Should the richest 1% – who gained $42T/decade – be taxed more?

UK top marginal tax rate right now is 45%. Many people pay it: doctors, lawyers, architects, not just greedy evil bankers with their big bad bonuses.

I don't want the ultra rich to have some special mega-tax to tax them for their obscene wealth. I want their effective income to be taxed the same as all these middle class people pay. As it keeps cropping up, they pay much less, via offshore wealth, accounting tricks etc.

I don't know enough about accounting to suggest how this should be done, but to me this ought to be the objective, not some punitive tax, referring to starving children in poor countries.

I make 750k a year, give or take. I think I paid 150k in taxes, more or less, last year.

I would gladly pay 600k a year in taxes if it meant healthcare, education, housing, and food were secured for all.

Let me keep 20% of my work for luxuries I like, but the fact that I'm only paying like 20% is fucking criminal while people are starving in this country.

I recognize I'm differently wired and have different values than most, but like, there has to be a line between 20% and 80% tax rate that we can live with.

Gary Stevenson, former top Citibank London trader, has a YouTube channel centered on taxing the rich as a solution to wealth inequality.

Highly recommended.

https://youtu.be/jFHGiq063rA?si=N64KIhk8ezl7tEEm

I‘d argue that we could question how they were able to acquire this amount of money in the first place.

Maybe there's something disfunctional about an economic system that lets ordinary people set up complex product and distributions systems, and then take all the money from them forever.

There's something in Europe called VAT that addresses this.

It's important to come up with some kind of solution. When the current system reduces to a single purveyor for every product sector, which we're heading for at breakneck speed right now, there will be only a few people owning the whole shebang, and nobody to buy the products because nobody else is needed/has a job at all.

What's often ignored is whether or not these are Realized Gains

I wouldn't be surprised if a huge majority of that $42T wasn't realized gains (sold and attributed as a Capital Gain).

It's hugely unfair to tax non-Realized Gains ... because that would be like you having the pay Income taxes on the appreciation of your home - even though you still live in your home and haven't "realized" those gains (to pay the capital gain taxes)

> Oxfam described the summit as a ‘real litmus test for G20 governments’, urging them to implement an annual net wealth tax of at least eight per cent on the ultra-wealthy.

All the governments should agree and play along. As soon a few don't, the wealth will flow there. It's seems trivial, to just increase the tax from 7% to 8%, what's the big deal, just 1% more. But there is a country which for some reason thinks it can profit more from the wealthy moving their money there so they set their rate at 7.5%.

The critical part is that wealthy lobby (i.e. bribe) politicians and have enough resources to drum up support from the public via various interest groups and so on. In public they'll agree with the need for more taxes, and more environment protections, all the feel-good topics. But behind the scenes, they'll put the finger on the scale in their favor.

The imputed tax rate is misleading since it conflates unrealized capital gains--assets that have appreciated in value but have not been sold--with income. I would be cautious about imposing "cures" that may cause more problems than the current level of income inequality.

It's less a question of should or shouldn't but rather can we.

Not convinced there is either the collective willpower or ability to enforce this, never mind both in sufficient quantities spread across the globe in a manner to ensure coverage to prevent the wealth simply moving

I think taxing corporations and removing loopholes will make a much more immediate impact. Tax code is too complex and too many business have ways to dodge.

Government has proven over and over they are not equipped to spend the money in an effective manner.

Why take money from people who employ others and build businesses to waste on nothing?

$7.5 billion to build 8 ev charging stations? (Edit: I accidentally said 8 billion charging stations originally)

Billions to build a few miles of rail in California.

How many billions on wars?

And every year government spending just goes up with almost nothing to show for the average citizen

Real question is why are countries cooperating on tax rates? I’m glad the US is not cooperating. Each country is free to implement whatever rules they want as long as they are willing to deal with citizens leaving for other countries.

It’s a great way to prevent poor countries from enticing rich people to move there

TLDR: No, of course not, that's stupid because taxes are already way too high on income and taxes on assets are extremely bad. We really should break up the monopolies/oligopolies feeding a significant portion of that wealth though.

These articles are always extremely obnoxious because they routinely mix up assets and income and have no idea how taxes actually work ignoring that dividends are already taxed once at the corporate level so it is extremely unfair to compare income tax paid on a dividend to income tax paid on income without looking at income tax paid by the corporation on those earnings and when you do that the total income tax is almost always higher than just earning the dollar as income.

Further, these initiatives distract from policy action that would actually improve the world, substituting policy action that will only grow government and make it even more wasteful without accomplishing much of anything beyond that. We need to stop talking about stealing more from the winners and instead look at how to ensure they are only winning up to the point where market power abuse becomes obvious and then are mitigated (likely through breaking up the company). We should be starting now with breaking up the myriad obvious oligopolies operating today (looking at you fang stocks, various agricultural conglomerates, various retail operations, etc. with large market shares)

The slogan "Tax the rich" is one of those ideas that seems straightforward and appealing at first glance, but it quickly falls apart under closer scrutiny. It's a simplistic solution often promoted by those who lack a deeper understanding of politics and economics. The notion that all of a country's problems can be solved by simply taking more money from "the rich" is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, the revenue generated from taxing the wealthy would be surprisingly small in comparison to the overall government budget. While some might argue that "every little bit helps," this ignores the negative consequences of increased taxes on high earners, a reality that many prefer to overlook. History has repeatedly shown that societies leaning too heavily on state control, as seen in failed communist experiments, suffer when individual initiative and enterprise are stifled.

Moreover, societal problems are complex, and simply throwing more money at them rarely yields meaningful results. Effective politics is about making informed choices and sound decisions, not resorting to oversimplified slogans. The hard left's reflexive call to "Tax the rich more!" as a catch-all solution is not just naïve—it's intellectually bankrupt.

A dilemma perhaps would be if the wealthy are taxed more it will only lead to greater budget deficit spending. I would support higher taxes for specific programs, but want to see a balance budget first.

Close the tax loopholes and we should benefit. As it stands, the vast majority of the rich pay very little effective tax. Collectively, the low-income bracket pays more tax.

The problem should be addressed at source - prevent excessive accumulation of wealth in the first place.

Nobody. The answer is nobody should be taxed more.

No, this is just social engineering.

Do you want a fairer society, or a society in which the poor are better off in absolute terms? Your choice.

I mean, obviously. But the question is "how?".

A lot of the proposals like unearned capital gains taxes or wealth taxes all come with a lot of downsides. Including not actually generating much revenue in practice.

The countries are at something of at a Nash Equilibrium. Everyone wants the golden eggs, nobody wants to kill the gooses. Nobody wants their billionaires' money to flight.

Yes.

Next question.

Yes

Of course they should. Even Nixon charged a marginal tax rate of above 70%. Roosevelt charged 94%. It is not only a matter of fairness, but not doing so is also very dangerous. Billionaires shouldn't exist. A few had a ton of merit. Many inherited. All of them were very lucky, regardless of their merit and effort. But none of the billionaires was elected by the people to have the completely disproportionate power they have over society.

So, while I am completely for capitalism and low taxes for everyone, including the wealthy, billionaires should be taxed out of existence. Basically, I think the tax rate curve should be like a hockey stick. Very flat and then suddenly all the way up to almost 100%. The old billionaires would still be able to live very comfortable lifes as millionaires.

No single country should be doing this by itself, though. It should be a coordinated effort.

Because capitalism is unbalanced, it was inevitable that it would eventually destroy itself and corrupt our public institutions in the process. The problem is, the people who capital has power over, labor, which is most people on the planet, will be the ones who get hurt the most in the process. And that’s not even considering the cost to earth and its nonhuman inhabitants.

Why we believe that the government is the most efficient capital allocator when evidence tells us otherwise? Put the incentives to increase entrepreneurship and education in poor areas, like lower taxes and lower barriers of entry.

Yes, but what will the government do with the money. We could already build Eden on earth if it weren't for wars. Governments keep spending money on wars, so what's the point of taking more in taxes. It will all go to shits anyways.

And by the way, if you think that governments are accountable to the public you are sadly mistaken. They are accountable to that 1%.

There are three major reasons why, with very few exceptions, wealth doesn't last centuries:

1. Descendants of really successful people tend to fritter away that wealth, thinking they're as gifted as their forebears. Look no further than the Vanderbilts;

2. Families have a tendency to die out over generations. The Roman Republican originally had 45 patrician families. By the time of Gaius Julius Caesar (who was from a patrician family), there were 15 IIRC; and

3. The ultimate form of wealth redistribution is war and revolution.

Most long-lasting family wealth tends to be monarchies of some kind.

Therea are a bunch of arguments you'll hear why taxing the rich more can't or shouldn't happen. They're all lies.

1. Capital flight. The rich will leave. Great. You lose the ability to sell to customers in our country then;

2. Taxing unrealized stock gains is impossible and/or unfair. We do this to property just fine. Companies produce tax statements of unrealized gains just fine;

3. The dreaded slippery slope arguments. "If they go after Bezos, next they'll come after me with my $42,000 a year job and 2011 Camry".

A stable society and political climate is completely necessary for this wealth to exist. Having the wealthy pay for the society that makes their wealth possible while avoiding their heads ending up on pikes or in guillotines is entirely just, possible and moral.