The loophole is that the largest taxes paid in the US are paid on income rather than wealth, which allows the most richest citizens to evade taxes by having a relatively small income while having an amount of wealth that is so large that it's hard for most people to wrap their brains around.
The US used to have an income tax that was over 90% for the highest income bracket. Bringing it back would be a step in the right direction, but not enough, as non-income-based wealth would be untouched. If it was up to me, I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%. It's laughable that these billionaires are complaining at being taxed a mere 6% on wealth over $1 billion.
Wealth is just a static number. It goes up through income. You're talking about a double taxation for maintaining what you have which was already taxed on the way in.
There are different kinds of incomes like capital gains which is a different discussion and one that many people agree with raising.
> "I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%"
You'll lose most tax income. Every entrepreneur will leave. And the middle class (which builds up more than that over a lifetime) will be decimated. It's a great way to crash a nation.
It's been a long time since I looked in to this, but it used to be the case that if you gave up your US citizenship while having a net worth of over $100,000, it was assumed by the government that you were doing so for the purposes of tax evasion, and they'd continue to tax you for the next ten years.
The same could be done here, with the government getting 10 bites of 6% at wealth over $1 billion if the billionaire tries to run away. Taxation could also be made retroactive, if there was a political will to do it.
If some entrepreneurs leave others will step in to take their place.
As for the middle class being "decimated", I doubt it, as the median net worth in the US is only around $70k.
The majority of Americans won't be affected by taxes on millionaires.
So now the country is a prison? You won't have any millionaires if you tax their wealth at 90%. That's the point. And the top few pay a giant share of taxes.
Your plan does not lift anyone up and create wealth, it brings everyone down and destroys it.
No one would prevent anyone from leaving. They'd merely be prevented from evading taxes by leaving.
As far as creating wealth, I have no problem with it as long as it's shared. When it's hoarded by a tiny minority it leads to them having a greatly disproportionate concentration of power where they basically get to rule over the rest of us.
How is it hoarded? Becoming a billionaire requires creating massive value where millions of people willing pay you. The means of production that you leverage is due to capitalism, and the same freedom is offered to anyone else.
Nobody complains when the entrepreneur goes bankrupt from a failed business. Is society going to absorb those debts too then?
Wealth is power, but raising taxes is transferring it to politicians who already have political power. It's only being further concentrated, and that's a dangerous precedent that we can see from state-controlled economies like Russia and China.
"Becoming a billionaire requires creating massive value where millions of people willing pay you."
There have been a number of articles posted to HN and elsewhere which argue that luck plays a great role in success. Furthermore, the rich need not be providing any value, as they could simply be ripping people off (with extremely egregious and famous examples like Enron or Madoff, but there are plenty of others, most of whom don't make the news), exploiting the poor (see Amazon's treatment of its warehouse pickers for another famous example that's pretty close to home.. or the use of sweatshop labor to build products the world round), or they could be bribing politicians to grant them favors in the form of laws that are beneficial to them or just outright government contracts which they don't deserve, or they could be manipulating consumers through advertising to buy stuff they don't need and otherwise wouldn't have wanted and that might not work anyway or have a variety of deleterious effects (like the endless list of quack cures throughout history which made their sellers very rich but the patients very sick)... the list goes on and on.
"Nobody complains when the entrepreneur goes bankrupt from a failed business. Is society going to absorb those debts too then?"
Remember the government bailouts of banks that were "too big to fail"?
"Wealth is power, but raising taxes is transferring it to politicians who already have political power. It's only being further concentrated, and that's a dangerous precedent that we can see from state-controlled economies like Russia and China."
I am against the concentration of power in the hands of politicians as well. There needs to be more, and more effective direct democracy in the US, rather than buring our heads in the sand and leaving up to the political class to worry about politics. That needs to be done hand-in-hand with a greatly improved education in civics, history, ethics, and reasoning, so people aren't so easily manipulated and mislead. In any case, there are lots of problems to solve, and the concentration of wealth is just one (though a critical part) of what needs to be done.
Luck playing a part doesn't take away from the whole. You still need to work and create opportunities.
Ripping people off is already a crime. Exploiting the poor is a complex equation of personal choices and societal policies. Bribing politicians is an issue with govt politics (something I've stated several times). Poor corporate practices require regulation. Taxes do not solve any of these issues.
The bailouts were completely paid back with interest. It was one of the few examples of good govt spending and one of the best investments ever made. And it wasn't about saving a particular business but rather ensuring we don't go into a greater depression. Is that what you would've preferred?
It's disgusting. Its what comes from 30+ years of reaganomics. People thru their governments should be able to create health and education programs, not hope some billionaire will be kind enough to save them.
The US used to have an income tax that was over 90% for the highest income bracket. Bringing it back would be a step in the right direction, but not enough, as non-income-based wealth would be untouched. If it was up to me, I'd tax wealth over $1 million at 90%. It's laughable that these billionaires are complaining at being taxed a mere 6% on wealth over $1 billion.