• Atropos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      What we need to do is implement “prestige wealth”. Once you hit, say, 100m you get your assets sold in order to fund a UBI, but you get a nice pin that marks your achievement.

      Every time you prestige, you get a new pin, but the color of the pin changes.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        12 days ago

        I’m totally cool with rewarding people for making a bunch of money and giving it back to the people. Hell, make each prestige cooler. You find 100 billion in taxes? We’ll build you a little statue. You fund 1 trillion dollars in taxes? You get to be on a coin or some shit. Really put these greedy fucks incessant need for attention to work.

    • thomas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Yeah, we can also make it fun. Once someone has amassed a certain quantity of wealth, make a big ceremony, where the guy is given a trophy that says “I won capitalism”. After that, every dollar he makes past the limit is taxed 100%

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        “I won capitalism”

        Or we could think outside of the system we’ve been indoctrinated to believe is the only one that can “work” (by the very few people it does actually work for), and eliminate capitalism altogether so that there is no incentive to extract and hoard wealth in the first place, because those don’t serve society in any way shape or form.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        No, let’s give them random privileges too. You get to drive in the HOV lane alone, you get a license made of metal, and you get to park in all handicap spaces except the closest to the entrance. And if you pay enough in taxes, you get an invite to the yearly pizza party with the president

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      How does that work though? Let’s say the maximum wealth limit is one billion dollars and you own $750M of stock in the company you founded. Your wealth could go above and below that $1B limit multiple times in a day as the stock price goes up and down. What happens then?

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 days ago

        I’ll preface this by saying the 1%'s stock holdings are pretty much the last thing I’m worried about protecting. But it could be as simple as requiring your wealth to be under the limit when you file your taxes. Let’s say it’s a billion dollars (I would argue it should be much lower). If you end the year with 11 billion dollars in wealth, you owe the government 10 billion dollars. There are controls we can put in place to prevent stock manipulation, similar to the ones we have now. Just actually enforced.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          I think what we would see in response to that is people hiding their wealth offshore, through private companies, through family members, trust funds, non-profit foundations etc.

          So the billionaire has 10 relatives and hires each of them at his company, giving them all stock options as a bonus, which come from his own personal accounts. Then when it comes to tax time he’s managed to limbo his way under the $1B bar.

          Take all your wealth and use it to set up a bunch of non-profit organizations for preserving national parks or saving the rainforest or running homeless shelters. Then have those foundations hire your family members to the boards of directors and pay each one millions of dollars in salaries.

          There are countless ways to do this. Not just for individuals but for companies. Apple is pretty infamous for its use of Ireland as a tax haven that allows it to avoid paying corporate (profit) taxes on all its sales in the EU.

          The other issue I foresee with the maximum wealth limit is how much chaos it could cause for companies. Let’s say you found a furniture company and run it really well and hire tons of employees. Then over time it grows above the billion dollar limit, so in order to pay your taxes you sell off the company to private equity who proceed to liquidate all its assets and fire all the employees. Without the limit in place you may have been happy to keep running the company and maintaining a great workplace for all your employees but the giant tax bill forced your hand. In the end, the company is largely destroyed, everyone has lost their jobs, and you retire with your billion dollars in cash.

          I think the above scenarios are problematic no matter what you set the limit to. It also doesn’t address the issue of private companies (not traded on the public stock exchange) which don’t have a nominal market value. Sure, they have a book value for all their hard assets, but that can be far lower than the true value of the company.

          Think of something like Snapchat which went from maybe a dozen employees and a bunch of laptops to rejecting a $3 billion buyout offer from Mark Zuckerberg just 3 years later. Anyway, also how to deal with that? Let’s say you have a small company making calculator apps for iOS and Android. You earn $10,000 a year in profits from sales. Then some group of investors come together and offer you $10 billion for your company. Is your company now worth $10B just because of the offer? You’re not on the stock market. You barely make enough money to pay rent, yet come tax time you owe $9B.

          You could say “well you rejected the offer so you don’t owe the government anything because you actually aren’t worth $10B.” But who decides what you’re worth? Snapchat rejected the $3B offer but most investors would’ve agreed they were worth it. But all they had was a few employees, some laptops and servers, and the app they made. They’re really not much different from the hypothetical calculator app company.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            12 days ago

            Wow, just running off into the wild blue yonder there. First of all, they already do all of that. A properly funded IRS would be able to go after them. There is only so much they can do.

            Second who needs a 3 billion dollar payday? 10 million, just a hair shy of an entire order of magnitude less; is enough to fly first class, own a mansion, own the luxury cars, attend every major sporting league championship, vacation in Bora Bora resorts half the year, and just generally party your way through the entire rest of life.

            Heck once you reach 1 million in stocks you can generally just stop working and live a normal life off the dividends alone.

            You’re out here defending literal bond villain levels of money. A billion dollars could employ a 100 people at 100k and leave you 990 million dollars left. That’s enough money to actually have a private militia. (100k is the going rate for good guard contracts with combat experience)

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              12 days ago

              Don’t mistake my argument for a defence of billionaires. I don’t care for them any more than anyone else here. I just want to make sure that any changes we make to the law actually work and accomplish their intended goal. Poorly-thought-out laws are worse than doing nothing: they can backfire.

              To give an example, the government of Canada passed a law called the Online News Act. This law targeted Google and Facebook with a special tax, called a link tax, that would force them to pay every time they or one of their users linked to a Canadian news site. The money collected by these link taxes would then go to pay to support Canadian news agencies in general.

              The law backfired. Google struck a deal with the largest Canadian newspapers to pay them a flat fee but Facebook went ahead and blocked every single link to a news site for all users in Canada. This left thousands of small, local, Canadian newspapers high and dry (they were getting most of their traffic from Facebook posts linking to them). A law intended to benefit Canadian news publishers ended up putting most of them out of business.

              The point of my previous example is to show that if a company is privately held (not traded on the stock market) then how much it is actually worth is not clear or obvious at all. This makes imposition of the $1B maximum wealth limit extremely difficult to properly implement.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                Or, if that’s your only concern, you make sure there’s a provision stating a company’s worth isn’t an issue unless someone is using it to fund their lifestyle.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 days ago

        End of day holdings. Also if you’re worried about ownership, we can just revert companies to contract ownership.

    • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Absolutely, even at something like 100 * min wage. Still a hell of a lot less than what’s happening today.