Brazil's Radical Plan To Tax Global Super-Rich To Tackle Climate Crisis (theguardian.com) 167
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Proposals to slap a wealth tax on the world's super-rich could yield $250 billion a year to tackle the climate crisis and address poverty and inequality, but would affect only a small number of billionaire families, Brazil's climate chief has said. Ministers from the G20 group of the world's biggest developed and emerging economies are meeting in Rio de Janeiro this weekend, where Brazil's proposal for a 2% wealth tax on those with assets worth more than $1 billion is near the top of the agenda. No government was speaking out against the tax, said Ana Toni, who is national secretary for climate change in the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "Our feeling is that, morally, nobody's against," she told the Observer in an interview. "But the level of support from some countries is bigger than others."
However, the lack of overt opposition does not mean the tax proposal is likely to be approved. Many governments are privately skeptical but unwilling to publicly criticize a plan that would shave a tiny amount from the rapidly accumulating wealth of the planet's richest few, and raise money to address the pressing global climate emergency. Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary, told journalists in Rio that the US "did not see the need" for a global initiative. "People are not keen on global taxes," Toni admitted. "And there is a question over how you implement global taxes." But she said levying and raising a tax globally was possible, as had been shown by G7 finance ministers' agreement to levy a minimum 15% corporate tax. "It should be at a global level, because otherwise, obviously, rich people will move from one country to another," she said.
Only about 100 families around the world would be affected by the proposed 2% levy, she added. The world's richest 1% have added $42 trillion to their wealth in the past decade, roughly 36 times more than the bottom half of the world's population did. The question of how funds raised by such taxation should be spent had also not been settled, noted Toni. Some economists have argued that the idea was more likely to be accepted if the proceeds were devoted to solving the climate crisis than if they were used to address global inequality. Other experts say at least some of the money should be used for poverty alleviation.
However, the lack of overt opposition does not mean the tax proposal is likely to be approved. Many governments are privately skeptical but unwilling to publicly criticize a plan that would shave a tiny amount from the rapidly accumulating wealth of the planet's richest few, and raise money to address the pressing global climate emergency. Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary, told journalists in Rio that the US "did not see the need" for a global initiative. "People are not keen on global taxes," Toni admitted. "And there is a question over how you implement global taxes." But she said levying and raising a tax globally was possible, as had been shown by G7 finance ministers' agreement to levy a minimum 15% corporate tax. "It should be at a global level, because otherwise, obviously, rich people will move from one country to another," she said.
Only about 100 families around the world would be affected by the proposed 2% levy, she added. The world's richest 1% have added $42 trillion to their wealth in the past decade, roughly 36 times more than the bottom half of the world's population did. The question of how funds raised by such taxation should be spent had also not been settled, noted Toni. Some economists have argued that the idea was more likely to be accepted if the proceeds were devoted to solving the climate crisis than if they were used to address global inequality. Other experts say at least some of the money should be used for poverty alleviation.
Many governments (Score:5, Interesting)
Many governments are privately skeptical but unwilling to publicly criticize a plan that would [...]
Many governments are in the pockets of the obscenely rich whom the tax concerns. They don't want to admit it to avoid angering the voters but they'll probably do their utmost to work towards the interests of their true masters and not pass any meaningful legislation that would lower the level of obscenity of their wealth.
Re:Many governments (Score:5, Insightful)
It's shocking how many people act like "cause and effect" doesn't exist and that actions don't have consequences.
Re:Many governments (Score:5, Interesting)
The super wealthy will not just just sit there and wait for someone to come and confiscate their wealth, they will move everything out of reach before any government could a implement a law like that.
It's shocking how many people act like "cause and effect" doesn't exist and that actions don't have consequences.
Which is why this needs to be a global effort so that they only place they have to move their wealth to is a shithole like Russia who'll immediately start helping themselves to it... and the rest of us can watch on with glee.
The alternative is to wait until enough people get sick of it we start having revolutions, most of which will turn out horribly for everyone.
Re:Many governments (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one am NOT looking forward to a "one world global government".
Global taxation sounds like a serious step in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, with all the difference between peoples, cultures, geography (yes that adds in) how would anything meaningful get done? As an example, would Russia,
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There might be benefits, but the further the government moves from the people, the worse everything gets. Even just in the US we need to move power back to the states where it belongs. Even if you like stronger central government in general, this isn't working.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA issues international rules on taxation, banking and finance, aviation, pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs, aviation and censorship, which the rest of the world is obliged to follow, and sooner or later, does. So-called "global agreements" are closer to a dictatorship than a "world order" where people have a tiny voice. A boogey-man of an autocratic cabal imposing laws on the rest of the world hides the much-worse truth.
The global corporate tax was the rest of the world refusing to stab one-anothe
Re: Many governments (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Many governments (Score:2)
How much should a citizen pay for police service, fireman service, ranger service, army service, health care, food safety, education, water services, road and traffic services, judicial system, oversight of hazardous activities, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
OF COURSE a society has costs for the services provided.
The alternative to "crazy fucking spending" isn't just "no spending"... .there's a pretty substantial space inbetween those two.
NOBODY would object to government providing (and having to tax for)
- police
- fire
- army
- education
- roads
On the other hand the US still spends $11bn per year on the Tennessee Valley Authority - this was started in 1933 to ensure electrification of a poor part of Tennessee. It has been fully electrified for 50 years...yet we s
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Those are all supposed to be at the state and local level, NOT national. Even the army. The Feds are supposed to have a navy, but that's it. Now, we all know they would just move everything under the Navy if we pushed it. So I'm not sure what the better option is there, but it is a conversation we should be having.
Re:Many governments (Score:5, Insightful)
"The super wealthy will not just just sit there and wait for someone to come and confiscate their wealth, they will move everything out of reach before any government could a implement a law like that."
They'll try, certainly. And, historically, sure they've been pretty successful. That just means that we need laws in place to prevent that sort of tax evasion first. Those sorts of laws are difficult to implement, because of, well, corruption. However, the simple fact that it's not easy to tax the rich effectively is not, in my mind, a reason to stop trying to do it.
Re: Many governments (Score:3)
Creating laws like that is very complicated, and "corruption" is not really the biggest problem. Jurisdiction alone would require a whole legal framework that I'm not sure exists.
Sovereignty questions bring in politics - who collects / spends the money and who decides what to spend it on? If its climate change are we creating an international tax to a global fund? If its "reducing inequality" who decides a policy falls in that category? If its decided by each govt, what stops a nation from using it to subsi
Re: Many governments (Score:4, Interesting)
If Brazil wants to tax all income, regardless of country, or All wealth, regardless of where it is located, they can. Of course, it's on them to make sure compliance, and other jurisdictions don't necessarily have to help them enforce those laws.
For example, inn the US, each state has the ability to impose their own taxes, and NY pretty heavily taxes NJ residents who work in NY, requiring them to complete a "non-resident" tax return each year, in addition to NJ requiring them to complete a resident return. In order to prevent NJ residents from being double taxed, they allow you to deduct your NY taxes on your NJ return, but that is to ensure NY workers still come to NJ and contribute to the NJ economy (particularly in north Jersey).
Brazil can try to tax whatever it wants. And even if billionaires do things to hide their income/wealth, Brazil can criminalize that behavior if it wants. It is then on those rich folks to decide if living in Brazil is worth the cost/risk.
I increasingly think wealth taxes are necessary. We've allowed concentration of wealth into a smaller and smaller pool of the population, and that needs to be corrected. Even if they are short lived, and eventually the lickspittles who write laws on behalf of the billionaire class get loopholes inserted into these laws, they can help in the short-term to fund government initiatives to correct this imbalance.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the USA is one of only a handful of countries that tax citizens on worldwide income, even non-resident citizens. If a Canadian moves to the USA and no longer is a resident of Canada and does not have any income from Canada, they do not pay or even file Canadian taxes. If an American citizen moves to Canada and is no longer a resident of the USA and does not have any income from the USA, they still must file USA tax forms and pay USA taxes. Now in most cases, taxes paid to a foreign country can be
Re: (Score:2)
But fact is that the City of London & other tax haven "states" are already hiding the wealthy's money. It really doesn't matter which country they live in, they'll still pay tax on what proportion of that they choose to or have to declare publicly for whatever reason. The idea of capital flight in today's banking systems is a joke, as we've seen after stimulus packages during recessions find
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And where will they go, where they can enjoy their lifestyle, and not be in danger of the poor populace deciding enough is enough? Think it can't happen? Remember the poor Mob (for real), loosing all those giantly paying casinos in Cuba when the Revolution came?
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather surprising that nations don't have laws against looting their countries' wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, lived experiences. There are still plenty of rich people who live in California despite the high taxes, while no one flocked to Kansas after Gov Brown slashed taxes to near nothing.
If you do go too far, sure there will be movement away from high taxes. But what's the level? Anyone want to lie and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
greed rules, the rich got needlessly richer by bankrupting the rest of us
Re: (Score:2)
look how much any mention of classism is resented by the privileged
the truth hurts
greedy people are wrecking everything for everybody
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a great basis for an economic system, but it requires regulation to stop abusive monopolies, taxation funding infrastructure and a social safety net to boost the common good, and a wealth tax to prevent runaway wealth concentration into the hands of a few.
As far as I know, nobody has implemented that last one yet. Without it, an abusive authoritarian oligarchy is inevitable.
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
this isn't capitalism, capitalism requires access to capital which is impossible when the upper class owns and controls 85% of all our capital
in reality, this is economic slavery and indentured servitude
we are all just wage slaves for our entitled upper class
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot being the place where I first saw the words "Corporate feudalism" I remember thinking it conveyed an essential truth while being a bit hyperbolic.
Now I sincerely hope that we don't get the literal corporate feudalism future.
Getting into cyberpunk 2077 lately and the hacking bits used to get on my nerves because it was too easy. But then I remembered that with zero accountability to anyone companies would probably indeed produce neural interfaces that unlock with a guess the number minigame and sud
Re: (Score:2)
check out corporatocracy and american plutocracy
time to reread neuromancer ...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately nobody ever said capitalism requires widely available access to capital. Those who control it would consider its concentration into ever-fewer hands a feature rather than a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
no capital, no capitalism
people are stupid
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think those people with money do with it? Swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?
Re: (Score:2)
self-indulgence, lavish lifestyles, bribery, locked away in family trusts, wasted on drugs and gambling, art collections, mansions yachts etc. etc.
I think people are greedy, selfish and irresponsible, the world is going to heck because so many people are self-serving and unethical
spoiled rotten is the term and look at how fast the American Empire is crumbling from the top down
tower of babel indeed
Re: (Score:2)
Lavish lifestyles don't cost money? And family trusts don't invest in other companies? Buying art doesn't support the whole artist and gallery business? Etc etc?
So what if they are greedy, your claim was "capitalism requires access to capital which is impossible when the upper class owns and controls 85% of all our capital" and you just listed how rich people spend and invest their capital, that is, provide capital for different actors in a market economy. Duh!
Re: (Score:2)
The lavish lifestyles that waste money on gratuitous and meaningless affluence for shallow people who need more and more because they appreciate less and less. Trusts don't 'invest', they own assets. Most art worth anything is from artists long dead. Galleries and the 'art world' are exclusionary and corrupt in my opinion and I'm sure i'm not the only one. Here we see pseudo-conservative self-justifications in all, their glory. Real conservatives live conservatively. The trickle down that comes from the gre
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Informative)
As per usual, it is a lot easier to talk about wealth taxes than implement them.
The idea of taxing unrealized capital gains is frought with major, major issues - both logisical as well as philosophical - because you're literally talking about taxing something someone does not have yet. Its akin to a tax time machine.
Imagine when you are born, someone came up to you and said "based on our analysis, you are likely to earn $50M during your lifetime - so we will assess you with that tax bill, and you need to start paying it now" - that is not very far off from what happens when you try to tax an unrealized capital gain.
Re: (Score:3)
>The idea of taxing unrealized capital gains is frought with major, major issues - both logisical as well as philosophical - because you're literally talking about taxing something someone does not have yet. Its akin to a tax time machine.
Annual valuations, apply tax. If the market volume on whatever is being evaluated is too low to make a reasonable estimate, then you use the previous cycle's estimate.
And you're absolutely taxing something someone has; just because it ain't cash in hand doesn't mean i
Re: Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Evaluation based on what?
Something is not actually worth anything until it is sold. Before then, it is all hypothetical.
Also what happens when the evaluation decreases? Do they get a gigantic refund?
Also if you start doing this then people will just move their wealth to a different vehicle. What about art? What about commodities?
You are vastly over simplifying the problem area here, just as the politicians do.
Re: (Score:2)
People make hypothetical valuations all the time.
If your car is written off, the insurance company makes a valuation based on what they think it would have been worth if sold in an un-crashed state. They also estimate the value of art when setting premiums to cover it.
If someone dies, a court will make a valuation based on their estimated future earnings potential.
This is not some new and impossible problem.
Re: Capitalism is broken (Score:2)
Neither of those things are comparable because they are irreversible state changes
If I own a widget today and the markets say it is worth $10M, next year the markets can say it os worth $0. The widget was never sold, destroyed.
If you tax me on $10M then do I get a refund on that tax if it's now worth $0? If not then how is this a fair and just system?
Now scale this to ALL widgets for the entire population? Do you not see how insanely complex this is?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have to be perfect by account for edge cases where value dramatically changes year on year?
Re: Capitalism is broken (Score:2)
These aren't edge cases at all. They are the usual case. The fact that you think they are edge cases illustrates your disconnect from this whole problem... just like politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how for most people the tax system doesn't seem to have issues with this, e.g. taxes based on property value. But for billionaires it's too complicated to even try.
Re: (Score:2)
Just Curious.
Re: Capitalism is broken (Score:2)
Any "wealth tax" requires taxing unrealized gains.
The liquid net worth of Elon Musk is probably measured in millions... hell it might actually be negative.
The same can be said for almost all "billionaires". None of their fortune is liquid. It's all on paper.
Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Regulation is only half of the equation. The other half is where this money is coming from.
The US federal government spent two trillion in infrastructure over the last two years. The term "infrastructure" was stretched into meaning almost anything. Visitor centers, museums, community swimming pools - nearly anything. Do you think most of that money went to workers? Do you think the pentagon's half trillion dollar IT contract is mostly going to the workers?
You can track wealth inequality fairly reliably with how much money the federal government spends. Want to know why capitalism in the US is broken? Because instead of trying to provide products to consumers, it's much more lucrative to lobby congress for handouts.
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Literally the point of capitalism is to allow wealth to accumulate with the people who are the most proficient at creating more of it. Like... that's the entire reason for it to exist. If you're a leader of a country and you want to know how best to utilize the resources in your country (hint: you don't) then you need people who are experts at putting wealth to efficient use. So you allow people to keep the (majority of the) proceeds of their enterprises. People who are good at making efficient use of capital will inevitably end up managing more and more of it. That's the point.
Everyone thinks it's unfair that Bezos has a huge yacht, but that boat is a rounding error... almost all of his wealth is tied up in capital being used to provide services to the population, and Amazon is super-efficient with capital, at least compared to any home shopping business that came before it. Or look at where Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are on this chart [ourworldindata.org]. That's SpaceX efficiently using capital.
Tax luxury spending. Nobody should be able to buy a super yacht without spending a very large amount of tax. Nobody *needs* a Cadillac or a Porsche. Tax emissions and carbon. But taking money away from the families who invest it the smartest? You're better off hiring these guys to help solve the problem. Make pollution expensive. Offer incentives for green tech and let these guys use their capital to build out the infrastructure to deliver it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would approach the problem another way and skip any confiscatory wealth or luxury taxes. But I'd tax the sweet holy hell out of inheritance. Let any self-made billionaires have their fun and keep and spend their money however they care to. That's not the problem. The problem is the vast intergenerational fortunes that get passed along and along to parasitic offspring who do nothing meaningful but be born to the right parents... essentially becoming the "nobility" of the US, just with a bit less pomp
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
However, once a company nears its maximum market share & becomes stable/mature it no longer benefits from that private
Re: (Score:2)
Nine countries have implemented a wealth tax, according to Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
They tend to be pretty modest as far as taxes go, but it beats doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no economic system "capitalism". You are referring to "market economy", something that always happen when you have freedom of contract and rule of law. Always as in, empirically 100 % of the cases (And even in some cases where you don't have freedom of contract and rule of law. That is how strong this behaviour pattern is ingrained in is humans.). But freedom of contract also leads to charities, marriages based on love and religious denominations. Do you want to remove that? Or take away rule of la
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
>Regulation is WHY we have monopolies in the modern era
I try to be kind, but that statement is just so incredibly ignorant I can't be. Crack a history book open, it'll help you understand.
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Crack a history book open, it'll help you understand.
I know nobody will listen but you can pick a theme, economics, civil rights, labor, whatever. Just pick a topic and go to a library with microfiche newspapers going way back and make yourself read 5 newspaper articles from different time periods.
I had to do this is college once but it was so informative that I continued to do it for several years later as I could get a sandwich and a latte from the library next to my office. Perfect little lunchbreak activity.
and no, watching documentaries on history channel and youtube doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still remember the first one I read, they were tossing around the idea of farm subsidies. They stated the problem, both sides gave their pros and cons.
Holy fuck every single con of the day was stupid but only in retrospect. Every single pro seemed to have played out as intended. I wasn't sure what to make of farm subsidies at the time and yes I'm aware they probably get abused. But in about one minute I learned I can safely dismiss anyone who says we don't need them. Like holy fuck I'll let a farmer
Re:Capitalism is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Regulation is WHY we have monopolies in the modern era.
I would change that to read "Regulation sponsored and supported by companies which wanted to become monopolies" is WHY we need better, stricter, more nuanced regulation in the modern era". A mix of bad regulation and non-regulation is the problem, and has been for a long time. Good regulation is, has been, and always will be a vital part of the solution.
We need to eliminate TBTF, (which means let'em fail)
Agreed
We need to eliminate most professional licenses
Why? I want doctors, engineers, pharmacists, optometrists, and the like licensed. Sensible licensing is part of a viable social contract.
We need to eliminate income taxes and move to a pure sales tax system
Pure sales tax would disproportionately penalize lower-income people, who spend a FAR greater portion of their income on purchases than the rich do. A properly implemented income tax, without all the loopholes and dodges, would do a better job.
We need to reform copyright law etc back to its original 14 years
Agreed. No exceptions, no extensions.
We need to radically limit what can be patented and raise the requirements for working models
Agreed. Additionally, patent periods need to be shorter and either non-renewable, or renewable with very strict and short limits.
Do those things and you'll see monopolies start to break down.
They may help a little bit with monopolies; but in the bigger picture I see it as likely to merely make oligopolies have greater membership turnover. In the absence of good, strict, well-enforced legislation, momopolies and/or oligopolies will always rise to rule.
We have greater wealth concentration than we had at the height of gilded age. Its BECAUSE of progressivism and socialist forces not despite them.
No. Not even close. Without "progressivism and socialist forces" - which in any sane analysis includes both unions and at least the attempt to enforce the concept of tax brackets - monopolism and oligopolism would be far more deeply entrenched. If this conversation was taking place in a science context, I think I'd be justified in saying "You're not even wrong".
But thank you for saying what you said, in the way you did. Now I understand why I have such a hard time with Libertarian assertions. To me, they always come across as trolling - probably because I get such a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. I remember that dissonance well - I used to be a Libertarian-leaning Rand adherent. Then my critical faculties became more fully developed and I began to see the man behind the curtain.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ignorant liar. Regulations, as the saying goes, are written in blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, some complete idiots have gotten mod-points again. I hope you cretins at least get paid for the damage you do.
No global tax? US citizens say otherwise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the upper class are able to shelter wealth in offshore tax havens with ease
they are also able to locate their corporations in tax friendly jurisdictions and corrupt local governments ...
Re: (Score:2)
most don't do this though. There is a reporting requirement with the IRS on foreign accounts. If you don't report, the penalties are pretty steep. It's easier to just hold investments offshore that don't have a reporting requirement, like real estate and gold.
Re:No global tax? US citizens say otherwise (Score:4, Interesting)
I renounced my citizenship. It's a one-time fee and then you get to give your money only to a county that deserves it, where you reside and use the public services.
How Americans figure it's even constitutional to owe their country money in perpetuity even when they don't live in it, just because they were born in it, is totally beyond me. Even the fee to renounce one's citizenship is totally outrageous and a blatant money grab, but at least it's a way out.
Re: (Score:2)
I renounced my citizenship. It's a one-time fee and then you get to give your money only to a county that deserves it, where you reside and use the public services.
How Americans figure it's even constitutional to owe their country money in perpetuity even when they don't live in it, just because they were born in it, is totally beyond me. Even the fee to renounce one's citizenship is totally outrageous and a blatant money grab, but at least it's a way out.
I can explain how this is constitutional in a very easy to understand way. Since you're on Slashdot, you probably know that there are 2 ways to do security.
1) Deny everything by default but permit things explicitly configured to be allowed.
2) Allow everything by default but deny things explicitly configured to be disallowed.
The US constitution operates by #2. So since there's no default way to avoid taxes, taxing US citizens who live elsewhere is allowed. However, you did fail to mention th
Re:No global tax? US citizens say otherwise (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but that's utter BS.
This is what I see: any BABY born in the US is automatically enrolled in a system that demands that they pay up forever regardless of their life choices, or pay $2350 to opt out. That's people who had no choice in the matter and didn't get to decide anything: whether they like it or not, the minute they started breathing, at the very least, they owe Uncle Sam $2350.
When I renounced mine, I pondered for a long time whether to change identity and give the US a big fat middle finger (this was a long time ago when that sort of thing was still doable). In the end. I paid the racket fee so I wouldn't spend the rest of my life as a fugitive. And also, back then it was only a few hundred bucks if I remember. But I thought long and hard about it, because why the fuck should I have to pay anything at all just because I was born there and not somewhere else?
It truly is a racket: somebody else saddled me with a debt without my consent, and then said "pay up or else..." I can think of no other analogy. The US state acts as a mob organization and its victims are non-consenting babies.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trolling? Or does the word taxes scramble your thought process?
Citizenship comes with both duties and privileges since... forever? Idk, Sparta for sure.
Yes, US-babies have no choice but to contribute to the IRS. On the other hand, if they get in trouble anywhere else in the world a resident US official will be tasked to deal with it one way or another. When the number of US-babies involved is large enough, the least that will happen is a C-17 rescue flight. When the trouble involved is serious enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Citizenship comes with both duties and privileges since... forever?
Nobody asked me if I wanted that citizenship. You speak as if it's a desirable thing to be an American citizen.
I get that babies have no choice, but when they're old enough to choose (at the age of majority presumably), I don't see why they should automatically be punished for something they had no possible say over. That's my beef.
Re: (Score:2)
You should invoice your parents for having you under such conditions. That is completely unacceptable and immoral. They forced themselves upon you because THEY wanted meaning and purpose in life (or something like that). And then YOU have to foot the bill. Children can't enter contract. Negative contracts are illegal. Still, that is what happened to you when you were born. And it is your parents fault/responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I can explain how this is constitutional in a very easy to understand way. Since you're on Slashdot, you probably know that there are 2 ways to do security.
1) Deny everything by default but permit things explicitly configured to be allowed.
2) Allow everything by default but deny things explicitly configured to be disallowed.
The US constitution operates by #2.
Err, no. This is entirely backward. The 10th amendment explicitly states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The federal government (constitutionally) has only the specific powers enumerated in the constitution (and its amendments), as in your case 1 above.
As to why the 16th amendment power to directly tax incomes can be used extraterritorially, I would assume the rationale
Re:No global tax? US citizens say otherwise (Score:4, Insightful)
"And if they fail to pay the irs gets them. The US has the global reach to enforce it."
In fact, no, they don't. The US can only hit people who have assets in the US, where the IRS can get at them. Since the great majority of the super-rich have significant assets in the US (even if their legal place of residence is elsewhere), they still have leverage. But if you remove all your stuff to places that don't have tax treaties with the US (and there a lot of such places) and stay out of the US, then the IRS is screwed. The most they can do is threaten what they'll do to you if they get their hands on you.
Re: No global tax? US citizens say otherwise (Score:3)
US lawmakers are pretty smart. Our capital controls are arranged so as not to penalize citizens who attempt to bypass them. But impose intolerable sanctions [wikipedia.org] on foreign governments or organizations that are a party to any such asset holdings. On penalty of being cut off from the US dominated international banking systems. You can sit there, fat, fumb and happy. But when your overseas bank or brokerage hands you your accounts back, the end effect is the same.
I had an account in an EU country until this was
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I wouldn't pick a fixed number. I would say something like "half the equivalent of a lifetime of average income." This way it would automatically correct for changes in lifespan and overall economy. So if a "lifetime of average income" is $60k for 50 years (age 18 to 68, close enough for round numbers), or $3.0 million, then the maximum estate receivable per person should be $1.5M. $5M is far too much in that scenario.
For wealth tax, and income tax, I'd impose this rule: your income is taxed at a rate
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the median income is 74k and the mean income is 100k (for households where one or more are employed). I imagine you'd want to be very careful how you define your average. Oh and if you put too high an inheritance tax, you'll only collect any from people who die unexpectedly.
watching politics in action (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a great proposal that'll hurt nobody, at most inconvenience a very small few, and do a lot of good.
And it has an exactly 0.00% chance of being passed.
But it's an amazing showcase of real-world politics. I doubt anyone will come out with outspoken opposition, because it's too simple not to be liked by their voters and/or subjects. So it's smart to either endorse it carefully or stay silent. At the same time, the same people will drop hints (e.g. by how they articulate their careful endorsement) or outright let it be known behind closed doors that of course their campaign donors, supporters and ultra-rich they hope to befriend have nothing to fear.
Cute move, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say it has zero chance. The fact that it is global eliminates one of the big threats that the ultra wealthy make - that they will move their money to a different Caribbean island.
The main barrier is the US. An unstable democracy can't agree to anything for more than a few years without it being undone when the other lot get into power. Most other places are better at this kind of long term stuff.
Fortunately though it probably doesn't seen the agreement of the US. The mega rich don't keep their mo
mostly never happen given all the classism (Score:2)
classism leads to corruption which breeds incompetence
our evil upper class is wrecking everything for everybody
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And they are in the process of wrecking the future.
The odds of a billionaires survival. (Score:2)
our evil upper class is wrecking everything for everybody
Only about 100 families around the world would be affected by the proposed 2% levy.
Greed demands the status quo? Fine. 100 families vs. a few billion affected by their greed.
Do we really need to call Dana White @ the UFC to get the odds on that fight? This is what the ultra-rich don’t understand, and assume they have the power and influence to sustain their abuses forever. The victim society is complacent when they are employed and can afford to be. Keep introducing more instability into that, and you might as well be shoving your hand deep in the dogs mouth and begging it to b
Taxing the rich doesnt work (Score:3, Interesting)
Use that money to instead build a bunch of satellites in orbit to reflect heat away. Not too different from a cluster of starlink satellites - just mount mirrors on the sunward side.
That how you get the global rich to solve global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
make those satellites dual purpose, they reflect heat away plus they beam down free WiFi and/or cellular data internet service making all ISPs rage and cry "muh profits are going away"
Will not fly (Score:3)
The super-rich are not sane. And they do not have morals or integrity. To become super rich (except by inheriting), you have to be fundamentally defective. The amount of damage you need to do is insane. And you have to want more, more and more, when you already have more than enough a hundred times over.
Hence the assholes with the mountains of money will fight this tooth and nail and will kill it.
Money isn't the real problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I lied - money IS the real problem - but not in the way presented in this plan.
Throwing more money at climate change by taking it from the rich will inevitably result in them further accelerating their efforts to get richer faster. They'll do their best to replace that lost wealth. I'd like to say that it would be a zero-sum game, but in reality it's likely to be a net loss in the fight against climate change. Quite simply, the solution is for ALL of us to live materially simpler, less rapacious lives. Collectively, we need to simply stop taking so much from the planet. A lack of money is not the problem. An addiction to power and excess - which money enables - is the problem.
With the exception of the advances in health care that we've made over the last 50 years, are we as a species and a civilization really better off than we were back then? I remember 50 years ago quite well, and I would argue that in many ways we have devolved when it comes to things like autonomy, personal satisfaction, and sense of purpose, meaning, and belonging. Sure, one can argue that racism and sexism are less of a problem than they were back then; but to the extent that's true, I think it would still be true irrespective of the kinds of "progress" which have increased the rate of global warming.
To be clear, I'm all for funding ways to reduce emissions and to sequester greenhouse gases. With many diseases it's necessary to treat the symptoms; but when it comes to global warming, we have a habit of going all in on treating the symptoms while ignoring the underlying, fundamental sickness. And the sad thing is that treating the sickness - while difficult when one considers things like discipline, comfort, laziness, denial, and political will - is in fact quite simple. On the other hand, treating the symptoms is turning out to be damned complicated and expensive. And so far it hasn't been very successful.
Re: (Score:2)
taking it from the rich will inevitably result in them further accelerating their efforts to get richer faster.
I'd like to see the increase from "Faster than humanly possible no matter the consequences" to whatever level you're expecting they'll ramp it up to.
Maff is Raycis (Score:2)
Can we see the proposed budget for revenues and expenditures and forecast models for impacts on Global Warming?
This should include disbursements to tax shelters and use-of-funds for each company or household that will be in receipt.
Without that it looks exactly like selling Eat The Rich to the poor and then doling out cash to the politicians friends with zero impact on climate.
Or maybe Brazil could just stop cutting down the Amazon instead.
Wealth taxes not as good as passive income taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
A person's net worth can legally decrease in a puff of paperwork. It's a simple matter to write a promissory note that (for one of a variety of practical reasons) probably will never be acted upon. Art pieces can have a value that's hard to determine too. Wealth per se is very slippery, subject to debate, and is thus not usually a good candidate for something to be taxed directly.
I think we should target passive income tax increases instead. Passive income should include any income generated because you own something. Governments already tax dividends and capital gains from stock purchases. Usually, passive income is taxed at a lower rate than wages; in Canada capital gains are taxed at 50% of the rate of wages.
I'm in favour of the capitalist system where there's an incentive for companies to form to provide services the consumer wants. It's an efficient way to run the economy. However, I join with the French economist Thomas Piketty who says it's a bad idea if passive income is so lucrative that wealth inequality is expected to grow exponentially. If wealth inequality does grow exponentially, then the $10 my great grandfather stole from your great-grandfather may have a significant impact on the relative well-being of my grandkids versus yours. I would much rather a world where historical injustices are expected to slowly melt away, rather than exponentially increase their present-day implications.
It's possible to have our capitalist cake and eat it too with a frosting of equality; we just need to increase the taxes on passive income and decrease the taxes on wages. Thomas Piketty suggests we increase capital gain and dividend taxes until the expected return on investments after taxes is slightly less than the expected increase in GDP. If we put a lot of these extra capital gain and dividend taxes towards decreasing taxes on wages, then folks will have more to spend and it's likely the economy will grow faster.
I'm worried that the rich have set up a system that permanently enshrines them with exponentially increasing shares of the global wealth, while the poor are not savvy in what they're requesting. It's clearly feasible to tax passive income; wealth is a harder target. If you (like me) want a little more global equality delivered by a workable plan, please consider shifting the target of your chants from "Tax the Rich" to "Increase Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends;" much less pithy, but also much scarier to the wealthy because it's so much more plausible to implement.
PS.I think these changes should be implemented gradually, as in phased in over the course of 10 or 20 years. That leaves lots of time for estate planning, for imperfect international coordination, and for plugging any loopholes that come up.
PPS I also think real estate tax advantages (capital gains exemptions or tax-deductible mortgage interest) should be slowly phased out. It's not possible for a primary residence to be both a fantastically good investment and also something that's eminently affordable - the former requires that a house is a fantastic investment, the latter requires that a house not appreciate too much.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just taxing dividends, interest, and capital gains as normal income and let the tax rates do what they will depending on how much your total income is. We're already running too much of a deficit. Dropping taxes on middle and lower class to keep revenue tax neutral really isn't that great an idea.
Of course any changes in taxing passive income would have to be global so as to not disadvantage a particular country.
And if they can't do that, at least forbid using stock options and perks as part of
Re: (Score:3)
Screw you. You obviously need to have your tax returns checked.
And "cut unnecessary government"? You mean like stop passing laws against women getting abortions?
Only 100 families with assets $1B? Bull (Score:2)
I could probably name 100 American billionaires without Google or any other resource. Balmer, Bezos, Brin, Buffett, . . .
Not to mention that implementing a wealth tax in even one country, let alone globally, is a logistical and bookkeeping nightmare. The only beneficiaries would be the accountants and lawyers working for both the wealthy and the government.
Even for a highly fungible asset class like publicly-traded stocks, can you imagine the effect on the stock market and economy if large holders of publ
Re: (Score:2)
"The only beneficiaries would be the accountants and lawyers ..."
I wondered how far down I'd have to scroll to see this, and was surprised (and sad) that I had to go so far.
Amazing that people don't understand that it's nearly impossible to quantity monetary wealth and that there's a huge industry focused on maintaining that opaqueness.
People see somebody with a private jet or yacht and think "billionaire, tax him." However, these things you see are just an indicator of where that person is in the game. The
Re: (Score:2)
Close the corruptly legal accounting loopholes billionaire accountants love to abuse and you’ve solved the problem of taxation, with the threat of prison for non-compliance. Just like the rest of us.
The billionaires dilemma isn’t some mystery to solve. It’s just corruption. Solved by those who are less corrupt, and are done putting up with billionaire abuse. Stop trying to paint a picture of billionaire sell-off suffering, or market impact. Mansions, 8-figure art pieces, and used Bent
Another braindead plan (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to completely mixing up economic concepts, this is just another "plan" among the governments that do not actually "solve" anything.
If you look at the pattern it is: (a) punishing an easy target, (b) funding committees, (c) doing actually nothing.
If governments and "the elites" (or whatever) are really interested in climate change, which is a real problem btw, not denying it... they should come up with solutions.
For example:
1) Replacing coal, gas and hydro power with nuclear.
2) Working on geo-engineering
If they are not doing these they are just pandering.
Why?
Any plan that does not consider nuclear, especially for "cost" is not serious about climate change. Nuclear (including its "Sun based" cousin, solar and wind) are the only zero emission solutions. And we have the technology today to replace coal, gas, and hydro (which is very damaging to local environments) in a flash. But for some reason "environmentalists" do hate that solution.
Again cost? They are adding taxes, but not a place spend them. They could easily start with proposing hundreds of new nuclear reactors with that money. (But of course it is better if that is spend on committees and cronies).
Secondly, we know for example "“The study shows that the reduction of sulphur in ship fuel since 2020 is likely to accelerate the warming of the planet.". Yep you read it right. That is an excellent data point to act on. But we don't hear world governments mentioning "an immediate increase in sulphur in all shipping and airline fuel today, and a large scale study on the impacts tomorrow". We have terrible forest fires and life threatening heatwaves, we know they are caused by "clean" fuel (ironically) which is no longer reflecting the sunlight. Why don't we act on it?
These governments are hostile to any solutions. They just want to pander to continuing problems.
This will be a tax on the middle class eventually (Score:2)
Has been tried before (Score:2)
Never worked.
They'll move to the British Virgin Islands, Monaco or Panama.
Who will do the tax? (Score:2)
Who will collect the tax? UN? Some other organisation?
Alot of details need to be worked out if such a thing is going to happen. And unfortunately I don't think the details will be worked out.
my favorite victim (Score:2)
Let's see, who can I screw in the name of .
What did they contribute? (Score:2)
It is true that the rich got richer. The question is: "Did they get richer by creating more wealth for others and shaving a portion for themselves? or did they get richer by plundering the resources of other people?"
It is not like the very, very rich keep their money in a huge money vault like Scrooge McDuck. You can only do two things with money: Either spend it or invest it. If you spend it, you are creating jobs and making things better for the people who make those products and services you spend money
Taxes as a Punishment (Score:2)
Morally, taxation is theft. (Score:2)
Morally, taxation is theft. That is all that one needs to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking this is not the biggest problem...
Up a few threads there was a question of the impact on the market if 2% of stocks [likely more b/c land is wealth too] have to be dumped every year.
But... who is going to buy these stocks? It ain't gonna be the billionaires [or if they do, they'll have to do it against inflated currencies] b/c those assets they're going to purchase will become new things to be taxed.
So... who is going to spend the cash to buy these assets to allow the billionaires to pay their