this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
646 points (98.1% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2702 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Brazil, Germany, Spain and South Africa sign motion for fairer tax system to deliver £250bn a year extra to fight poverty and climate crisis

The world’s 3,000 billionaires should pay a minimum 2% tax on their fast-growing wealth to raise £250bn a year for the global fight against poverty, inequality and global heating, ministers from four leading economies have suggested.

In a sign of growing international support for a levy on the super-rich, Brazil, Germany, South Africa and Spain say a 2% tax would reduce inequality and raise much-needed public funds after the economic shocks of the pandemic, the climate crisis and military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

They are calling for more countries to join their campaign, saying the annual sum raised would be enough to cover the estimated cost of damage caused by all of last year’s extreme weather events.

“It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods,” the ministers say in a Guardian comment piece.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 134 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Alternative proposal. Billionaires should pay an annual 75% tax on any income and any wealth in excess of 1 billion.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 89 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Uh, why not 99%, and you get a framed certificate congratulating you for winning capitalism?

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago (1 children)

When you get to 1 billion your wealth resets but you get exclusive skins

[–] YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So they’ll be playing on a higher difficulty?

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Same difficulty everyone else plays, which yeah it's a lot higher than theirs

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

100% on all wealth above, say, a quarter of a billion dollars and all income that would bring you above that threshold.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nah dude. If they hit a billion dollars, you take all their wealth, reset them back to level one, put a star next to their name and tell them to do it again. They'll appreciate the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes with a second run.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorta like New Game Plus but without the plus? I like it!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Alternative alternative proposal: being billionaire shouldn't be possible. There should be a wealth cap.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 7 points 6 months ago

A wealth cap tax...I could get behind that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That isn't how it works though. Nobody is collecting billions in wages. They receive stock which isn't counted as taxable income until sold.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Sure, that's why I also suggested a wealth tax.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 6 months ago

All registered securities (stocks, bonds,etc.) should be taxed at 75% per year. Natural persons are exempted from the tax on their first $16.7 million, with a progressive schedule up to the full tax rate at $1 billion in value.

Securities are not sold to pay the tax. A percentage of each security held by the ultra-wealthy taxpayer is transferred to the IRS. IRS liquidators sell off the shares in small lots over time, so that liquidated shares comprise no more than 1% of total traded volume.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 94 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If taxation were done properly there would be no billionaires. They are a symptom of a broken tax system.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, I'm assuming you are in support of a 2% wealth tax?

Sorry if I sound paranoid, just checking. Tone is hard to convey in text.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (7 children)

2 percent for those who would dip below a billion.

Just make a billion dollars a hard limit. Once you achieve that wealth, you aren't allowed anymore. If it's because of stock values, then any shares after you hit a billion are distributed among employees (including "contract workers" who they pretend aren't employees).

If it's in cash money anything over a billion goes to the government.

If it's in real estate properties are seized and sold at auction according to the land use. For housing, it's only sold to individual people who will use the property as a sole homestead. For small offices it's sold to businesses with a single location.

If it's art it's donated to a museum in the art's place of origin.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months ago

Can we be specific and say "2% of their purported assets valuation must be paid in liquid cash annually" so they can stop loopholing taxes to oblivion?

Oh look, all of the sudden corporate entities are paying taxes instead of saying "oops yeah we broke even before bonuses."

[–] SteefLem@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

2% what the…. My income above 50k is taxed 48% i think. Wtf 2%

Edit: yes i know the difference, but still…

[–] Damage@feddit.it 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wealth tax is different from income tax. Once you've received your income it becomes wealth, and it is not taxed unless you use it. Wealth tax would mean that your money in the bank is taxed periodically.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

That’s your income not your net worth, 2% of your net worth would be taking the value of all your cash + stocks/investments/businesses + assets like cars/homes/land/collectibles/jewelry/etc and taxing 2% of that value.

Your income shouldn’t be your net worth unless you’re honestly spending every dime of every check

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

A lot of us are poor enough where we sorta have to just to survive.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] orrk@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

ah, but imagine if you have 128Billion dollars, more than the GDP of many countries

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It’s weird to think I can be given stocks and have to pay real taxes for the value of those taxes. But somebody who starts a business and owns a large number of shares never has to pay taxes on those shares even though they got them when they were worth $0 and now are worth possibly billions.

Often times those shares can be used as leverage for a loan providing the shareholder with the quality of life of a billionaire without ever paying the taxes on earning the billions.

This feature of taxes ONLY benefits the super wealthy and everybody else just has to pay taxes for every dollar of wealth earned.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Try 90%, and they'd still have obscene wealth afterwards.

[–] mememuseum@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Exactly, 10% of a billion dollars is one hundred million. That's more than enough to live a cushy stress free life without ever working again if you're not an idiot blowing it all on dumb shit.

That puts you in the same net worth bracket as a lot of celebrity actors and musicians.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

2% make it 80%. Eat the rich.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

2% might actually be possible. 80% would collapse the nominal value of the "wealth". E.g. who is going to give Bezos 160 billion actual dollars for his stock to cover such a tax bill, especially when every other billionaire is trying to get trillions of real dollars at the same time. The aggregate nominal value of the s&p 500 is way way more than actual dollars that exist.

[–] Lemzlez@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Should be 99% for everything above a certain threshold. Any money you make above that number is pretty much guaramteed to have come from exploiting others, so they shouldn’t get to keep that.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

2?? Dont stroke em too hard you might get a rash

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

2% per year on all weath (not just income) above 1bn. Seems good to me.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 months ago

It's infinity billion times more than 0

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Two percent? Yeah fuck that, how about they pay their fair share instead?

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

A two percent wealth tax is actually a better idea than a lot of people here seem to think.

If you have $100B, you'd have to pay $2B every year that you hold that much wealth, and you'll have to pay it in cash.

This would produce a lot of annual recurring tax revenue, and it would incentivize billionaires to hoard less paper capital if they don't want to constantly be forking over billions in taxes.

The tax is beneficial, and so is the way around the tax.

Though we also need to tax their income more too.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why not 20%? It's not like they need all that money.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nope there is no reason anyone should have a billion dollars.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Such a shortsighted view. How do you expect us to get out much-needed class of Trillionaire God-Rulers if you make life so difficult for those hardworking Billionaires?

to be clear.../s

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Absolutely 100% this. We need a global effort so they can't just move to some tax shelter.
2% is also cheap IMO, nobody needs to have that much money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 12 points 6 months ago

say G20 ministers

Kind of a misleading headline. That's not the G20. That's three countries that are in the G20.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So I understand the ultra-rich's way of doing business now is to never realize gains but rather take loans against a percentage of their unrealized gains (backed of course, by the unrealized gains themselves) and spend that money rather than ever make any income. Does anybody know of any good ideas to handle that type of scenario?

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

sure, force them to realize gains by taxing unrealized gains that have gone unrealized for a certain amount of time

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

Forfeited shares held as collateral for a loan should require paying a capital gains tax if you default on the loan.

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

What about billionaires paying a 50% tax until there are no more billionaires?? I like that a lot more!!

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I would add that if you are securing loans above a certain total amount or used for certain purchase types to make a purchase, that purchase is subject to a sales tax that must come out of the purchaser’s pocket. The trouble with wealth taxes is that most of the “wealth” isn’t liquid, but it is often used, for example, as collateral to purchase Twitter. In this instance, the wealth used should be treated as liquid taxable assets. I think those taxes should come either from the purchaser divesting from some amount of assets or a straight cash, not from another loan, payment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

Meanwhile every Party of the current German government, as well as the opposition former conservatives now far-right populists and the fascist party are furiously rejecting wealth taxation.

I don't buy it for Germany, because the government leading social democratic party has been focusing exclusively on income taxation and blocked any advances towards reimplementing wealth taxation over the past 26 years of which they only were 4 years not in the government.

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

Billionaires should pay 100% tax over $999,999.99 of personal wealth.

Some people still get to be wealthy. Problem solved.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

On top of a wealth tax, there should be a fraction of a percent financial transaction tax. It would have no effect on the average consumer, but a lot of effect on the investor class.

[–] thejynxed@lemmy.basedcount.com 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

When you see a bunch of comments suggesting ideas that make it obvious the commenters don't hold any grasp on economics or finance whatsoever.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. This bullshit is pushed by the people not wanting meaningful reform. Just like oil companies try to distract with Carbon capture.

"We need this simple reform." "No, we need Communist revolution! Eat the rich!”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 months ago

Or solve it the Vietnamese way

load more comments
view more: next ›