You’re just blaming the victims (of those evil billionaires)
The SNAP program costs ~$70B/year, so … not a whole lot.
I and most people know something about this Earth; the pie isn’t fixed. Neither wealth nor the economy in general is zero sum. If you disagree, let’s hear it.
Amazon has certainly gotten some revenue from me, but Bezos’ wealth is largely a result of what other people think the shares he holds are worth, not from extracting salary (~82k/yr last I heard), dividends ($0), stock($0), or stock options ($0) from what were until recently negligible profits earned off of the company’s some 600k employees’ labor.
He’s worth some $140B, and he didn’t take that from me or, for the most part, from anyone at all
This might concern me if it were happening, but it’s not.
Central planning has a dark history. I’m happy to let the market decide that Amazon is worth $600B rather than some “central thought”. If I thought that only those with power were getting the growth, I might be concerned, but instead I see a world today that’s generally a much better place to live in than the one I was born into.
Mostly this. In my experience, money is rarely the solution, but rather a palliative. “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.” True, but it ignores the hassle of teaching him, the cost of supplying him with fishing equipment, how will he cook the fish, etc. It’s still the best solution, but it’s not as simple as people would like. So we’ve gone with “Give a man a fish and at least he’ll stop bothering you until lunch time…”
IMHO the talk by Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and other Democrats talking about taxing the wealthy is in part a reaction against the tax law passed by Republicans in 2017. Republicans like to rant about how Democrats want to steal from the rich to give to the poor. The Republican plan, however, is essentially steal from the upper middle class to give to the rich. Of course it’s hard to get the poor to back a plan of stopping the rich from stealing from the upper middle class, so it turns into steal from the rich to give to the poor.
This would be impossible. No one has a billion dollars in income. They have it in unrealized capital gains. Warren Buffett has an annual salary of 100,000, Bezos has a salary of 81,000, Bill Gates was making 250,000 a year when he retired.
I think this is what I was trying to say above, but this says it more succinctly. If a billionaire’s holdings were to be garnished 1%, how would that work? Much of the wealth is tied-up and not something they have immediate access to (stocks, options, etc). Their “wallet wealth” is probably a lot more like your neighborhood millionaire - sure, they can buy whatever they want whenever they want, but there is no way for them to cash-out everything and have multiple-billions in a bank account (or to make the earnings from their holdings stop paying them dividends). For example, when Bezos announced his divorce, there was some consternation regarding his majority stake in the company, if his shares were to be split with is soon-to-be ex-wife.
I think the idea of garnishing a billionaire’s wealth is more complicated than it seems, and I am not sure there is an easy answer.
Edit: These are smart people, tho, so if they really wanted to divert some of their wealth to social causes, I am sure they could find a way.
Can someone explain to me how Jeff Bezos and his billions is responsible for homeless people? Or is the expectation that in addition to building a company that’s worth $150 billion and employing some 600,000 people, it’s now his responsibility to build homes for total strangers?
Yes, but that just proves my point as your house (presumably) doesn’t need round the clock police protection. We as a society believe you have the right to your house and all your shit. Chances are your neighbors won’t wait for you to leave for work so they can break in and rob you. In fact, they will most likely call the cops if they see someone acting suspicious around your home.
First get the profitable companies to pay taxes
Taxes are an expense. Profits are what is left after expenses.
There’s also nothing wrong with tax avoidance. In fact, it’s in one’s best interest.
I agree with all those points, which I hope are still clear without the original points they answer.
The ‘don’t spend or invest’ ‘their holding money stagnates things’ argument is utter hogwash. It often gets mixed in though with more potentially valid arguments about wealth inequality. It seems a deeply embedded notion that every economically related policy has to be billed ‘increasing growth’ and/or ‘creating jobs’. But some policies which do the opposite to some degree might be justified. And ‘left center’ policies often fall into this category. The idea that taxing wealth or capital more heavily would increase growth or employment is generally questionable, almost surely wrong if taken to the point of ‘what policies could we adopt so there wouldn’t be billionaires’ (which isn’t really very ‘center’ anyway). That doesn’t mean wealth redistribution should never be considered. Of course we already redistribute trillions annually as it is (though a trillion isn’t what it used to be 
)
In general I’d say some idea of stepping up wealth redistribution is not unreasonable. I don’t agree with it frankly but it’s not unreasonable. It’s very hard to believe though that you could come up with a system of ‘no billionaires’ or anything approaching it and not have stagnation, or a serious flight of innovation from whatever country did that, because there’s no way it will be all countries.
Even with recently proposed modest sounding wealth tax, 2-3%, that’s way more than most other existing wealth taxes in the rich world (which some countries do have, but a lot of relatively ‘socialistic’ ones, by US standards, don’t have). If a country, say the US, becomes the leading taxer of wealth, it’s quite plausible to worry if it would remain the leading innovator or among them.
These ideas are not Communism, but Lenin used to talk about how the public urinals should be made of gold, once Communism was adopted on a world scale. Even he realized the urinals would disappear quickly if it wasn’t on a world scale.
I think the framing of the OP is wrong.
It should not be about what we “allow” people to have.
They’ll always be some inequality, and aspiration is important to society. Besides, most people reading this are rich by historical standards…so where do we draw the line of what a person “should” have?
OTOH, if the question is whether the US government should aim to reduce inequality by improving the social safety net while asking those who can comfortably pay more tax to do so (and especially: close corporation loopholes), yeah, fuck yeah. Make american great for once.
If your tax rate is a negative, is it still an expense?
Maybe if a person working wasn’t underpaid by companies taking billions back in taxes then the reliance on gov assistance wouldn’t be so large. Guess that’s a different topic though.
My notion is that it’s the role of the government to stop a small group of people from controlling majority of the wealth and resources while everyone else suffers. There should be a wealth cap, and yeah it’s pandoras box waiting to be opened. We should go straight forward instead of beating around the bush. I think I heard someone recently say the “poor will eat the rich alive”.
That… What? No, that’s not how this works. Taxes are not an expense. Taxes on profit are calculated on a business’s profit. Unlike an expense, a tax on profit will never make your business unprofitable. It will only make it less profitable.
Blatant fraud is also in one’s best interest. I have no idea how you reach the conclusion that tax avoidance is perfectly acceptable; it’s a conclusion that is wrong to the point of libertarian self-parody.
Because we live in a society, and fundamentally have responsibilities towards each other? It seems intuitive to me that past a certain degree of affluence, if you choose not to spend that money helping people, you’re just kinda being a shitty person. If my lifestyle is utterly secure, and I have the choice between “save 50,000 lives” and “build a yacht with an iMax Theater”, if I choose the latter I’m basically just a heartless, evil fucker. This is why it’s so instructive to think of this kind of purchase in terms of opportunity cost - you’re not spending 100,000,000 dollars, you’re spending 50,000 Dead Children.
At what point do we stop quoting/responding to that kind of nonsense? It’s as silly as consistently trying to argue with a flat-earther in good faith, when they come back to every thread complaining that they can’t see the curvature of the earth.
Regarding the moral implications of this. Some people have the view that rich people have gotten everything by themselves (or through making good deals) and therefore deserve everything they have, as if this is some form of natural state of things. And then the state disturbs this natural state by collecting taxes.
In reality these people are so rich because of the state, not despite of it. Without such an organized society it would be impossible for one person to gather so much wealth and hold on to it. They are so rich because we as a society agree that they are rich. Without the state and efficient law enforcement many of these people would be dirt poor.
Of course, a lot of these people are extremely skilled and valuable to society, but the exact magnitude of their net worth is mostly a result of how society and the tax system works. Under another system, they wouldn’t be quite as rich and I see no moral problem with this.
Also, they do have access to their money of they want to. They could sell all of their companies. They probably won’t recover everything, as the stock prices would start falling as soon as they start selling, but they could get a substantial portion of it in cash. And if they are heavily taxed, I see nothing wrong with having to sell off portions of their companies in order to pay. I think you would need to be pretty heavily taxed before people lose their motivation to get rich.
Sure, they chose freely! Just like if I give somebody the chance to shovel shit for me, for which I provide him with the minimum sustenance to be able to continue shoveling shit, or starve to death. No right to complain, after all, they understood the arrangement!
Or, to put it another way: when all the available arrangements are bad, yet you still have to choose one, then yes, you are fully entitled to complain, and so are others capable of perceiving the immorality of the situation.
Well, off course it is! In most situations, nobody would bat an eye about that. Somebody’s drowning in a nearby lake; saving them will mean ruining your outfit, thus, costing you 100$. Are you obliged to invest this personal wealth in order to save a total stranger? Of course.
Now, before anybody brings up that old canard, this doesn’t mean that you have to give every dollar you have that you don’t directly need to charity. Just that there is no hard-and-fast distinction to be drawn, no definite sum that can be stated beyond which wealth becomes immoral, doesn’t mean that no viable distinction exists (implying it does is known as the continuum fallacy).
After all, there is no hard-and-fast line between birds and dinosaurs. Yet, if somebody tells you they went bird hunting, you don’t picture them shooting T-Rexes.