Glad I live in Switzerland.
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/fr/communiques-presse/les-1-les-plus-r....
Why are they using a global threshold? What fraction of Europeans does this cover? (How is that distributed?)
> Firstly, we call on the European Commission to draft a proposal for a directive establishing a European excess wealth tax, based on Article 115 TFEU.
In any case, the proposal is for a wealth tax, so income is irrelevant. I think the proposed wealth threshold for taxation is supposed to vary by country.
And if we're then talking about amounts, everybody will immediately, and rightly, claim that "the 1%" is not a livable wage in X. And they're right. You cannot live in Amsterdam on 66000 EUR per year. I mean, it's probably possible, with a great many compromises, but not really.
The problem is:
"the 1%" in Europe (EU-27): anything more than 66000 EUR
"the 10%" in Europe (EU-27): anything more than 34000 EUR
I think these figures are not talking about individual income, but about FAMILY income (both partners). It's EU-27 because it used to be EU-28, and then Brits decided ...
So, in the Netherlands, I believe that means more than 80% of the population is in "the 10%" of Europe and almost 60% of the population is in "the 1%" of Europe. I doubt even Dutch communists would support this tax.
Imagine earning $109,000 in Philippines verse earning the same amount in New York City?
Is the person in New York City really rich if they are paying 40% of their income for a 1 bedroom apartment?
I take these things a bit personally, because for many years, I sort of owned my job, and the valuations of my home and my job added up to more than 100% of my wealth. Fair enough, having a well-paying job is valuable.
But with the way we usually compute wealth, most wealth is ultimately connected to an organisation skilled people doing well-paying jobs, and the person who has a well-paying job is seldom the person whose wealth is proposed to be taxed. Taking that into considerations makes the proposals look rather… wrong.
It can definitely be a comfortable lifestyle on a budget, but it is by no means rich. Housing costs alone makes it blatantly middle class. Add in kids which brings it own costs, and saving for college, which is basically a 2nd mortgage if you save what you're supposed to, and that income range is just getting by like everyone else
They just might have a bigger house, nicer cars, and can take better vacations. But they are busting their ass for those slight luxuries.
By any means, I don't see how that's "blatantly middle class", even considering housing costs. Housing costs are the same whether you're wealthy or not.
More money means more money, if you have more, you're not "getting by like everyone else". Everyone else also has to pay all those things, wealthy or not.
Also I'd argue that most people in that range aren't busting their ass more than anyone living at minimum wage.