We should have a billion dollar networth cap. If you pass it, it gets taxed extremely, like 95%.
I think my point is that if lots of money is being made, someone is going to have to spend it. You may disagree with how it is spent by Bezos, etc. but I can’t imagine capping net worth so that governments can spend more is the right solution.
The idea behind any socialist theory is that "the state" should be acting on the will of "The People" and therefor is better serving them. If it's democratic socialism, you're also able to help put players into "the state" that desire to act on the will of "the People" and remove players who don't. This is all in theory of course. The same way that, in theory, capitalists use their capital to create jobs that require labor which passes wealth to the laboring class. The reality is infinitely more complex.
I think plenty of people would rather see the guy that has a good online store get the money vs. the people dropping bombs on various countries and imprisoning large swaths of our population.
* if a business (or business conglomerate, no sneaking around this) is bigger than N billion, the state gets N% of the shares, with the percentage progressively bigger up to something like say 25%.
At some point a company gets so big that it influences a country by its sheer size. In a democracy it's only fair that the state gets a say into what that company does.
I think it would be fair that the state gets limited voting rights to prevent abuse. I'd say that it should get a vote regarding profit decisions. But probably no say in product decisions, for example.
And so the people that get to this place first put their flag on it and claim it as their own. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8) I'm glad Jeff was there first (essentially) but we can still decide the future we want.
I get the spirit of what you're saying but you can't tax net worth, you tax income.
You can add/increase property taxes. You can tax wealth above a certain amount. You can add/increase taxes on stock market speculation and holdings, and other financial instruments.
Whether you'd want to is a different matter, but saying you can't do it is factually incorrect.
there's 0 reason you can't say "this person is reporting holding, assets and liquid wealth of 2 billion dollars, so he owes X% back to the state." The issue is that typically the wealthy have the most influence over tax code, and they use net worth as a way to keep their money out of play.
But, like, you know, Amazon being worth so much money is really helpful to everyone because...reasons.
Sure you can, although not all at once. Both property and capital gains taxes are examples of this.
Basically, the only way off the top of my head to hold capital and not have it taxed is to leave it at rest - either in something like precious metals (which is a very poor choice as a vehicle for growth) or long-term investment (which makes it available for use by others).
Also, there's inflation. Inflation obviously devalues liquid capital, but it also impacts debts. If someone loans money at 1% APR, but inflation is 2.5%, then 1.5% of the value of the outstanding debt is being transferred from lender to the debtor each year.
In the U.S. you "can't" tax wealth without a Constitutional amendment, maybe you were getting at that.
If we could administer a low wealth tax of ~3-5% or something, productive people like Bezos would continue to amass wealth, but you wouldn't have unproductive rentier family dynasties as over time their wealth would be taxed away.
edit: I should add that Saudi and Oman already effectively tax wealth, since they have no income tax and Sharia requires donating a percentage of your net wealth to the community.
Put simply, anyone could spend $100k a year, most people could find useful things to spend $1M or $10M on annually. But the higher you go, the harder it is to find meaningful things to spend money on. Each extra dollar is simply worth less than the last (and a lot less than the first!)
So while a 90% rate on income above $3M[1] might seem insane today, it would not even be a historic high in the United States. Whether it is fair or moral to tax in such a way is another question, but practically speaking high taxes affect rich people less the richer they are, and we as a society have historically been willing to take more from them because of that.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...
This way of thinking is the premise of many abusive relationships. If someone wants to leave, let them. Appeasement never helps.
People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. Economic activity is not driven by the government; destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability.
> if we make decisions
Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? "We" are right and "they" are wrong. No. Stop trying to weasel together some illusion of unity. The vast majority of Americans want no part in your delusions.
> If someone wants to leave, let them.
Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? Speaking of "abusive relationships"...
Yes, through democracy. Sure we can disagree with our government as well as with our governments structure, but the fact is that "we" make decisions. In short, "we" are in this together.
> People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives.
I agree, but I would argue that there is no person or company which would totally and permanently cripple the US economy by leaving. There are some examples which would cause a very difficult adjustment period, but we would overcome.
> Economic activity is not driven by the government
No, the government does not drive the economy but in the best scenario can act as a reliable GPS guidance system or in the worst an annoying backseat driver. The trick is to walk a thin line between the two.
> destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability.
Probably, but who wants to destroy the private sector?
> Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave?
I actually don't agree with the parent comment and would never suggest creating laws just to make people leave...there's enough of that going on now. I just think that _fear_ of someone leaving is unhealthy at best.
I'm talking about people who, out of all people, have the means to easily move to another country. Your suggestion is akin to telling them, "I will give you millions of dollars to move to another country." Instead of addressing my central point, you're trying to flip it into some abusive relationship metaphor.
After re-reading your comment, you actually didn't use that argument like I normally hear it. You said "be prepared" and did not add on some vague warning like "then what would happen." Stating it the way you did, I hesitantly agree.
To clarify my point while trying to sound less preachy and without the sensationalist metaphor (sorry about that by the way):
If there was some new law or tax code being proposed which would have the effect of people choosing to leave (not being forced), then that should be one valid point of discussion.
That discussion point should be discussed, hopefully quantified and chosen based on pros, cons and rational discussion, but never on fear.
Or the flipside of the metaphor, powerful governments "doing something that would make them leave" is making the decision to be an abuser.
The parent comment is suggesting perhaps abusing capital/entrepreneurs is a bad idea.
Another form of abuse is exploitation which is closer IMO to our current economic situation. Less powerful earners do not usually have an opportunity to negotiate terms, they are take-it-or-leave it options which is not necessarily the case with more powerful earners. I routinely negotiate contracts to get the best possible terms for everyone, I wish I had that option earlier in life.
This is earily similar to Terms of Use and other agreements between consumers and large tech companies. I wonder when this trend started.