If Pocahontas’ wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, Bill Gates would only have $14 billion today instead of $97 billion. Is that paying his “fair share”?
It’s good that you’re honest that democrats are “going after” specific individuals.
$14 billion!? Nobody needs that much money!
How much would we have had to tax him to get him down to whatever Bernie made last year?! That’s the only way to be fair!
Bernie made $561,293 last year!
Nobody needs $561,293!
Let’s tax him until he only takes home about $12k/year.
Anyone should be able to make it on $1000/month. That’s about $32/day. That’s plenty!
Bill Gates worked hard for what he has. He donates millions of dollars to charity and you have people like Elizabeth Warren touting how he deserves to be taxed more? How is that supposed to inspire entrepreneurs and businesses?
& for those who say he has enough wealth already, let me take 86% of your next paycheck and see how you like it.
This user is currently being ignored
From what I've seen, he's spent that money far better than the government would have.
That is confiscatory.
Nobody should be giving up 86% of their earnings and worth to the government. I don’t care how much is made and how it affects the person. Who on earth would even get up in the morning to work knowing that they won’t see the majority of money they make? I stand by my comparison.
Bravo to the failing New York Times for a random act of journalism! Okay all you big tech liberals who keep crying about how you don’t pay enough, time to get behind Pocahontas and literally put your money where you mouth is! 😂
It absolutely is realistic from this standpoint. It kills creativity, innovation, and the desire to do business in this country if you tax people exorbitantly. If I come up with an idea that makes billions (oh, and creates lots of jobs, and gives me excess to be able to give more to needy people) why should the government punish me for that? I would be looking for a different country to move myself and my company to on Election Day if I knew I was going to be taxed horrendously. Without individuals and companies with the drive to innovate, we become a very different nation.
Oh man .. he'd only be one of the richest people in the world? Not The richest person in the world? Oh the humanity!
Only fourteen billion? How would he ever survive on that?
Seriously, do you know how much money fourteen billion is?
86% of ~$36K (the most that I ever made annually in my entire working life) would make a hellish difference in a person’s life.
86% of whatever a person who otherwise would have had $97 billion in the bank (or wherever; probably not in a bank) makes per year, so that they only have $13 BILLION in the bank... In terms of the difference in how that person is able to live their life - I doubt it would make an atomic particle of difference.
I’m not saying that makes it OK to raise the tax rate that high on extremely wealthy people. I’m just saying that’s a really unfair comparison.
And doesn't take into account the affect he had on the entire economy, through job creation, productivity in the workplace, entire industries that were created as a result of his work.
You don’t get to retroactively revalue someone’s work.
The value of his work was established by the people who agreed to pay him for the services he offered.
It’s a de facto income cap.
No. No one's "fair share" is more than 10% of their annual income.
Milkdud you really need to learn the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire and who Dems are going after
Not my point, about what percent anyone should be paying in taxes.
I’m just saying your comparison isn’t the least bit *realistic.*
No. You can’t. There is no constitutional right to interfere in the market by taxing people solely because you think earn they too much.
There are countries that do operate that way if that’s the type of society you want to live in.
And yes, if the tax is sufficiently high, and the purpose is to limit income- then it is an income cap because the tax rate itself becomes prohibitive.
And how about you get your hand out of other people’s pockets and become a producer instead of a leech.
This is not about how much he needs to survive. It's about what he did to contribute to society, and what it's worth. If you think Bill Gates should be a $100 billionaire, and you justify it by saying that he "earned" that money, and that he created so many jobs and contributed so much to the economy and his invention has improved the lives of so many people, and that he is entitled to that money, then it is obvious that you think that his wealth now is what you value his work at. While I agree with all the premises of that argument, I differ from the conclusion because while it is true that he contributed so much to society as a whole, I think he should simply be set for life financially. Meaning you can have a set amount of money that you will never be able to spend in your entire life modestly. This is possible with just one or two billion. I don't value Bill Gates work at $100 billion. Warren is being quite lenient in my opinion (or rather would have been lenient).
Well no, that's not the reason for taxation. My opinion is that Bill Gate's work should not be valued at an infinite number depending on how much he makes. The legal/policy implication would be a more progressive income tax system with higher top marginal rates. That's not unconstitutional. Nor is a wealth tax. Although I prefer the prior as opposed to a wealth tax.
I think a more progressive marginal tax system would far outperform a wealth tax outright, but regardless the idea that someone making 14 billion instead of $100 billion will just stop doing things is totally absurd. The people who want to be rich are not going to be deterref from innovation because of this. If their actions are driven by money, odds are they simply want more money than they currently have. As long as the tax rate of either a wealth tax or better progressive income tax are not 100%, they will ALWAYS be able to make more money than they currently have.
Sure we can.
And we would be giving most of that value back to the people who bought the products in the first place in the form of healthcare, college education and housing.
As long as the tax rate is not 100%, neither would effectively be an income gap.