this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
104 points (91.3% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4836 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
104
A Global Tax on Billionaires? Janet Yellen Says ‘No’ (www.wsj.com)
submitted 3 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Treasury secretary came out against the proposed global levy, which proponents say would stop the rich from shifting wealth into countries where they can avoid paying the tax

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Crazy how Biden's admin is full of people 70+ years old who are incredibly conservative and keep going against all of the things he keeps saying he wants to do...

Like, Imagine if you boss hired a bunch of shitty assholes, and when you complain about them he says "what am I supposed to do. They're already hired!"

Like, you can fire them Joe...

When you hire someone and they consistently do things you (supposedly) don't want them to do, you fucking fire them and hire someone who will do what you tell them.

Unless of course you don't actually want to get anything done and what you're telling them to do is what they're doing.

[–] nelly_man@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I can't read this article due to a paywall, but I know that Janet Yellen has been leading an effort to set a minimum corporate tax rate worldwide. I don't know what her stance is on wealth taxes in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's just trying to ensure that a minimum corporate tax rate work is not derailed by changing the target to something more controversial.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

keep going against all of the things he keeps saying he wants to do...

When did Biden say he wants a global wealth tax?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

US President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget included plans for a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01%, but that proposal has since fallen by the wayside with lawmakers in Washington preoccupied with government shutdown threats and looming funding deadlines.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/business/billionaires-global-tax/index.html

In fairness, it's hard to keep track of all the times Biden says he wants to do something to appease voters and then never tries while his appointees fight the party platform.

But Biden wanted it for America, just stopped mentioning it, and now his appointees are fighting any wealth tax from anywhere.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, Biden has his own tax proposal for the wealthy. It's a modified income tax, not a direct tax on overall wealth.

Wanting to tax the wealthy doesn't mean he supports a wealth tax. And it definitely doesn't mean he wants a global wealth tax. Neither of those are in the party platform.

The details matter. One Democratic proposal is to tax unrealized capital gains. So if Tesla stock went up in value, Musk would owe taxes. But unlike a wealth tax, Musk would owe nothing if the stock went down.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The devil is in the details here. For the super-rich, wealth is an extremely hard thing to quantify. Once a true wealth tax is established, all it will do is increase billable hours for financial professionals who know how to hide wealth in tax sheltered vehicles. And that will get litigated every year, when the bill is due. If you want to go after the extremely wealthy, I think the right place to do it is with a strong inheritance tax. That only gets litigated once, and the bill is paid by people who did not accumulate that wealth themselves. It also dilutes generational wealth, which is a good thing.

Plus, the US is unique in that it taxes citizens on their worldwide holdings, anyway. While there are offshore tax havens, they work a lot differently than the tax havens a wealth tax would target.

It's easy to say "We should tax the wealthy", but hard to make good policy that can't be gamed, especially when attempting to do it across multiple wealthy countries.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s easy to say “We should tax the wealthy”, but hard to make good policy that can’t be gamed, especially when attempting to do it across multiple wealthy countries.

That's literally what Yellen is refusing to participate in...

Like, the reason we can't do it, is we're not doing it...

If that sounds confusing, it's because there isn't a logical reason not to do it, besides the wealthy may donate less money to politicians

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 1 points 3 months ago

There are very real constitutional issues with explicit wealth taxes. It took a constitutional amendment to authorize the federal government to collect an income tax, and it's quite possible that it would take another to authorize a wealth tax. Particularly with this Supreme Court, Congress probably doesn't have the legal ability to impose a wealth tax even if it wanted to, to say nothing of the general complexity and costs of collecting it. There are plenty of economists who support the general idea of taxing the wealthy more but who prefer other taxation schemes.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

wealth is an extremely hard thing to quantify.

it is very commonly quantified in net worth.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Wealth isn’t that hard to quantify. An assessor comes to my house every few years and quantifies what it’s worth for property tax reasons and most people’s wealth is basically their house and maybe a retirement account. Private companies almost all have a valuation. When a start up raises a round, they literally set a valuation for the round. When a traditional business gets a loan, the bank estimates what it’s worth.

But no one even wants to tax small business owners. Every wealth tax proposal is on the super wealthy who can sure as fuck value their net worth. Donald Trump just went on trial for lying about his. If we had a formal assessment system, he would have never even been able to do frauds.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's a lot of bullshit in those numbers though including things like unrealized capital gains and real estate. Trump is in trouble for wildly misvaluing his real estate (including openly lying about factual information like square footage) but it's almost impossible to accurately value real estate outside of a sale happening - things like depreciation and local market prices fluctuations are all just guesses. Most real estate is valued as low as the owner can justify (outside dumb pride and weird tax tricks) just to dodge property taxes.

Net worth is an easy number to guess at within an order of magnitude but it's really difficult to actually calculate - even for Americans in America... guessing at the wealth of some Bhutanese millionaire who has a deep in with the local government and can bribe officials to undervalue or misassign property would be extremely difficult.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Trump is in trouble for wildly misvaluing his real estate (including openly lying about factual information like square footage)

And people lie about income for income taxes. And then they get audited. A wealth tax doesnt have to be accurate to the dollar, its about dissuading gross wealth hoarding. A billion and 40 thousand can still round to a billion and be a very effective tax estimate.

guessing at the wealth of some Bhutanese millionaire who has a deep in with the local government and can bribe officials to undervalue or misassign property would be extremely difficult.

I dont think people in small low income countries like bhutan are going to affect this tax much. I would also assume this international tax would come with some form of international auditing.

Thats the one thing working in our favor dealing with the people that have concentrated the worlds wealth into a few hands: its in a few hands. Its easy to keep track of.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

And people lie about income for income taxes. And then they get audited.

The difference here is that we definitively know how much income people make by collecting that number at several steps in the process - since wealth isn't transferred we only have the reporting party and estimations.

If we're okay being approximately correct that's much more reasonable though.

guessing at the wealth of some Bhutanese millionaire who has a deep in with the local government and can bribe officials to undervalue or misassign property would be extremely difficult.

I dont think people in small low income countries like bhutan are going to affect this tax much.

Bhutan was meant to be a non-controversial example let's instead consider Russia, do you think Russia will aide or hamper the ability for the international community to tax their oligarchs... please keep in mind that their government is entirely composed of oligarchs that are currently sanctioned by most western countries. What about Brazil, do you think some millionaire with close ties to the government is going to be accurately reported? Or do you think Brazil has a motivation to keep that money underreported in favor of bribes - bear in mind Brazil's long history of corruption.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

There's an actual simple solution.

Overfund the IRS and subsidize the tax agencies of other nations the same way we subsidize their militaries.

iirc every dollar invested in the IRS brings in about $300.00. That's with them avoiding the super rich because they have super lawyers.

[–] Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Also with taxes going to the government... There is a lot of corruption designed to bring those taxes back in the form subsidies, projects, funding etc. No guarantee taxes end up where they are needed.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While I agree that billionaires need to start paying their way, I cannot get on board with taxing someone for dying.

I think a better way is to remove all of the mechanisms in place that made them that wealthy in the first place.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Think of it as taxing the people getting the windfall, not the person dying.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When my mother died ( not a billionaire) I sure as hell didn't think that was a valid reason for the government to collect a payment.

I stand by what I said. Tax the crap out of them when they are alive and remove all of the mechanisms that got them this insane wealth.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

One of the biggest mechanisms that people get insane wealth is through inheritance though.