Should billionaires be taxed out of existence?

[meridian_blue]

Let's do a small though experiment here. Let's say Pikety is 100% right, and that we should tax every billionaire out of existence. Better yet, instead of taxing them on their business income let's round up all the greedy billionaires in the United States, throw them in jail, and confiscate all their assets - their planes, their fancy cars, their cash, their gold, their real estate, their companies, everything.

If we were somehow able to liquidate everything they owned (unlikely) we would collect a whopping $2.7 trillion (see List of Americans by net worth - Wikipedia).

Not bad, right? Until you realize how much our government really spends...

Our most recent federal budget is set for $4.75 trillion this year alone, and the federal debt is over $22 trillion. And that doesn't even include all the state, county, and municipal debt we hold either!

At the current rate we're running, all the money we confiscated would last us a little shy of 7 months (2.7/4.75 * 12). After that, we'd be back to broke. Except now, all the jobs are gone, the economy has imploded, and we're such an economic crisis that the Great Depression would look like a joke.

No matter how you slice and dice the money, there simply are not enough rich people out there to fund the types of policies we're proposing. Taxing the rich is no quick fix.

Sure you can argue about moral imperatives and the like (I too would love to see Jeff Bezos give more of his money to charity) but the only way we're going to get ourselves out of the problems we've created for ourselves is by innovating. And the best way to do that is by creating new businesses and designing new products to fix the problems we have - and thereby creating wealth for everyone in the process.

 

[StrikingViper69]

Piketty is evil. He wants to punish people for either being productive, or not being unfortunate, both of which are crazy reasons to punish people.

Yaron Brook co-wrote a book called "Equal is Unfair", which is a great rebuttal of Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century"

 

[YanC]

Typical French way of thinking: "I'm poor because you're rich and you stole my money". Wonder why some consider we are a communist country...

Taxes and social costs already account for almost 50% of the GDP. That's madness. Sweden reached 70% 20 years ago and guess what? Went bankrupt.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

The french economy isnt great from what ive seen, so i understand his frustration.

I am i believer of tax relief per job made. That way rich people are encouraged to hire more.
If a billionaire isnt contributing i dont mind them being taxed to death. Its not like they need the wealth for anything if its just hoarding. But its important to let business people grow.

Why should one man be able to decide what another man can keep, hoarding or not?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

I mostly agree with everyone on this thread, but I feel like the top 10 or 15 guys in the Bezos stratosphere (50B+) should have some sort of obligation to do more - not necessarily tax wise.

Don't sit here and talk about buying Porsche's or whatnot; these guys literally can't spend their money in 20 lifetimes even if they live every day like a degenerate college student who just won the lottery.

I wouldn't want the feds to take their money, cause that won't help with anything. but I do think that they should contribute directly more, somehow. I know they already are, but I just personally feel like at a certain point, it gets kind of ridiculous.

Amazon has about 300,000 employees.

This was only possible due to Bezos starting the company and taking risks others weren't wiling to take.

Now, Amazon feeds and houses 300,000 families because of the value the company creates through its competitive advantage and hard work of their team.

That's a lot of social contribution if you ask me.

Beyond that, Bezos does donate to charity, but minimally so.

Why you may ask? Because by and large, charity is the 2nd worst allocation of capital (paying taxes is #1) you could possibly make.

Just look up the largest charitable organizations in the world. Very few actually give 20% or more to the actual cause. Most of the money ends up in the hands of administrators.

The best "charity" Bezos and others like him can provide is to continue to be economically productive hiring more employees and empowering more people to take care of themselves.

 

[broswoodwork]

Have we even broached the subject of where that taxed money goes?

It's taken from the most productive class of citizens, and the "poor" that everyone believes will be the direct beneficiaries sees barely a shred of it. It's a public sector marketing gimmick to move money from private hands to millions of social workers and other human paper weights in government make-work departments.

Basically stealing from the rich to give to the department of motor vehicles.

 

[Kybalion]

On one hand, there should be a mechanism in place to make sure that the population doesn't go out of hand... It would be beneficial for everyone, and I believe that billionaires are already investing in such mechanisms.

At least from what I gather from this article is that Pickety is making an argument that just because the money isn't redistributed for public infrastructure (which has enabled billionaires to raise up) they should be taxed to ''give back to society''.

In this case, I guess he defines economic growth as more public property? More roads? More buildings? More money for the poor?

He still attacks these problems from a very outdated perspective. Humans (including me) are very psychologically flawed. Our problems are not really material, they are mostly mental.

I think that enforcement of man-made obligations will always be bypassed. If you are smart enough to become a billionare no socialist academic will ever force you to give up your wealth. At the end of the day he is just making dangerous ''feel good sounds'' to appeal to have-nots, who share his beliefs.

If anyone has read Atlas Shrugged, it will be easy to draw paralels with some of the socialist socialites from the book.

I think that giving should come from a place of empathy and shouldn't be forced. When we will truly feel connected it will seem ridiculous to not share.

Right now we are very primitive species (in comparison to what we could be in an utopic scenario).

To sum it up - if the motivation comes from outside sources and not from genuine intention to help others, then every solution will be another bandage on an infected wound.

 

[GlobalWealth]

80/20 -> 64/4 -> 51.2/0.8

0.8% of people will own 51.2% of all wealth. It's just the laws of nature.

@SamRussell you saying "America is not a capitalist country." seems rather...odd. If it's not a capitalistic country then what is it? Surely you can't make a strong argument that it's a socialist country...

The US has been a socialist country for decades actually. If you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you will see the US has partially for fully "ticked" all 10 boxes.


Karl Marx's "10 Planks" to seize power and destroy freedom:

1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.​
2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.​
3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.​
4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.​
5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.​
6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.​
7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.​
8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.​
9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.​
10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in it's Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.​

1- there is no such thing as private property in the US. don't believe me? stop paying property tax and see who owns it.
2- no comment necessary
3- the US partially ticked this box with an inheritance tax
4- eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture
5- federal reserve
6- state owned infrastructure, radio frequency licensing, etc.
7- central planning, licensing, property tax, corporate tax, land use permitting, etc.
8- department of agriculture, farmer subsidies, growth mandates for farmers
9- central planning, zoning, permits
10- department of education dictating curriculum, property tax to pay for public schools

 

[Dominik_M]

How can we justify that their existence is necessary for the common good?

What the f**k?
Is it their jobs to be "necessary for the common good"?
Is it anyones job to be?

 

[broswoodwork]

Billionaires hurt economic growth and should be taxed out of existence, says bestselling French economist

Ayn Rand wasn't a novelist; she was a time traveller.

 

[RazorCut]

Why should one man be able to decide what another man can keep, hoarding or not?

He can't, it's purely academic. The French have had a bee in their bonnet since before the Revolution. If I were to go after anyone it would be to monopolies that use their dominant position to profiteer. Especially in the field of medicine.

For the most part billionaires made their money providing what the people wanted on a large scale (that includes hedge fund managers). Note I didn't say provided value because that is subjective in as what is considered value to one could be the opposite to another.

Also opinion changes over time. A company producing one use carrier bags would have been commended once upon a time, now they are pariahs due to the damage their product does to the environment. Of course it always did damage but the more successful their product the more damage it did and so the more obvious it became.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Jon L]

Agreed in a free market economy. However I was thinking more along the lines of patents on medicines. Then using that protection to charge exorbitant prices for these products. Way above the costs of research, production and sensible returns.

It's one of the reasons our health service is on its knees having pharmaceutical companies siphon off vast sums of money to line their coffers. But then I have an issue with profiteering from health care (as opposed to incorporating in a fair margin).

I don't agree. Let's look at Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical. Last year, they brought in $53B with a gross profit of $42B. That's a lot of money. Now, lets subtract all their expenses. That leaves us with $11B net profit.

Now, let's say that we think that a 20% profit margin is 'unreasonable' and that it should be more like 5%. That means we can reduce Pfizer prescription prices by around $8B. That reduces their revenue by 15%, which means that prescription costs on Pfizer's drugs are reduced by 15%.

A 15% discount is nice, but its hardly earth shattering. Its also not worth the problems that will come with it. For example, who is it that decides that a 20% margin is unreasonable? Will they come for your business next? Do you think they will be 'reasonable' when they decide you're making too much money? What exactly is an unreasonable profit margin, and why is it unreasonable? Why does no one care that Apple, Google and Microsoft each make far more money that Pfizer does? Are their profits unreasonable?

 

[WJK]

Billionaires hurt economic growth and should be taxed out of existence, says bestselling French economist

I read the article and he just doesn't understand what makes people get in the morning and work. There are several problems with what he's saying:

1. In the USA, you can't have a wealth tax. That's a 5th Amendment taking issue. Money is a form of property -- the Constitution says that the government cannot take your property without paying YOU the fair value of it. How does anyone think this would work? (Note: They can only do an income tax because of a Constitutional Amendment that gives them that power. And that power is totally limited.)

2. If you divide up the money equally between humans, you're going to have to divide again every Friday night. It's the 80/20 rule. 80% of the money is earned by 20% of the people. Some people are good at earning and caring for money. Some are terrible at earning it, managing it and stockpiling it. The money pile at the end of the week will end up the same guy's hand time after time.

3. If you tell the billionaires that you don't want them, their skills, and their money by taxing them too much, they'll vote with their feet. They'll move to somewhere that wants them and their assets.

4. The guy at the top of the heap makes it all look easy. It's the mark of an expert. Everyone thinks that they can be him. Fat chance! You don't wander into these fortunes by being a dumb cluck. You must be strategically smart. It takes nerves of steel and the relentless forward pull of a freight train.

I really think that the man who wrote that article should retire and put down his pen. His bright-green-eyed-envy have gotten in way of his common sense.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

He can't, it's purely academic. The French have had a bee in their bonnet since before the Revolution. If I were to go after anyone it would be to monopolies that use their dominant position to profiteer. Especially in the field of medicine.

For the most part billionaires made their money providing what the people wanted on a large scale (that includes hedge fund managers). Note I didn't say provided value because that is subjective in as what is considered value to one could be the opposite to another.

Also opinion changes over time. A company producing one use carrier bags would have been commended once upon a time, now they are pariahs due to the damage their product does to the environment. Of course it always did damage but the more successful their product the more damage it did and so the more obvious it became.

Nearly entirely agree - but I would let monopolies alone... even if they are 'profiteering'.

Truly profiteering is only possible with government intervention.

In a free market, if a company increases prices, it makes competition more attractive. If they increase prices by a crazy amount, then they invite competition into the field.

Say a healthcare company increases prices by 10x, and they are the only healthcare company at the point in time. What you will see, is competition entering the market like mad. Prices would quickly come back down again.

In fact, price gouging is only really possible with help from the government.

If someone increased prices by XYZ, competition entering the field can only be prevented with the help of the government, e.g. "licencing", or a market distortion creating an artificial barrier to entry, such as taxes (hitting the bottom line twice, once from the taxes and a second time with the admin required).

If a monopoly has been created by lowering prices or creating a more efficient process, or a unique product, then the monopoly position has been earned, until someone comes up with a better method.

 

[Tourmaline]

I hope France tries. Do they think billionaires are that stupid or that their country is that special?

It will result in a mass exodus of their most productive people.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GlobalWealth]

Compare that to how apple has an effective tax rate of 3.5% while the little guy has what 40%?

Apple overpays by 3.5%.

The little guy overpays by 40%.

Theft is theft, regardless of how much I steal from your wallet.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lewj24]

I hate when people want to tax the rich. My coworker heard on the news about some new tax proposed for the rich and said, "I don't care, doesn't affect me." This is how the average person views it. They think it won't affect them but it will. The person who pays your salary is probably rich and if they have to pay more in taxes then they can't pay you more and might have to pay you less.

I also hate when people say things like, "Bezos has $100 Billion dollars, that's ridiculous how does one man have so much money? That's not right, you couldn't spend that much money if you tried!" I hate it because it's not true. Bezos doesn't have that much money. He owns stock in a company that is worth that much money. There's a big difference.

People think rich people just sit on piles of cash. How dumb. Rich people invest that cash into the market. They buy stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. which help grow the economy. Even if they kept millions in a bank account and did nothing with it they are still investing in the market. You think the bank just sits on that big pile of cash? No! The bank invests it!

Taxing the rich is bad for the economy.

 

[Dominik_M]

Why should one man be able to decide what another man can keep, hoarding or not?

Exactly, if it's my money, leave me the hell alone with it. It's my decision to donate it to charity or use it to buy my fifth Porsche. Not a state's decision to make.

 

[broswoodwork]

I mostly agree with everyone on this thread, but I feel like the top 10 or 15 guys in the Bezos stratosphere (50B+) should have some sort of obligation to do more - not necessarily tax wise.

Don't sit here and talk about buying Porsche's or whatnot; these guys literally can't spend their money in 20 lifetimes even if they live every day like a degenerate college student who just won the lottery.

I wouldn't want the feds to take their money, cause that won't help with anything. but I do think that they should contribute directly more, somehow. I know they already are, but I just personally feel like at a certain point, it gets kind of ridiculous.

Here's the problem though...

Anything they do to contribute more, at least in ways that actually positively impact our lives, is only going to increase their wealth. Then people will only be more angry.

 

[StrikingViper69]

I should prelude the replies to this with the following disclaimer - I'm discussing billionaires and private / intellectual property rights (the real discussion here) under the premise of a capitalist economy - which is to say, an economy with 0 government intervention.

America is not a capitalist country. It used to be. American healthcare is not "private", it's a disastrous hybrid of government mixed with private industry. If I was cynical, I would argue it's a marketing move by power grabbing politicians - "look how the private healthcare system is failing. Let us fix that for you". It's like stabbing someone in the leg and then telling them how dangerous life can be, so you will take care of them.

Anyway,

tl;dr cutting edge technology is always going to expensive, and that applies to healthcare too.

The problem is you price it out of the hands of those that need it and people suffer and die. All down to unnecessary greed.

A metaphysical part of being human, is that we will experience suffering, and we will die (side note, this isn't to take a nihilistic outlook on life, it's just a fact of reality).

There is no getting around this. Sometimes... bad things happen and there is no real reason for it.

We can all (I hope) have empathy for others. But there is a line between empathy and responsibility, and your argument crosses this line.

This argument has no real basis and is succesfull by its ability to induce guilt.

Worse, is that complying with this line of morality, can only lead to complete self destruction or permanent guilt. If you allowed the needs of others to be a blank cheque on your life... where are you going to end up? Either working yourself to death or penniless in a gutter.

"Unnecessary greed"
Which means what? "Someone made something and set a price for it that some other people accepted". Unnecessary greed is a meaningless phrase.

Also the guy spending 5 years of his life developing it is most likely an employee who would be much happier if the drug was available to all at a sensible price but that’s not his call as it’s way beyond his pay grade as he is a tiny cog in a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Or maybe he is happier knowing that his talents can be put to work to help some people because he has the backing of multi-billion dollar corporation. Or maybe he doesn't give a f*** either way and he does the job so he can bang hookers all weekend.

This isn't an argument, its random conjecture.

So you don’t see a problem with only ‘special cases’ having access to life saving drugs? Well let’s hope no one you love is ever deemed less than special then shall we?

You're distorting what I said. I didn't say only special cases should have access to life saving drugs. I said that those that develop them should be able to choose the price. Just like you choose the price for your products.

And just like your products, the market responds.

You don't give away your products just because people need them... do you?

You're projecting one moral code on one set of people, and another for yourself.

Again, need does not entitle anyone to anything, let alone the work of another.

You've made an argument that attempts to guilt / shame me, rather than exposing a potential flaw in my principles / ideas.

What would I do if someone I loved needed an expensive operation / drug? You can betcha a$$ that myself and everyone else around them would band together and try and figure it out.

Sure you can argue about moral imperatives and the like (I too would love to see Jeff Bezos give more of his money to charity) but the only way we're going to get ourselves out of the problems we've created for ourselves is by innovating. And the best way to do that is by creating new businesses and designing new products to fix the problems we have - and thereby creating wealth for everyone in the process.

"A man is only good if he sacrifices"

So after revolutionising an industry and creating 1000s of jobs... you will only deem him to be a good man if he gives away what he has earned?

How much should be give away to be a "good man"? 10%? 30%? Enough to have to change his lifestyle for something slightly worse?

Do you want to see other become better off... or do you want to see him become worse off... ?

The problem is when a pharma company holds the only patent to the only drug for that disease/condition.

They charge out the a$$ because they know daddy government will back them up.

Meanwhile the patients are suffering because they can’t afford the ridiculous prices, and private insurance won’t cover it because there’s no profit.

Protecting intellectual property is one of the few things a government actually should be doing. There will always be suffering, there is nothing you or I can do to change that, and holding innovators hostage to an arbitrary set of standards certainly won't help.

 

[GlobalWealth]

I'm guessing you would quite like the Estonian system. 0% on undistributed profits(Left in the company) and 20% on distributions like Salaries/dividends/benefits in kind so no one can buy a "company yacht" and just use it themselves. Anyone with offshore income or self-employed pays 20%,nobody else has to worry.

Speaking as someone who owns an Estonian company, I can tell you it is not nearly as good as the marketing suggests.

The E-residency project is a well marketed joke. The only thing it allows you to do is open a company in Estonia, which is not really ideal except under a few certain niche situations.

It was targeted toward location independent entrepreneurs and freelancers, but there are dozens of better options than Estonia for company formation.

As for tax, it is much more complicated that you stated. Taxation will depend on the owners personal tax home. For example, if you are a German residency with an Estonian company, Estonia will remit tax information to Germany and you will be taxed in Germany at the German rate, not Estonian rate.

If you have no tax home, it is possible you will be taxed at the Estonian rate, however under the new CRS directive, most likely Estonia will remit tax information back to your country of citizenship thus you will be taxed in your country of citizenship, regardless of whether or not you live there.

 

[Pink Sheep]

The french economy isnt great from what ive seen, so i understand his frustration.

I am i believer of tax relief per job made. That way rich people are encouraged to hire more.
If a billionaire isnt contributing i dont mind them being taxed to death. Its not like they need the wealth for anything if its just hoarding. But its important to let business people grow.

 

[StrikingViper69]

Agreed in a free market economy. However I was thinking more along the lines of patents on medicines. Then using that protection to charge exorbitant prices for these products. Way above the costs of research, production and sensible returns.

It's one of the reasons our health service is on its knees having pharmaceutical companies siphon off vast sums of money to line their coffers. But then I have an issue with profiteering from health care (as opposed to incorporating in a fair margin).

I don't see a problem with that.

If you spend 5 years of your life developing a new drug, then why should anyone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it?

If you charge an exorbitant price, then no-one will buy it. If you charge a high price and people are prepared to pay it... I don't see a problem. If it really is that great a drug, private charities would probably subsidise it for special cases like they do for other healthcare expenses

 

[Bourbons]

Isnt that essentially what every tax is, someone is decision that you should give up your money in that situation?

Inheritance tax, income tax, council tax, usually based on if you have or have not and to what degree

 

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

I don't see a problem with that.

If you spend 5 years of your life developing a new drug, then why should anyone be able to tell you what you can and can't do with it?

If you charge an exorbitant price, then no-one will buy it. If you charge a high price and people are prepared to pay it... I don't see a problem. If it really is that great a drug, private charities would probably subsidise it for special cases like they do for other healthcare expenses

The problem is when a pharma company holds the only patent to the only drug for that disease/condition.

They charge out the a$$ because they know daddy government will back them up.

Meanwhile the patients are suffering because they can’t afford the ridiculous prices, and private insurance won’t cover it because there’s no profit.

 

[Rabby]

The idea that billionaires are evil is lame zero-sum thinking. I don't think they hurt the economy at all; on the contrary, their activities are organizing more people and resources than anyone else. How many people depend on one billionaire for their livlihood? How many people's quality of life is improved by one billionaire's products?

That said. There is something to the IP arguments in this thread. Maybe look at this a different way...

Most billionaires are this rich because governments grant them monopoly rights - over a drug, a technology, a trademark, etc.

That being the case, isn't it strange to ask governments to solve the "problem," if you see it as such, through taxation?

It's like if I was starting houses on fire, and you asked me to fix the problem by pouring water on the houses after I start them on fire. One person or entity shouldn't be both the cause and solution to your perceived problem; it's illogical.

Either the granting of monopoly rights for innovation is ok, or it isn't, or it should be improved. That's where the conversation should be. The idea of "fixing" the innovation-reward system through taxation is ludicrous. It's asking the arsonist to douse fires.

 

[LittleWolfie]

I am i believer of tax relief per job made. That way rich people are encouraged to hire more.

I quite like the idea of reducing corporate tax based on employment,though that doesn't help the individual billionaire, I guess.

He can't, it's purely academic. The French have had a bee in their bonnet since before the Revolution. If I were to go after anyone it would be to monopolies that use their dominant position to profiteer. Especially in the field of medicine.

For the most part billionaires made their money providing what the people wanted on a large scale (that includes hedge fund managers). Note I didn't say provided value because that is subjective in as what is considered value to one could be the opposite to another.

Also in some cases,F***ing over employees. That riles up the French a lot

I mostly agree with everyone on this thread, but I feel like the top 10 or 15 guys in the Bezos stratosphere (50B+) should have some sort of obligation to do more - not necessarily tax wise.

Don't sit here and talk about buying Porsche's or whatnot; these guys literally can't spend their money in 20 lifetimes even if they live every day like a degenerate college student who just won the lottery.

I wouldn't want the feds to take their money, cause that won't help with anything. but I do think that they should contribute directly more, somehow. I know they already are, but I just personally feel like at a certain point, it gets kind of ridiculous.

Here's the problem though...

Anything they do to contribute more, at least in ways that actually positively impact our lives, is only going to increase their wealth. Then people will only be more angry.

Actually they could increase their pay to employees. I doubt Bezos would even notice if all Amazon pickers and packers had their salary doubled and all their health insurance paid, and sick leave so they no longer have to work and be worried about the expense of an ambulance when they collapse form exhaustion on the floor. Billioaires ca only spend so much, the extra ages would trickle up through the consumer sector and encourage more b2c and b2bs.

So while they would be richer in absolute terms, the lower ratio and lower income equality would reduce the anger.

Let's do a small though experiment here. Let's say Pikety is 100% right, and that we should tax every billionaire out of existence. Better yet, instead of taxing them on their business income let's round up all the greedy billionaires in the United States, throw them in jail, and confiscate all their assets - their planes, their fancy cars, their cash, their gold, their real estate, their companies, everything.

If we were somehow able to liquidate everything they owned (unlikely) we would collect a whopping $2.7 trillion (see List of Americans by net worth - Wikipedia).

Not bad, right? Until you realize how much our government really spends...

Our most recent federal budget is set for $4.75 trillion this year alone, and the federal debt is over $22 trillion. And that doesn't even include all the state, county, and municipal debt we hold either!

At the current rate we're running, all the money we confiscated would last us a little shy of 7 months (2.7/4.75 * 12). After that, we'd be back to broke. Except now, all the jobs are gone, the economy has imploded, and we're such an economic crisis that the Great Depression would look like a joke.

No matter how you slice and dice the money, there simply are not enough rich people out there to fund the types of policies we're proposing. Taxing the rich is no quick fix.

Sure you can argue about moral imperatives and the like (I too would love to see Jeff Bezos give more of his money to charity) but the only way we're going to get ourselves out of the problems we've created for ourselves is by innovating. And the best way to do that is by creating new businesses and designing new products to fix the problems we have - and thereby creating wealth for everyone in the process.

Just to play the scenario out, Pikety is French, their debt is just under €2 billion so a 90% asset tax on 10 billionaires would pay that off with a nice surplus

The idea that billionaires are evil is lame zero-sum thinking. I don't think they hurt the economy at all; on the contrary, their activities are organizing more people and resources than anyone else. How many people depend on one billionaire for their livlihood? How many people's quality of life is improved by one billionaire's products?

That said. There is something to the IP arguments in this thread. Maybe look at this a different way...

Most billionaires are this rich because governments grant them monopoly rights - over a drug, a technology, a trademark, etc.

That being the case, isn't it strange to ask governments to solve the "problem," if you see it as such, through taxation?

It's like if I was starting houses on fire, and you asked me to fix the problem by pouring water on the houses after I start them on fire. One person or entity shouldn't be both the cause and solution to your perceived problem; it's illogical.

Either the granting of monopoly rights for innovation is ok, or it isn't, or it should be improved. That's where the conversation should be. The idea of "fixing" the innovation-reward system through taxation is ludicrous. It's asking the arsonist to douse fires.

It is amusing how the industrial revolution started after the steam engine patents expired.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Tourmaline]

@BJdeMarco A utopian one world government. What could go wrong?

 

[lludwig]

No matter how you slice and dice the money, there simply are not enough rich people out there to fund the types of policies we're proposing. Taxing the rich is no quick fix.

That's why these tax policies are really a method to punish success and not help the poor.

 

[Kid]

I won't protect neither capitalists nor socialists.

The thing is that if you want to tax billionaires (and possibly, millionaires)
it's basically an experiment on live organism.

The odds of dying ?

History teaches us that economy driven by government failed.
Even China growth was done only by making it mostly capitalistic.

Do we have any example that taxing millionaires and billionaires
will bring "common good"? And won't turn your country into
totalitarian place where rising an eyebrow can make you detained
and killed?

It's like, ok you will have median income, stable job, your medical problems will be covered and there won't be any "*onaires"
... but when your kid will want ask questions or move to other country,
he will suddenly disappear.
All you will have to live with is the vision of your child being killed, possibly raped, and dumped into hole in the ground.

Going back to our experiment.

We have many examples of it not working.
We have no example of it working.

I'm not saying that capitalism is good.
But i know what happened to countries that tried to live "common good" utopia.