via a 2% tax almost completely eradicates profits).
I'm making up which company's which just to illustrate that a revenue tax doesn't land equally across companies. Some industries are low margin some are high margin and a revenue tax disproportionally clobbers low margin industries. Which might not be the effect we wanted. So it's better to tax profit.
This does create issues where companies deliberately don't turn a profit because they aggressively reinvest in expansion and acquisition.
Except in this case the tax is levied across the entire value chain. But yes, this would favor high margin business over low margin ones. But isn't the current system doing that too? Investors throw money at high margin companies while not so much at low margin ones.