• BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, a 95% marginal tax rate and both a massive inheritance and transfer of assets while alive (not sure how it’s called) taxes would solve most of the problem.

        • Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 hours ago

          (not sure how it’s called)

          I think you are looking for “wealth tax”

          Also the US has inheritance tax that kicks in once an estate exceeds 5million dollars. The problem is that you can bypass that limit by establishing a trust that holds all your assets. If before your death you put everything over 5million in a trust (baisically a legal contract that acts like a container for assets that a lawyer oversees to make sure the contract is executed) then it stops being your wealth and starts being the trust’s wealth. A trust can have any arbitrary set of rules, for example it could be as simple as: wisely invest my assets and pay out an income to my surviving decendants from the intrest and their decendants. Or ot could be: while i live pay me out, on my death distribute everything left to charities my children are ungreatful brats and don’t get anything. Really it can be anything.

          Those are really useful if for example you have 3 unmarried adults who want to share property and make sure property rights transfer between them until everyone is dead then the trust is disolved and the property goes to: favorite niece or something. It can also be useful to allow joint ownership of regulated items that otherwise can’t be jointly owned (e.g. machine guns) they are also more powerful than a will if for example you want to make sure your grandkids get college money, or dont get any money until 25, while their parents get nothing and so on… anything you can put on a contract can rule the trusts assets.

          So realistically the solution here is to cap how much value can be in a trust, say 5million dollars, and limit how many trusts an individual can be a benneficiary of, lets say 3 trusts at a time.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It almost looks like it‘s designed to fail. Probably all of those billionaires will be richer by the end of the year this tax comes into effect. Meanwhile the money raised from it won‘t be enough to solve all that many issues. It‘s not really supposed to but billionaires and their outlets will keep telling us how „taxing the rich was tried and failed!!!“ Mark my words.

    • Waterpumpee@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I was going to answer how taxing income instead of assets is more effective because it emphasizes reinvesting and creating jobs. But billionaires shouldnt exist. Its just too much accumulated in one person.

        • bacon_pdp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          56 minutes ago

          At 2% it would hurt those who hold bonds at 3.9% (and below) and when there is a planned 2% inflation rate. (The economy is usually better for the working class when bonds average between 2-5% returns).

          But I agree that it should be global.

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            33 minutes ago

            The 2% would be applied to households worth 100 million dollars or more, I’m pretty sure they could spare the change without much impact on their lifestyles.