A better way to tax the rich

American wealth inequality is staggering. A wealth tax, which would hone in on the money people actually have, rather than just the money we earn and spend, could be a solution.
Become a Video Lab member! bit.ly/video-lab
An astounding amount of American wealth lies with very few ultrarich people. But it isn’t taxed by the federal government. That's because most of the taxes we pay only happen when money changes hands - when we earn it or spend it.
This is what a recent proposal from Senator Elizabeth Warren tries to fix. Her plan is to tax fortunes greater than $50 million at 2 percent each year, and wealth greater than $1 billion at 3 percent. When you add it all up, those tiny slivers of massive fortunes would raise enough revenue to pay for huge programs for everyone else.
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H

[@Vox]

Would you support a wealth tax in the US? Why or why not?

[@austinme5010]

Your wealth tax will discourage people from being wealthy meaning that they will be laws likely to make new companies and current companies will get worse to save money hurting everyone.

[@Lycaon1765]

Yeah. It's a good idea. It's just that socialists who don't know how money works that make things worse for its implementation. They bring their hate and lack of understanding of money everywhere.

[@rileymiller7786]

Vox Id support a wealth tax because you can use it to help fund these social programs like Medicare for all and college free tuition. The people effected by the tax probably won’t even notice a damn difference. What’s of little significance to them can be life changing for millions of others

[@DrIsaqueBezerra]

No! It's so nice in theory, and I wish it could be possible, but in practice, it causes capital evasion, people take their money to other countries with less tax regulation, like Singapore or Taiwan. It have already been tried in France, and lead to this very situation, capital evasion leading to job loss. 👌

[@robertjarman3703]

Austin me It is staggeringly hard to get remotely close to that much wealth. You can see that almost everyone even successful and entrepreneurial owns less than that. It's affecting a couple thousand Americans at most at 50 million, and even if the tax was everything above say 10 million, you can find a million people or so who earn between that and the already high income people of larger companies and celebrities. Wouldn't you be interested in owning 49.99 million dollars?

[@thore345]

Sounds very reasonable. So it's not gonna happen in the USA

[@Jobe-13]

Thore Yep 😂

[@str3aks468]

lmao

[@timmmahhhh]

Yep the constant FOXtardation of the masses will continue to seduce Americans to vote against their interests.

[@yuehan6711]

@Ren Lee You cannot possibly say that the country is being ran on maximum efficiency right now. You have no evidence for what you are saying. And if you are worried about the government misjudging the proportion of the tax, we could always give ways for the wealthy to dispute their tax amount.

[@yuehan6711]

@Ren Lee Anecdote central. You have no real proof. We are in an age of automation and a non zero sum game, we have every ability to make a capitalist/socialist system work.

[@narcolonarcolo]

Just to give some perspective: if you have $2b and your tax bill is 60 million it's like having $2000 and paying $60.

[@ramzanninety-five3639]

Is there a moral justification aside from "it's not that much"? People who have 2 billion in assets (which does not mean that they have a single physical penny, by the way) do not use any of the entitlement programs, so it's pure theft. They have no interest in it, it does not provide any public goods (roads, army, etc.) since everything is already provided by the current system. Thus, there can be no moral argument in favour of that arrangement, that is, if we disregard "it's not that much" as an argument.

[@UnknownBigF]

well, no, it's like if you had 2 Billion USD in property, and the government decides that everything you own is worth about 2 Billion USD, so the government can take $60 million USD of your money, which is property, by the way, thus violating property rights and taking $60 million of your money, which has already been taxed several times over by the time it's yours.

[@bigbrownbear1231]

$60 every year...

[@narcolonarcolo]

@@ramzanninety-five3639 I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm only putting the figures discussed into sums that regular people can relate to.

[@mld962]

Having 2000 in assets and being taxed 60 in cash, every year, is very huge actually...

[@cxsey8587]

For what it’s worth they did this in France and lost billions of dollars from the rich fleeing.

[@qolumbia3536]

We all know all of the 200 billion would get re-"invested" into the military program instead of something good

[@yemenibalI]

Ah America

[@breakfast_food]

Sigh. You’re right. It’s the sad truth

[@defaultlogos2976]

Not exactly true, really depends on the President and majority party in the Senate. A Republican President might place the money into helping the funding of Colleges or Federal Agencies such as NASA. Democrats might place the money into the Discretionary System, for Healthcare , though that might be varied as some Democrats are either supportive of Bernie's Medicaid for All or Obamacare.

[@anemu3819]

@@defaultlogos2976 how is nasa a cororation?

[@defaultlogos2976]

@@anemu3819 My fault, should have said "federal agency" instead of corporation.

[@CadetGriffin]

*Cashier* Net worth: -$4,000 That must be Squidward.

[@irondolphin9387]

And if you keep going to the left, far off the screen, you will see the the US government.

[@PatrickAndFriendsPRO]

probably student loans

[@dorkmax7073]

Squidward owns a 3 story loft space. He's doing fine

[@domesticcat1725]

@@dorkmax7073 are you sure he owns it

[@trotzkii]

I get the feeling it's probably Spongebob :(

[@vinmin]

Vox should make a video comparing how different country's taxation systems work

[@bigdickmcgee3293]

I would be really interested in how they do it in flatter societies like Sweden or Switzerland or wierder systems like Singapore.

[@mathiasgaming4586]

The problem with that is each country’s taxation system is so complicated that comparing it to other countries would be quite difficult.

[@Deathmastertx]

@@mathiasgaming4586 This is really important. Most countries tax codes are huge. That's why it can be difficult to compare tax rates between countries because while you have, say, an income tax rate the multitude of various deductions and breaks and whatnot can mean the rate actually paid can be quite different from what you'd initially expect.

[@blanco7726]

To add to this^ for example in Luxembourg we have an above average income tax rate, but in the end we pay less than most other rich European countries, due to deductions. It’s complicated.

[@connorkelly1809]

Vincent Min I can get on board with that

[@cdarioworks]

Jeff Bezos will suddenly announce that he has fallen in love with Switzerland culture, renounce his American citizenship, and yet stay as an expat 😆

[@liamm32]

I believe Switzerland already has a wealth tax.

[@davisdelp8131]

@@liamm32 the banks

[@TheGinglymus]

Yeah, Switzerland has a wealth tax. They would love that

[@sosopwsi829Jjw9]

Until he meets the National Guard

[@RaiFon1]

Make a video of how to dodge wealth tax, so we can see the perspective of rich people and what they would do to dodge the tax.

[@diegobotto6245]

Exactly what i was thinking

[@gonzotime7224]

If it were me I would continue living in California, but my money lives in Switzerland now

[@apost0167]

@@gonzotime7224 yeah this whole system seems very easy to bypass

[@SeanKH19]

Dodging taxes is one those things rich people do that people hate, even though 100% of those haters would do it too.

[@blakestockman88]

@@SeanKH19 ding ding ding. My same thought. Oh vox and your near sightedness

[@knight3935]

that is nice and all but the people who have the power to implement such a tax are the very ones who will be taxed

[@sabrinatatalias4277]

Lol i didn't think about that

[@Belfry_pat]

That's exactly why it won't pass. That and donor money

[@cob571]

How many politicians are billionaires?

[@RandomGuy-nm6bm]

@@cob571 you mean multimillionaires

[@hyprolxag]

Chris Anderson politicians became politicians in the first place because of billionaires

[@tobiaschaparro2372]

3:10 Or it could pay for some new aircraft carriers and better missiles, which is more likely to happen.

[@nexus1g]

What's much more likely to happen is that Social Security and Medicare would eat it up, which add up to more than 50% of what the Feds spend each year.

[@fltactical]

Truth. When did government ever spend wisely. Even in this video, they were going to use the money for new programs. Even while we waste money on protecting the world and run massive deficits. You can't tax your way out of debt, nor can you tax your way out of stupid administration of the government.

[@hyort3613]

Tobías Chaparro it’s sad but they Problaby would.

[@patgrabiec4406]

For Israel

[@DaxSudo]

Yay! More military spending for me! I feel special lol. Go Navy!

[@Poisonedblade]

I live in CA. We have the largest economy by far, the highest taxes, the largest debt, and the highest spending. Our schools are ranked 45th. Our roads are ranked 47th. 25% of all homeless live in CA. Our air quality is terrible. Our prisons are so full, we send convicts to other states. The govt wastes money!

[@nooneyouknow4312]

And you know if your kingdom is doing good/bad if you open your gates and see which way the peasents go (in or out). And guess whatt, the demoRats are leaving the ship only to infect other states with the same crap policy ideas that ruined CA.

[@thebigs6405]

Did you say prison? Uhh.. You're A Bigot!!

[@josephmoore8245]

Don’t forget most businesses are moving away due to high regulations and taxes.

[@thebigs6405]

@@josephmoore8245 give Kansas City or Dallas silicon valley

[@HitenLighthearth]

@@nooneyouknow4312 Yep... they are heavily targeting my state from Cali, Texas.

[@Poisonedblade]

The govt can provide all of these things already. It has a 4 trillion annual budget and overspends another trillion. If it wanted to do all of these things, it would.

[@kingbobeverything9906]

Freedom toons?

[@Giorno.]

Thats only the federal, the combined municipal+state+federal level government spends 7.5 trillion.

[@conradferris8049]

But how do you know that. That money has to be divided up into so many different places.

[@Poisonedblade]

@@conradferris8049 The CA govt underfunds the things we want, then tries to convince us to raise taxes. Schools, National Parks, fire depts, etc... are underfunded. Their pet projects get the money first. Every election, the dems get on TV and say, "We need more money for the brave firefighters, the dedicated nurses, and of course, THE CHILDREN!" They also beg for the environment. CA has the highest taxes because morons keep voting for tax increases. This is a tactic that they use to keep the revenue streams flowing.

[@dannyreychico8147]

They raise taxes in places that ignore immigration laws, just last year, the US wasted 150 billion dollars on illegals while the people living in the said city was suffering in a tax increase

[@tylerhan2000]

Here's the problem already - its INCREDIBLY hard to get a sense of a person's assets even through audit. No doubt rich people are going to move money out overseas, to family members, and all that jazz to avoid tax. It already happens

[@pmeagle]

Because we need to sanction countries that do not allow wealth transparence, fiscal paradises such us UK, NL, USA, Italy, etc

[@sew_gal7340]

Not to mention that anyone who follows the news knows that Dem and Rep are both branches of the same tree (one plays good cop, the other plays bad cop) playing the same scam game. You can't trust democrats to propose this kind of bill and expect them to go through with it.

[@norude]

we still should try

[@DriFitMonk]

You can't move assets, such as land and homes out of the country. If they want to redistribute their own wealth in order to avoid the government doing it for them, that accomplishes the same thing.

[@tedchou12]

@@DriFitMonkthat is too simplistic. land or property could be held by foreign entity that are then leased back to the original owner. On paper, the person doesn’t own it at all.

[@Coupec11]

It's funny that these people literally earn more from interest than they'd be taxed.....

[@llc1976]

it's depressing.

[@Suedocode]

Depends on the markets, and this is "assets" not just stocks and property. Many assets degrade in value naturally, like cars. This just taxes them on top of that.

[@jgelliot]

They won't be able to out pace inflation. This is a dumb idea.

[@Suedocode]

@@jgelliot One of the nice benefits of inflation is the equalizing pressure (reducing debts, shrinking wealth), but yeah I think this law and especially with these rates is overkill.

[@TheRealCho]

Actually they would lose money as real wealth growth is measured by net net net of fees inflation and taxes. Assume 6% gain minus 2% for income tax (33% of taxable gain), minus 2% for Warren's plan, minus 2% for inflation and minus 1% for fees. That leaves with negative 1%. I would rather have a 95% top income tax as it taxes my growth rather than my savings. Btw, this is why people need to hire investment advisors who invest in low fee investments and the advisory fee is low. In net net net, the only thing you can control is fees.

[@thenoseyskeptic]

So what happens if this top 1% leaves the country?

[@whguswls798]

if this top 1% leaves the us.... look france

[@adorabasilwinterpock6035]

The US har worldwide tax authority, they cant get away

[@pavb9852]

@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 They can revoke their citizenship

[@noahremnek3615]

Pav B It is not easy to revoke it

[@krishreddy8291]

Noah Remnek they can still do it

[@simonheit6362]

Wealth tax has been tried and repealed in about a half dozen EU countries. It's too easy for accountants to find loopholes. By contrast, a Value Added Tax (VAT) has been adopted by most countries at this point. We should not be looking to other countries’ mistakes. Instead, we should look at the tax system in 160 countries like Germany and France that set up future generations for success, which is a value-added tax.

[@atticusjones]

How bout we rather plug the loop holes, implement VAT AND still employ a wealth tax!!! (^o^)

[@ellatobin6967]

The problem with this is we can't really compare EU countries to America, our economies are so vastly different based on size. Just the fact that america is a federal state and most EU countries are unitary makes it hard to compare, although it isn't the worst idea there is

[@brianwings6908]

@@ellatobin6967 If unitary high-tax states failed at it, why would typically dysfunctional anti-tax America succeed?

[@Blaze6108]

VAT is really regressive though, it hits people who need to spend money to live the most in proportion. If you want to reap an extra buck without having to impinge on workers' incomes I'd advocate for a Land Value Tax instead.

[@frankcarotenuto5901]

If a rich person was taxed on their non-liquid assets and say their assets are predominantly non-liquid (as they usually are) would that mean they could potentially need to sell their assets to pay their taxes?

[@zaknelthepony7124]

Yes.

[@leonzhang7821]

I'd expect more companies to pay dividends above that 2 or 3 per cent so that their major shareholders would be able to pay off the wealth tax simply through dividends.

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

They can try to sell the assets, but good luck finding a buyer for that 50 million dollar painting at your asking price of 50 million. Assessing something high value might actually reduce its value because the higher it is assessed the more it costs to keep.

[@redpenguin5602]

Yes but then you have capital gains tax and such.

[@andrewstevens2409]

The main problem with this tax is that the people who are that rich don't actually have that much money lying around in a bank account ready to be taxed - they just have that much money in assets. It'd be pretty difficult to properly gauge how much "wealth" these people have and then to properly tax all of their assets (and this is assuming they don't somehow move their assets overseas to avoid the tax). It's a good idea in theory, but would be difficult to enforce.

[@drakekoefoed1642]

It's always hard to enforce taxes, but we enforce property tax on realty, and also on store inventories and such like. I'd set the penalty for taking assets overseas to the confiscation of all the overseas assets, and the non hidden stuff is still subject to tax if you have any of it when you get out of prison

[@ryan2011]

Why would it be that hard? Insurance companies determine value of assets all the time. If you own a $100,000,000 home, you're going to have insurance and you're going to know how much it's worth.

[@yuehan6711]

I'm sure clever people could figure it out. And with a large book with enough clauses most loopholes should be stamped out. Obviously we should give the wealthy tools to dispute unfair taxes as well.

[@ezra55595]

That’s why we need to close loopholes for assets stored overseas. If you make your money in America/from the American people, you should have to pay taxes on it. Period. I don’t understand why that’s a hard concept for people. (Though I do understand that that kind of reform would be hard to pass with the senate the way it is :/)

[@justinemccloud7755]

You're telling me they can't find a couple million dollars for the tax when they regular spend more than that on fancy cars, homes, private jets, etc?

[@emcf2944]

Would assets with no/low liquidity be taxed? And if so, why? Would assets held outside the country / assets that become less than $50M per person when they are collectively owned be taxed? And if so, how? Would assets such as businesses be taxed? And if so, how will businesses with

[@mmanuel6874]

Exactly. There's a lot of people who don't even understand how assets work.

[@timothyn4699]

Obviously you would get an inspector to measure out and cut off 2-3% of that private jet every year

[@minimumsolow.7535]

@@timothyn4699 Big bran power

[@jammadan]

@Joey The Conservative Assets that are easily sold for cash

[@KiLLJoYYouTube]

I was thinking that. To tax an asset, it needs to have value, to give it value, it needs to be sold. I can't just chop off 5% of my house while I own it.

[@VoicesWithVengeance]

How do you pay a tax especially that high when your "wealth" is all in assets? 🤔 I noticed vox didn't explain anything about how this will actually work 👌

[@trifordhamankaseke8897]

heard you can directly give the government the asset if you dont have cash

[@pingukutepro]

This is 10 times more complicated than in the video and it has a negative outcome. You need to get money from those Billionaires but Wealth Tax is not the answer, we need to find another way.

[@TaK3ReflexzZz]

Invest your wealth in something that gives enough return to pay the tax (which is actually a great incentive to not just buy mansions and yachts), or liquidate assets.

[@DaddyAZTL]

@@TaK3ReflexzZz buying mansions and yachts creates jobs.

[@cristiandavidhernandez31]

@@pingukutepro what is the way?

[@DK1213]

Let’s be real, if this was to happen, every single penny would go to the military because the US is crazy

[@Grajor]

DK1213 Nonsense, the top 3 largest expenditures are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[@cwmd7651]

​@@Grajor Here's a link for you with a graph of the US government spending www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Go to the one labeled discretionary spending. That shows what the US chose to spend money on that was not mandatory. Can you guess what the largest portion is?

[@ninja1inblack105]

DK1213 no the US already set the army budget to $600b. It’s not like they need to up it to 800b unless full on ww3 breaks out. That money will go to the causes mentioned in the video among other things. Granted I think those are dumb causes. Things like infrastructure and jobs are more important.

[@Grajor]

CW MD Yes, and this just goes to show the level of asininity that we deem 65% of spending as “mandatory.” The fact still stands that the majority of spending is comprised of entitlements. By the way, we do need to cut military spending, but also welfare spending.

[@mariom.1679]

​@@ninja1inblack105 By not having one global superpower with a high spending military budget to support the peace the ww3 will happen, countries are afraid to go to war cause they have the usa eyeballing them.

[@Hartsikasvo]

This wealth tax sounds reasonable, like if you have 60million, 200 000 isnt that much money compared to it. Ok im just a poor student so who am i to say. But this would benefit many people, without taking much from the richest of the rich

[@mycenaeangal9312]

I'm tentatively in favor. I'd wanna see how the numbers play out when compared with growth from investments and things

[@mjlyco9752]

How do you pay the tax if the 60 million is in real estate, business investments, bonds, and the stock market? Sell a house every year and divest from businesses? How about we just tax them on their gains when they sell and any dividend payments.... oh wait, we do that already.

[@allstarwoo4]

MJ Lyco if you have $60 million in estates and stocks it’s not making money than you have different problems.

[@anotherfool9278]

Hartsikasvo Ok. Then by that logic, whatever you have more than what I have, I’m allowed to take. Balance it out. Regardless if you deserved it or not or if I deserve it or not.

[@trulyUnAssuming]

Since the average capital return is something like 7%, lets say 5% to be safe. If you have 2 billion, you make 100 million every year without doing anything and have to give away 50 million (2:42). Now if you try to come up with a way to actually spend the 50 million per year, you will realize that this is plenty. And that is without working at all.

[@nigelwest5776]

I want to know more about that poorest person in America worth like a negative million dollars

[@fijit4]

Medical debt for something uncommon gets that high.

[@lilisommerfeld]

probably the donald before his presidency ;-)

[@Vliegenraam-Online]

His name is donald trump

[@nigelwest5776]

@@lilisommerfeld I don't get it. I said on the low end of the spectrum

[@lilisommerfeld]

@@nigelwest5776 yep, I know. That self proclaimed stable genius businessman was mostly in debt for much of his life.

[@juju10683]

1) if you are in the top 0.05% just renounce your US citizenship. Why would you need it? 2) its not the taxes, but how they are spent. The US historically spends taxes on interventionist policies.

[@ezip8564]

tfw all of the middle class people are defending the top 1%

[@FarhatC28]

Because they're still sitting praying they'll by some miracle join them, then they won't want to be taxed like that

[@juancena1117]

Im super poor. Yet i dont want to see this happen. The rich already get taxed so much. You all act like this money will go towards you. The government just wants more power. Stop giving it so much.

[@everydaytech6854]

Macaroon Cat Anytime the government makes the claim that they’ll tax the rich they only end up taxing the middle class and poor. This is literally how the government was able to establish annual taxes with the 16th amendment, before the amendment was established nobody was taxed, the only way you were taxed was due to sales tax.

[@smashgodtv1345]

Name one poor person that created a job

[@billsmith9903]

NO MORE TAXES. Every time these morons talk about increasing the tax on the wealthy, it's the middle class that gets the shaft. Screw the entire idea of taxation. It has caused the middle class to suffer because the morons who promise higher taxes on the rich don't get it. The rich increase the prices of their goods and we the little guy end up paying for it. SCREW YOUR TAXES. IT IS THEFT.

[@ajuicejemas]

Imagine unironically thinking that someone with over a billion dollars being required to spend a few million to keep help the poor is going to lead to the collapse of society

[@TheTyme99]

ajuicejemas Well, historically nations with great inequality (very high Gini coefficients) have experienced revolutions that led to the death of the most wealthy. Namely, the French and Bolshevik revolutions, although they are many more examples throughout history. As the saying goes “heads will roll.” Thus, if you assume that great inequality will lead to the destruction of a given society, then as a society it is our job to reduce it. If, and only if, it is at the point to which it becomes dangerous to our society. After the 2008 financial crisis, there has been growing discontent among the middle class that inequality is reaching its breaking point. As the brunt of Wall Street’s poor management was paid for by the American middle class; however, that middle class did not receive much of the benefit. This is also no fault of any particular person or politician, but rather a result of the structure of our financial and political system. Therefore, it is within our best interest to reduce the growing discontent by changing said system. If that is a wealth tax then so be it, but to deny the fact that the problem exists is not going to solve anything.

[@salamandah69]

How is money supposed to flow in the economy if it’s just sitting in bank accounts

[@paufaraldos2827]

I think you fail to understand the fact that billionaires DO NOT have billions in their bank accounts. They cannot be taxed 200 million dollars every year because they do not have this much cash. Yes, they have assets worth this amount, but do you seriously expect them to sell their assets every year to pay for taxes? That is ridiculous.

[@TheGoblinoid]

Uh, it's called being a republican? And I'd be grateful if you respected that position. Also, if we taxed Trump's 100B IQ, we'd all be geniuses. And just like in communism, no one would be a genius. Destroyed with facts and logic.

[@michaels4123]

Republicans believe that the millions could be used to create jobs instead of simply giving everyone hand outs. At least try to look at the other sides view.

[@Ryan-Fkrepublicnz]

I like her idea of taxing corporations at the profit they claim to their shareholders, not the IRS.

[@michaelwatkins8710]

That wealth was already taxed when it was earned. Other countries have stopped bothering with a wealth tax, beause it brings in less than expected and increased evasion and underreporting massively.

[@AMNG1994]

Americans be like: Is this socialism? Then they break out in hives.

[@Fals3Agent]

"hey Vox why don't you guys move to venezuela lololol"

[@lilgarbagedisposal9141]

whERE is tHe incenTive TO BECoME A mULTi-BILLioNaIre if 3 perCenT is TAkeN fROM YoU? -person who made less than 60k last year.

[@TheAgavi]

The Nixon and Reagan era made sure that Americans would rather die of starvation than let the wealthy pay their fare share.

[@CoryMck]

@@Fals3Agent 70% of Venezuela's economy is privately owned, the other 30% is state owned. State capitalism is not socialism. And the government's corruption and decision to not diversify their nationalized oil industry (1) has absolutely nothing to do with the criticisms of socialism.

[@Fals3Agent]

@@CoryMck I know that, i'm making fun of the people who get socialism wrong

[@jeanbonnefoy1377]

In France, such a tax is applied, it is called ISF ('Impôt Sur la Fortune') and is taxing all posessions in excess if €1M (with a few exceptions like first personal residence, works of art and most importantly, money invested in real economy.

[@Vox]

Jean Bonnefoy thank you for sharing!

[@Steve-si5nq]

Yes and look at how France is doing. Not exactly a model country

[@captainwin6333]

@@Steve-si5nq Well their birth death rate isn't as bad as the USA. The amount of people bankrupted by medical bills doesn't exist unilke America. They don't have the grinding poverty of many Americans and they also don't have many other human stats that read like a developing country, unlike America.

[@davidhochstetler4068]

Captain Win and they have violent riots in the streets and a fear of a change in government. Delightful.

[@icemtel]

@@davidhochstetler4068 isn't it what Americans dream about since Trump was elected?

[@thomasthetankengine5948]

The goverment will spend 2 billions in 5 hours. We need to fix how the goverment uses money, not give them more.

[@newt9908]

Yes

[@dinamosflams]

At this point you should really think in the possibility of doing both. But If we are talking about cutting costs, those missiles and aircraft carriers are starting to look too Gucci with that 700billion dollars a year for my taste

[@newt9908]

@@dinamosflams We should also try to pay back our dept.

[@dinamosflams]

@@newt9908 the money can be for as a priority

[@newt9908]

@@dinamosflams Yeah but we should save it instead. It could be extremely useful.

[@deancuban894]

He speaks about the more money this could bring in and what we could then afford with it like we arent over 20 trillion in debt at a massive deficit

[@Albanez39]

Debt doesn't exist.

[@deancuban894]

@@Albanez39 ?

[@khadijahmuhammad4771]

Why does this talking point come up when it's about helping working and middle-class Americans, but when we want to build a wall, start a trade war, or start an actual war just because it's not a factor.

[@rosegold-beats]

No one holds the government accou table for being in a 20 trill debt, thats why they'll never attempt to pay it back

[@georgebrantley776]

@@rosegold-beats Foreign nations hold a non-trivial portion of this debt. Private entities hold a lot of it too. Private entities are mostly US citizens, so if the gov't won't honor its bonds to its own citizens then we are going to have societal collapse. As for foreign nations, if the US stops paying off the debt then the foreign nations will stop trading with us. Otherwise they'd just be giving us free things, which is senesless.

[@StupidEco]

Stop making videos before us! : p

[@StupMedia]

I'm glad you finally say it

[@showaibzaman400]

I'm sub you just now too.

[@Nemosw828]

Super, j'attendais justement ton avis sur le sujet.

[@armanke13]

I see your videos are mostly in French.. You have different market man.. 😅

[@StupidEco]

@@armanke13 I define myself as a citizen of the world 😅

[@Ashley-tx3gm]

No clue why so many people are against this idea! It's simple and effects only those who are earning an obscene amount of money without taxing a large percent of their income. Makes sense to me

[@sabrinatatalias4277]

They still worked for the money despite it being so much..this is going to make the wealthy unmotivated to work knowing they are getting taxed so much.

[@andreabritton7415]

@@sabrinatatalias4277 most of them didn't and none of them need it

[@andreabritton7415]

@@sabrinatatalias4277 they already don't work

[@cupajoe99]

amoral combat that’s true in a lot of instances, but still a generalization

[@jumper7790]

I think they are just praying on the rich to fix all of our problems and even if they do put this horrible idea into motion; all of the ultra rich will just leave the country and that’s even worse for the economy

[@SirSX3]

If we implement this, we'll see a sharp increase of people with a net worth of just $49.9 million dollars

[@andrewwhite7537]

Not really because assests would still often increase in value faster than the tax. It would a waste to cut your wealth to avoid the tax.

[@axel665]

Nah if people tax the rich they move to different country

[@dylanc9145]

​@@axel665 nah, then they're traitors and we'll just have the government seize their properties and assets.

[@burn_out]

@@dylanc9145 bro wake up you shat yourself

[@dylanc9145]

@@burn_out um sorry, how much more wealth does the middle class have now than they did in the 60s? You got an extra chromosome bud? Need help finding your helmet?

[@furtim1]

How very embarrassing this must be for Vox.

[@circleinfo]

What should be embarrassing?

[@furtim1]

It is wrong in pretty much all of its statements, implications, and conclusions. Here are a few: 1-The US already has wealth taxes (property taxes and capital gains tax). 2-The idea that this would "only be taxed to the super rich" is a scam the US people have fallen for before (US income taxes started that way too). 3-That the US government, which has spending obligations that dwarf the gross domestic product of most of the world combined, would spend wisely (not that their suggestions are the least bit wise) another $200 billion. 4-That human beings do not respond to incentives and disincentives (ie, if you tax someone, they don't change their behavior in the least bit). There are many more fundamental errors. Plus, more generally, this entire piece is unveiled envy and greed. This is just another incarnation of Cain and Abel or, more recently, the collectivization propaganda under Stalin. They just want us to hate the rich, to believe they owe you something, to believe they are holding out, to believe that poverty or suffering are their fault (when poverty is actually the normal human state of affairs throughout history and worldwide). For most of history, the rich got rich by literally taking property from people. Now, in the West, you can pretty much get rich one of two ways - being a politician/criminal (taking from people) or being a businessman (producing goods/services for people, which they can freely choose whether or not to buy). Unless the millionaires and billionaires in this video were politicians or criminal, they don't owe anyone anything. They already paid their "share" when you got a copy of MS Office, the product from Amazon, or that popular book. Unless you are going to "give back" your share of that trade, you shouldn't expect them to, just because they traded more times than you did. @@circleinfo

[@Sodapopper100]

@@furtim1 too long didn't read

[@carival]

furtim1 big corporations do not pay their fair shares. I don’t know how the hell you think this is okay 😂

[@furtim1]

"big corporations do not pay their fair shares" Oh? And how, exactly, (not in silly platitudes, but in exact dollar amounts, did you come to calculate what they owe? To whom do they "owe" this debt? What do you mean, in your sentence, by the word "share"? What makes you think businesses only do not pay their "fair share" when they are structured as a corporation, rather than a partnership, sole proprietorship, or other ownership structure? How "big" do you mean? They employ too many people? They produce too many goods and services? Do small businesses pay their "fair share"? Do you? Does anyone? How do you know? What is your basis for making such a claim (proof and logical reasoning, please)? @@carival

[@Thomas15]

Wealth taxes suffer from a few problems: • Valuation problem: How do you appropriately value assets at the scale required? What about shares that aren't publicly traded, antiques, arts, and anything else of value? • Liquidity problem: The wealth of almost all wealthy people is primarily held in non-liquid assets and the capital generated by those assets may not even cover the wealth tax bill. Consider a company like Amazon that is notoriously a low-profit business. In 2017 its profits were $3bn, which is less than Bezos' entire wealth tax bill under Warren's proposals and of course Bezos would only have access to the portion that represents his ownership of the company. It's not enough. The consequence of this is mass asset sales. In order to raise capital to pay the wealth tax, assets owned by the wealthy will have to be sold. And who would be purchasing these assets--shares or possessions--when they're sold? People wealthy enough to afford them will likely be in the same position as the seller and trying to sell their own assets to raise cash. Those wealthy enough but below the threshold of the tax may avoid buying because such a purchase may take them over the threshold and result in them also having to pay the wealth tax. The people wealthy enough to buy up such assets without incurring the wealth tax will be non-American investors. In other words, US assets being purchased by foreign investors. The global tax system needs to be fixed, mainly through simplification and clear international rules that are fit for a world in which e-commerce and the internet exists, and there's certainly a case to be made about how government can best collect revenue. But taxing assets regardless of if and how much capital they generate in between transactions seems unworkable and likely will have so many unintended consequences

[@Debonair73]

How is this any different than property taxes? If insurance companies can calculate the value of property, then so can the government. I don't think people will leave but you will see a lot of public companies go private especially the ones that are not overvalued on the public markets.

[@hnam1111]

A flat two percent will run into several problems as you described, but you can get a committee of wealthy lobbyists, economists, and policy makers to address these issues. For example, certain property could be exempt such as startup companies and one personal home. You could have sizable deductions if your assets are concentrated in a handful of non-liquid properties. You could have a grace period if your wealth explodes in a short period. Also, I highly doubt anybody would not invest in profitable assets because of the tax because it only applies to marginal wealth above 50m, not your entire net worth.

[@robertrosenthal7264]

If you have more than $50 million, that's not an issue. A company that is worth more than $50 million that is a private single owner company is ran by a successful or lucky idiot in the first place.

[@zachgravatt5571]

I don’t that a man worth $135 billion is entitled to see that wealth continue to grow, Jeff Bezos loosing more money to tax than he earns is not a problem, it’s not like if he drops down to $120 billion he’s going to be out on the street.

[@Thomas15]

Zach Gravatt Who's to say what he is and isn't entitled to have? If you create something, own part or all of it, and it's financial value increase - great job! The issue is the unintended consequences of the inevitable asset sales and the effect that could have.

[@1234567890sunshine]

Might that taxed wealth just end up being used to buy more nuclear bombs or giving all senators a raise...

[@dinamosflams]

Buy 10 B2 would be more reasonable for the US.

[@ElizabethPayet]

There would probably have to have a very strict rule, that the money could only be used to help citizens on the lower levels (the people, not the government) so that it can’t just be given back to the wealthy.

[@datle5449]

US: extra $200 B. What should I spend it on Boeing: new jet fighter and bomber coming up soon US: take my money !!!

[@robbieaulia6462]

Nuclear bombs is unlikely as the US is signed of a treaty limiting the number of nuclear weapons

[@davidtumm]

@@Nick-ky8pd There is more than a trillion spent on military... we could easily waste $200 billion more or even trillions more depending on how delusional government is.

[@or6397]

I d be very worried about the thin end of the wedge. Once you establish that people can be taxed simply for owning assets, then what’s to stop everyone being taxed? Also, how would you determine net worth? You might own all these assets but they could be secured against massive liabilities that you are paying off. Plus any valuation of assets is partly subjective and can be manipulated.

[@theawkwardskeleton6608]

O R also have to add the massive loopholes this has. A couple who has 100 million net worth could just divorce and split it 50/50 and avoid the tax, or give money to their children or charity, or just spend so much money they only have a net worth of 50 million. Or just leave the Country like what Rich French and German citizens did until they repealed the Wealth Tax in their nations.

[@adamlynch462]

Not to mention what those assets actually are ... stocks. Are we going force people to sell stock to pay these taxes?!

[@josephcourtright8071]

@@adamlynch462 Nah, when I finally pay off my mortgage they'll just have me redirect the payments to uncle sam. It's outlawing ownership.

[@Christ5306]

Also would that mean selling off property and businesses, of you ask me it's a huge infringement on the constitution. Also said note at around 2:00, if you have the same income but way lower net wealth, maybe it's a personal problem and not a social problem.

[@nerdnairbnordnirbu9044]

@@Christ5306 nowhere in the constitution does it say you cant tax people. How is it infringement to the constitution???

[@daytoncoates4930]

2:55 which could... Run the federal government for like 20 days

[@user-jv3mm6vt6e]

Vox: let's tad people for literally buying expensive things. *"Expensive things are less bought"* *Workers who make expensive things lose their job* Pikachu face:

[@miradics3988]

So the goverment spends too much iresponsibly? Give them more money! Obviously... Increase the national debt even more!

[@amazing3614]

They get around 3 trillion dollars a year if they where going to give us free whatever they could find a way

[@JDG-hq8gy]

@@user-jv3mm6vt6e That’s literally just trickle down economics. If the objective is to benefit the workers who produce the luxury products that are disproportionately more likely to be bought by the wealthy than the general populace, then why not tax just tax the rich and then redistribute that money to the workers? Would you rather overprice your customer to make $10, or give your customer $10 so they can buy a product that cost $8 to manufacture so that you can make $2 profit?

[@tylerbennett4488]

You sure 200B is enough to pay for free college three times over? That doesn’t sound right. Plus, we’re even assuming that the money gets to where it is supposed to go, which it inevitably won’t.

[@samal3196]

Tax comes in yearly m80 ;)

[@idealbrandmarketing]

She wasn’t sure, but now she is sure it doesn’t and had to change it to take a LOT more. It’s somehow ok for the government to steal but not the rest of us, taxing is one thing but taking what isn’t theirs after tax this is just stealing.

[@SkitHertz]

I don't understand why so many commenters are so against the idea of taxing the rich. Literally none of you guys are in that group.

[@Kima344]

Bc it is common sense to be against it. Ask any country with socialism how they like it

[@SkitHertz]

y'all sound like income tax and goods and service tax isn't a thing ...

[@SkitHertz]

@@joshuajohn8870 nor is it "common sense" to be against anything related to tax or socialism ... but oh well

[@Terrycsm]

Because "taxing the rich" is a nice way of saying "taking other's money". They have a lot? It's doesn't matter, it's not yours. As an example, a regular middle class person is like a millionaire for a poor person, according to the video's logic it would be ok to take the money from middle class and give it to the poor. They "don't need it" anyway.

[@cooperhawkins6321]

@@Dont_care_4_U "without a reason", how about the reason that the government needs money to function and that money has to come from somewhere so it just makes sense to tax the ultra rich instead of people who are already struggling to survive

[@SuperStratosfear]

If someone has more wealth than you do but you both have the same income how is that their fault and not yours?

[@mobiusraptor7]

Simply have more than someone is morally wrong, comrade. You shall be sent to re-education camp.

[@circleinfo]

How on earth could it be my fault if I didn't won or inherited so much wealth?

[@gonzalogutierrez510]

@Cristopher Montoya that's a big oof on your part

[@mobiusraptor7]

@Cristopher Montoya Or they practice delayed gratification and not mindlessly buy stuff? Marxism, not even once....

[@gonzalogutierrez510]

@Cristopher Montoya yeaaaaah I think not pal (in the example). You clearly see a difference, but not a big one, between his and his friend, so no millionaire. Sure more millionaires are made by inheriting their fortune than by making it, but this is clearly not that case. As I said, big oof on your part

[@jasonmonica6290]

It’s simple. If you tax the rich, they’ll leave.

[@taxslave5906]

If they don’t leave they will avoid tax legally and illegally. They will get better accountants.

[@stevenlovejoy6838]

Where will they go? Our taxes are significantly lower than taxes in Europe

[@jasonmonica6290]

@@stevenlovejoy6838 Singapore. Cyprus. Other places with virtually no taxes. There’s plenty of choices.

[@stevenlovejoy6838]

@@jasonmonica6290 lol yes because Jeff bezos is going to pack all his belongings and move to Cyprus thanks for clarifying!

[@jasonmonica6290]

@@stevenlovejoy6838 He can easily use tax law to move exclusively his business dealings there. Do some research

[@pabloariasmaiz4355]

When two people with the same income have very different wealth, it means that the one with more wealth has either inherited (so someone already paid taxes for that money), or saved it, or made better decisions with it (and also paid taxes for that income) or a mixture of the above. Taxing wealth means taxing twice, and that's why it's never done before.

[@atticusjones]

A lot of assumptions in this comment my friend.

[@mcnello420]

@@atticusjones Wealth taxes are a joke. Almost all of rich people’s wealth is held in stocks and corporations. If you tax their wealth, you would just force them to sell parts of their companies…. Whereby crashing the market.

[@11kazmoz]

@@mcnello420 socialism my friend

[@P1ranh4]

Oh, that's right. You Americans don't have a wealth tax.... Totally forgot about that.

[@Suedocode]

Most countries don't lol

[@user-qo7ul3wm1g]

P1ranh4 property tax is a wealth tax

[@lutherblissett9070]

@@user-qo7ul3wm1g Not really.

[@skaterdude14b]

0:17 i’m supposed to be like omg I HAVE STUDENT LOANS THEY UNDERSTAND ME

[@eliegbert8121]

1:45 *YACHTS ARE A HUMAN RIGHT.*

[@bris0rv105]

Private property is human right

[@jacksonray3596]

indeed my fellow intellectual

[@tobynorris9259]

That's almost as bad as the people that say 'respect is a basic human right' its not.

[@kaloca]

The yacht gives jobs to hundreds of people. It's not shameful to buy expensive stuff.

[@theanomaly2587]

indeed

[@InvestingBookSummaries]

Any tax related video will always be controversial

[@krashd]

Republicans don't like it when you challenge their gods.

[@Rdasboss]

I don’t understand how anyone can see that chart and say nothing needs to be done. That is insane and insanely immoral.

[@sabrinatatalias4277]

I entirely agree... the wealthy have money because they worked for what they have. Very immoral and honestly this is socialism.

[@harshgautam97]

You need to be a special kind of idiot to claim that people who worked hard for their money are immoral because they were able to do it and earn more than what the average person working for(say) them could.

[@MAVERICKSGR99]

May be work more and smarter. Your graph too will increase.

[@heartgold5646]

@@sabrinatatalias4277 So Jeff Bezos making a very successful company even though he has employees running his business warrants 70-150 billion? He cant give 49 MILLION?

[@calebjiang4056]

@@harshgautam97 problem is the vast majority of those people inherited the wealth and are only getting wealthier not from work, but from the 7-10% annual stock market return. If they actually earned the wealth from working hard, then it shouldn't be taxed

[@snander_batch8402]

I thought the video was going to be about how wealth taxes have largely been unsuccessful at raising tax revenue in countries that tried to implement the policy, and that some type of VAT typically is better at generating tax revenue.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

First question, why is "evening out wealth" even desirable? I can see the desire to end hunger or to provide housing for everyone. But if we get to the point where basic needs are met, having greater wealth is the incentive that gets some people to make and do things that improve society. Second question: Are you simply envious of your friend who was simply more frugal with an income that was identical to yours? Or maybe he just spent the money on things that lasted longer. Third question: What is the government's track record on "but only for the very, very rich"? You can start with the income tax that was intended to tax income "but only for the very, very rich."

[@ninjaartist1235]

I know right. I consider myself responsible with my income. So, I don't want it to go to reckless spenders. What are they gonna learn, that Uncle Sam is a magical ATM?

[@JC-dz6gd]

@@ninjaartist1235 It doesn't go to Reckless Spenders,it goes to things like paying for Free College Tuition,and Medicare for All.Obviously you didn't even care to watch the video.

[@bramvdnheuvel]

I thought you were asking genuine questions instead of trying to get into a heated argument, so I thought I could throw in my knowledge about this. Hope it helps. :) First answer: I think you have a great point, why should we distribute wealth if everyone meets basic needs? As I'll explain in the second answer, there's quite a few Americans who do not live under basic circumstances. Also, the idea that people need wealth inequality as an incentive has been scientifically debunked several times. Such incentive couldn't exist in countries where wealth and income are a taboo. Plus, several experiments that gave people the same amount of income generally showed that people were more concerned on WHAT their neighbours spent their money on rather than HOW MUCH money their neighbours spent. Second answer: If jealousy was the only reason to implement a wealth tax, then it'd be a terrible idea. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case. About 14% of all Americans live below the poverty line, and almost half the American population is one medical bill away from getting there. These are living standards that are very difficult, and living paycheck to paycheck is generally not considered a "normal" life. We're talking about living standards where people can't focus on raising their children because they need to work all day. Third answer: Don't worry about wealth being "difficult" to define, the government will find a way to define it clearly enough that loopholes (like putting money into other countries) cannot be abused on a large scale. During the 1950s, under president Eisenhower, a similar tax rate of over 90% had been had on the richest Americans, and this was also the time where the USA experienced the highest economical growth. So don't worry about some practical difficulties, this wealth tax had been successfully executed before in the USA, and it's quite doable to repeat. DISCLAIMER: I'm not really a fan of the wealth tax and would personally prefer (slightly) different ways to solve the increasing inequality in wealth, but I hope this answers your questions. :)

[@PvblivsAelivs]

@@bramvdnheuvel "I think you have a great point, why should we distribute wealth if everyone meets basic needs? As I'll explain in the second answer, there's quite a few Americans who do not live under basic circumstances." I will grant this. And I see reach the point where everyone's basic needs are met to be a worthwhile goal. I am somewhat suspicious of "make everyone's income the same" as a goal. "Also, the idea that people need wealth inequality as an incentive has been scientifically debunked several times." This seems to be a bit of a redirection from what I am trying to get at. Improving one's own life, or the lives of one's immediate family, is the actual goal of most people. In the society we live in, more money is very conducive to that end. In the process, some people make a lot of money for themselves by doing something that benefits a lot of people. And very few of them would take the same action if the only payoff was knowing they benefited millions of total strangers while they, themselves are in the same situation they would have been anyway. It isn't so much that I think people need wealth inequality as an incentive. People need _some_ incentive. And making significantly more money than they otherwise would have (I don't even consider the relation to other people important) is a very useful incentive. As for the scientific debunking, I would have to review it myself. I have never heard of a country where income was taboo. The second question is very specific to the author in the video. He talks about his friend having the same income as he does, but more overall wealth. And he seems to be saying that he doesn't think it fair that his friend pay the same amount in taxes. (It is possible that I am misunderstanding this. so an answer from the actual video maker would be useful here.) "Don't worry about wealth being 'difficult' to define, the government will find a way to define it clearly enough that loopholes (like putting money into other countries) cannot be abused on a large scale." My question has nothing to do with wealth being difficult to define. The selling point on this idea includes the claim that this will only affect a very few people, who have enough money to sustain themselves for several lifetimes. I am very mistrustful of this selling point and think that if the tax were implemented, regular wage-earners would find themselves taxed at, say, 5% of their accumulated assets each year within 10 years. That affects people trying to save money for a home. When politicians say a particular tax (like the income tax) is "only for the very rich," I tend not to trust them. I do not understand why people live paycheck to paycheck. And I should clarify here. People who make significantly more money than I do (and I have found this for quite some time) live paycheck to paycheck, or even beyond their means. It's not because they have fixed expenses (like food, rent, utilities) that eat all the money. I could understand that. But there seems to be something in them that, as soon as they get money, they spend it -- and often on things they don't even want later. "Plus, several experiments that gave people the same amount of income generally showed that people were more concerned on WHAT their neighbours spent their money on rather than HOW MUCH money their neighbours spent." That is something else I don't understand. Unless it's a cannon to be pointed at me or something of that nature, I really don't care what my neighbor wants. I care about what affects me and people close to me (in a psychological sense.) But that's the sort of thing that got to me about this video. The author doesn't seem to care so much that people are going hungry. He seems to care that people like Beyonce and Bill Gates "have too much." I am all for the goal of lifting people out of poverty. I am not so much for the goal of knocking people down because they are "too successful."

[@elijahbeach3834]

I’m so tired of the left . Like these people work so hard and honestly don’t get sleep and they don’t have a family life I’m not being Mr defense or anything but it’s getting to the point of theft what there suggesting why would you reward lazy people? Shouldn’t the goal be to work harder ?

[@larvitardratini5965]

Somebody in my family falls in the 2% wealth tax category and she supports this.

[@SuperMarkusparkus]

@FZ Channel eat the rich

[@thatcoolkidjoey]

You know she doesn't have to wait for law she can just write a check every year

[@yamahantx7005]

@@thatcoolkidjoey Exactly. The government even has an account set-up: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Funds Management Branch P.O. Box 1328 Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

[@Singuy888]

The government sends me any tax I have over paid EVEN when my CPA didn't catch it. So I don't know what you mean that they can elect to pay more taxes than they should. It's most likely impossible.

[@CoryMck]

As much as I agree, her taxes are small crumbs compared to the 0.05%

[@gansair6050]

I did not expect everyone in here to be experts on tax wow!!

[@Xelief]

Yourself included

[@javiermendez9880]

No one here has a clue what they’re talking about for the most part.

[@realdeal5712]

Lol u must be an idiot to not even know this basic rule of tax and how it work. I learn that in college. Its very basic and simple.

[@realdeal5712]

@@javiermendez9880 no. More like u have no clue about what they are talking about becuz u never learn it urself. The poor always want money for free

[@javiermendez9880]

Real deal I have a degree in finance and think this is stupid. You can’t even spell because right... I think I’m gonna trust myself on this one.

[@d80waffles]

The wealth tax is taxing the things you already bought with your income every year after you bought it again. Even though you may not have the income to pay for it.

[@ABUBBA22]

So what will happen if I inherit my parents 700k SoCal home? I work as a high-school teacher so my pay is ok but will I be taxed to death for getting a house that is already payed off because it raises my net worth considerably?

[@joeltully4155]

@@ABUBBA22 only if you had another 49.3m in other assests, and belonged to the top 5% of the 1%

[@JojoJojo-hg8ql]

Lol you probably do not have to worry, or do you have more than 50 *10^6 $.

[@derek8676]

“The government is just so efficient and spending money, we should give it even more of our money.” Genius

[@jbc_8110]

Derek the sad thing is that that’s not even close to the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard from the left

[@derek8676]

QUINN GRUNER The point is more that the government should become more efficient with what it has (and it has more than plenty). Unless this happens, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that any of this tax money would even be used for the programs mentioned in this video. And that’s assuming the government doesn’t eventually dramatically expand this tax to include people larger percentages and people groups (because the government neverrrrr does this)

[@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739]

@QUINN GRUNER Except they wouldn't either....and then, just like income tax, which was introduced to "only tax the top percent of wealthy", it would slowly come down to be added onto everyone. It costs a couple hundred bucks to incorporate a business. If I have $50 million in assets (that doesn't mean I have $50 million in bank. It means my investments into companies that are creating jobs are annually getting stripped down by 2 to 3%, thus reducing the economic value of said companies, and thus reducing those jobs), do you really think I am going to leave it in a place to get taken, when I can easily not? I'll invest it into a couple rental properties, and incorporate that. Now the assets belong to the corporation, and not me. So too does that $400,000 Aston Martin that happens to be a company car, for which the corporation pays the payments and gas and maintenance on....and my net worth drops to $49 million. All the wealth that grows from those rental properties just gets shipped to a company in Canada, where it doesn't pay that tax, and still grows my wealth, along with the Canadian economy, at the expense of the US economy. Now, economic interest shifts away from the US, while the tax starts getting shifted down to those who have $30 million....then $10 million, then $1 million. Next thing you know, every retiree is paying massive taxes on their retirement savings, and no one can retire anymore. You really think we in the rest of the world that are moving away from these foolish models aren't worth listening to as to why it didn't succeed?

[@furtim1]

Indeed. A 2-3% wealth taxes would wipe out most profit margins, since wealth represents all prior year profits and may not be paying any cash returns on its own (gold, stock, commodities, non-commercial real estate, etc.). @@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739

[@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739]

@@furtim1 Wealth is also money invested, such as property purchased for real estate, or other stocks and investments. Taxing that would just mean straining the economy more by preventing economic growth. Hardly a recipe for growing the economy, and as a result, the wealth of the nation.

[@glasavvatten]

They could be taxed way more if you ask me. But thats a start. We used to have a wealth tax in Sweden. Its now removed and since we are one of the countries where inequality is rising most quickly.

[@user-qo7ul3wm1g]

arre property tax is a wealth tax... we should just not tax the first 50k

[@svantecarlson6191]

arre Vi har fortfarande en utjämningsskatt vi har ju haft en sosseregering i 5 år.

[@glasavvatten]

@@svantecarlson6191 Hur menar du att utjämningssystemet är jämförbart med en förmögenhetsskatt? Ja en sosseregering som inte rullat tillbaka några skattesänkningar. Jag håller inte sossarna i försvar, de är nästan lika dåliga på omfördelning som högern nu för tiden.

[@k3kboi665]

Hellou naighbor! I am from Finnland maybe the reason your inequality is rising is because all of swedens industry left and you are bringing in poor people on mass from the 3rd world? Thats at leats what is going on here.

[@truthsmiles]

Honest question: Why was it removed? Was it not working? Or did it work 'too well'? Something else?

[@XtarShoter]

I didn't know there were that many billionaires watching Vox

[@charpsteve36]

Its not about being a billionaire, it's about believing people have a right to what the make and earn.

[@ltdowney]

steve huber they were able to make that money in America, they couldn't have done it anywhere else, therefore they owe America for that opportunity

[@robertrosenthal7264]

Actually the statistics are that they didn't make or earn that money, rather there is a huge percentage that has an initial inheritance, and then the bulk of the remainder is them skimming money off of some one elses work. For example, a company makes a record profit of in the billions, and so they fire a huge chunk of the workers, and give their executives hundreds of millions in bonuses. (That just happened by the way.) Another example, a company's workers increase production and profits 18%, and they get hit with a 3% overall decrease in pay. So where did all that additional money go as well as the money taken away from the workers? It went to buy back stocks to inflate the wealth of the super wealthy that had the premium stocks. (Numbers will vary, but this has happened many times in the past couple of decades, though the frequency of it has gone way up in recent years.) Basically the workers are making the wealth, and the rich are forcing the workers to pay for it. That's not earning at all...

[@JoshAllenberg]

Luke Downey the people who founded america hated taxes. They could owe it in generosity or actions, but never in taxes. Taxes not going to bare minimal services are inherently immoral.

[@YourMom-lb3mt]

Are you talking about the dislikes?

[@Elsalte07]

So what about the people who have more “wealth” than they do cash flow? Are we forcing them to sell their businesses to pay their taxes?

[@GC-yw1mn]

Finally someone with some common sense. The wealth tax has been tried and it failed. Wealth and cash are not the same.

[@yusufjinadu]

So, there are people with $60 million net worth who can't afford $200,000 tax? That's 0.03% of their worth. That's like 30 cents to someone with $100 I think not, Boomer.

[@GC-yw1mn]

Yusuf Jinadu They’d have to liquidate their assets, by selling them. That means that basically someone else is paying for it, but the greedy government needs a way to get their hands on that extra bit of money.

[@Elsalte07]

@@yusufjinadu wealth does not equal cash. Even though they have massive amounts of wealth it does not mean they have cash availability after taxes and other payments they have to make.

[@12349Nitin]

finally a sensible comment

[@vineshparalkar5917]

7K downvotes looks like many millionaires watch this channel

[@1234BaileyDavid]

Lol. Must be, but it’s likely the people that don’t understand the assets that the billionaires have. A lot of it is in stocks, so there’s no ‘relocation’ of the ultra rich. They already use every loophole in the book to hide their income.

[@SuzyFabulous1]

It's cuz of the Debunkers.

[@mrf4ncyp4nts]

Lightly roasted, 300°, salt and pepper to taste.

[@amigo2hundred]

Dude you seriously Sponsored the Vox !!!!

[@RezaXGWB]

300°?! Dude, it's going to burn, that's HOT AS HELL (no pun intended)

[@senzon7676]

VOX SUPPORTER !!!

[@Vox]

🍴😋

[@samhaines8228]

mangez les riches ?

[@kuldeepsinghsaini3842]

Its so funny to watch a country who's people life are better than 85% of the world population is complaining about rich having all the wealth. If you compare with people of my country,your middle class is our top 1%.

[@Giorno.]

From an economist perspective, a wealth tax is a worse way to raise tax revenues than taxes on consumption since it leads to asset misallocation (punishes people from investing money instead of blowing it on stuff) which makes the economy worse of.

[@andersniemi6046]

"Only the richest 0.05% of Americans would pay this tax" Me (who knows how the world works): "Haha, no they wouldn't"

[@noname-bt9ky]

Jep

[@noname-bt9ky]

Ne vaan muuttaa pois

[@loicklepine8490]

The problem with a wealth tax is that it is really hard to count and really easy to hide. So even if it could theoretically cash in 200 billion, , this estimate is wayyy too big, which is why it got cancelled in France.

[@Anonymous-ks8el]

I was gonna say harvest their organs but we could try this instead

[@shooterxd2387]

The CCP would be proud of you Lmao

[@christopherishikawa4444]

FreedomToons

[@theanomaly2587]

same

[@steeldriver1776]

Lol. I’m one of those that started at $8.50 an hour and invested in my education instead of bars and tattoo shops. Officially untouchable in 2 days when I move elsewhere.

[@steeldriver1776]

@@SteveStoic that’s private. But if you’re looking to move to a tax friendly country, there’s lots of info for expats. I’d start with looking at Philippines, Nicaragua, Panama…

[@scj3188]

A lot of temporarily embarrassed multi-millionaires and billionaires in the comment section. lol

[@haydenlamb6309]

That is statistically very improbable

[@Lol-vt2ln]

Rich people aren’t embarrassed for literally holding up american society by employing people, and paying more taxes than everyone else already.

[@nullnull7089]

@@haydenlamb6309 It's a joke that makes fun of lower/middle class people that are against taxing the rich because they imagine that one day they will be rich.

[@nexus1g]

@@nullnull7089 Or just those that actually have morals.

[@Ethan-of3he]

@@nullnull7089 or those that realize this is theft... what's next? We get to slowly just take over their assets to even out the income inequality? Give their companies to the poor that can't manage their own spending? It's pathetic, everyone just envies everyone elses success

[@reirong7413]

it will NEVER pass.

[@presidenttrump796]

it'll make no sens. rich people will find a million loopholes to avoid it

[@josevelazquez7818]

Because robbery is wrong People have a right to personal property

[@druscus]

@@josevelazquez7818 how is this robbery?

[@12349Nitin]

​@@druscus If taxing the wealth which was already taxed (and declared tax free) again is not robbery , then i don't know what robbery is, moreover if the money is in the shares , and the business guy have to sell his shares to pay his taxes , where do you think money is better off ? 1) A business guy who is gonna multiply it 2-3 times in next ten years ? or 2) A govt that knows nothing but to spend the money ? which is beneficial for the economy ? in my opinion , business persons should be treated like a hen who gives golden eggs , if you have the patience to wait for the recurring golden egg , you will be good , but in the greed of getting all the golden eggs at once you will just end up killing the hen.

[@TheOmnipotence]

Some billionaires would have to sell their stocks to pay the tax which would lead to less control over their companies.

[@li_celly]

I would like to see your interpretation of the Value Added Tax. That seems to mathematically be more effective among the richest Americans and they can’t do about it other than they have to.

[@greenmachine5600]

Yes, exactly!

[@Xob_Driesestig]

It is actually a regressive tax (it places a heavier burden on poor people than rich people). Everyone needs certain basic things to live (food, drink, shelter). Billionaires might buy food thats more than twice as expensive as that what poor people buy, but they are millions of times richer so proportionally they pay less of their income (less than a millionth of their wealth) than poor people (who might spend more than half their monthly income on necessary consumables).

[@redhidinghood9337]

A value added tax makes it so that the poorer people pay a larger % of their money for goods while for ultra rich people that difference in price is infinitesimally small comparew to their wealth. This is why rich people havens like Monaco have low to no income/wealth taxes but extremely high value added tax

[@pretendcampus5410]

@@Xob_Driesestig Old comment but you can easily compensate for this with transfer tax.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

​@@pretendcampus5410 Transfer taxes generally generate less government revenue than VAT, but even if they didn't you could just have progressive taxes (like transfer tax) without regressive taxes (like vat)

[@andrewdiener3011]

I would not support a tax increase on anyone. I would support a smaller government. We need less redistributers and more producers.

[@jadenalvarado4912]

Yes but distrubters is needed in order to get things back in shape for a smaller government

[@ronaiosa126]

Uncle Sam: Lol, you think you can just make money, without paying me? Also Uncle Sam: You think you can buy something, without paying me? Still Uncle Sam: LMAO, you think you can just continue to OWN something? WITHOUT PAYING ME???

[@yugiuhij989]

Gonna be pretty hard to tax their wealth when they roll up, move all of their money to an off shore country and leave the US, any other country would LOVE a super rich billionaire moving there. Then what?

[@JuanLopez-zo8os]

Every country must tax their rich. So the rich have escape in no country

[@bris0rv105]

@@JuanLopez-zo8os so every country is not interested in your jealous nature My country need investments, it need money High western taxation is chance for my country to raise economy I'm surprised that China now is more capitalistic than USA is China have really low taxation for everything

[@liawatson5789]

We chase the parasites.

[@Shifterwizard]

​@@liawatson5789 "Chase the parasites"? What, do you imagine that they spend nothing in the nation they live in? That they make yachts and mansions magically appear out of nothing, no construction company required? That a nation which took them in would not see a massive inflow of wealth as a result?

[@johndirac6707]

@@JuanLopez-zo8os What if the capitalists just go to their own country? There's so much cheap land, they could literally buy it out. Then the rest of the world will collapse and they'll continue to be extremely wealthy.

[@chrisr3120]

Who are the rich and what do they spend their money on? Oh, right... They are business owners and the majority of their spending is on the salaries of their employees and other business expenses such as contracting jobs and such... These are people who don't really have to work too hard because they've got the wealth to pay other people to do that work, and you want to take that wealth away from them, thus stripping opportunities away from all the people they might have hired with that wealth...

[@chrisr3120]

@Sam Actually yes it is. The majority of an average business's expenses is employee wages, and the majority of an average business's gross income goes right back out as expenses. By the way, do you know who has backed every tax hike on big business ever proposed? Big business... You know why? Because the biggest companies can afford it, and smaller up starts who might compete with them can't. Its used as a tool to secure their dominance over their respective industries and stagnate.

[@chiffmonkey]

And then the rich leave your country to go somewhere where they don't do this.

[@zac5572]

That implies America currently have the world's lowest taxes

[@khadijahmuhammad4771]

I honestly doubt that. If someone is living comfortably and lavishly with more money than there next six generations could possibly spend, they don't need more of a reason to keep making money, even if 2% of it gets taxed. Their incentive is the extremely comfortable lifestyle they get to live with their children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

[@timtimtimmaah]

@Chuck Gladfelter Wealth hoarding is a mostly an upper-middle or middle-class thing. The richest are constantly reinvesting their money into their businesses or economy.

[@steamnamebbderinvade__]

@@zac5572 Check the effective rate rather than the statitory rate which was formerly %25-20 base, and is now half that.

[@fluidcreativity3124]

@@timtimtimmaah with all due respect, that actually isn't true. Our middle class is actually disappearing. The reason there is so much wealth inequality is because of hoarding, tax loopholes (that's how Jeff Bezos paid zero taxes.) and trumps tax break for the wealthy. The wealthy was suppose to invest in their companies but instead they gave themselves pay raise a participated in stock buy backs.

[@tariqazizsofi7875]

Next thing we know.... "China is stealing our rich people" 😂

[@hubert4646]

I wouldn't miss them

[@lordecircojeca2039]

@@hubert4646 Enjoy your country with no companies and everyone unemployed

[@ramonkeller4016]

@@lordecircojeca2039 look at switzerland, norway and denmark. they all tax wealth. seems to work just fine for them. google even has their europe HQ in switzerland with thousands of employees (just as an example) companys are coming to these places. not move away from them

[@lordecircojeca2039]

@@ramonkeller4016 1. Look at Sweden's GDP graph. It was growing steadily until around the 70s, when they began raising the taxes. Since then it began stagnating. It does not prove my point, but it's a nice indicator. 2. Just because A happens in the presence of B doesn't mean A causes B. Michael Jordan drinks water, therefore does drinking water make me great at Basketball? Probably not. 3. Taxation only destroys wealth. This can be demonstrated aprioristically, without the need for examples or experiments. 4. Taking someone's money without their consent is theft.

[@ramonkeller4016]

@@lordecircojeca2039 fair enough. so 1. would you call an increase in gdp from 37.5 billion in 1970 to 538 billion in 2017 stagnation? 2. absolutely true. i gave you 3 countries in europe where it worked. do you have 1 in western europe or north america where it didnt work? 3. This isnt true. look at the gdp of high taxing countries. most of them outperform gdp growth of low taxing countries 4. if you think taxation is theft you should move to a country with no taxation. nobody says you cant. i think there is a reason why most people decide to stay and pay there taxes

[@TaiwanisMoving]

That compression artifact-looking background was driving me nuts

[@johnmills5168]

A.) Wealth is not liquid B.) The value of items like stocks, cars, houses, etc is not static. C.) No tax has ever stayed in one category. Saying that we are only taxing the Rich or foreign nations should come with a "for now" sticker.

[@dracotitanfall]

Depreciation and revaluation of assets are calculated already using certain methods. If we implement a percentage tax considering those values then there would be no issues caused by the changing worth of assets.

[@ThePi314Man]

A. Not an argument. B. Not an argument. C. Also not an argument.

[@yassinmziya2733]

@@ThePi314Man Care to give actual counter arguments?

[@FRISHR]

Everybody gangsta until the rich hides their money overseas in foreign shell companies to avoid taxes.

[@lutherblissett9070]

They do that already so what difference does it make?

[@nathanwatson01]

That graph is like an exponential function.

[@lilturban2094]

Y= aB^x 😂😂💯

[@washyourhands]

I mean it's just a dumb thicc lorenz curve

[@samverebes4564]

@@washyourhands pretty poor Gini coefficient

[@AD-jq7ow]

It is....

[@Geniusignotus]

@@samverebes4564 you mean pretty high

[@austinkramer5435]

Wow, that graphic is without a doubt the best visualization of wealth inequality I've ever seen! The numbers alone can't produce a punch as powerful as seeing how much the 1% truly has. Is it possible to post the graph for public use? I want to spread it around, but I know the people who don't already agree about taxing the wealthy wouldn't watch this video if I linked it, but presenting the graph myself may sway them.

[@LalliOni]

We didn't get a reference of scale. The top was pointed out but without seeing where the bottom is and the size of it, it's misleading.

[@lucidzfl]

That’s not the 1%. Those guys are the top .05%.

[@milogreenberg9821]

just draw a vertical line 😂

[@kyle_medina]

That’s why graphs are used. You can spin how a graph looks to side with what you’re reporting. You should have learned this in school.

[@metanumia]

@@kyle_medina Just look at these graphs then, they contain labeled and numerically-consistent scales that are *not* manipulated in any way to sway viewers' opinion to fit an agenda, they are objective and factual: www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-years-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs EDIT: Added other objective, factual sources of income inequality analysis in the US: 1. www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/america-income-inequality-wealth-net-worth-charts/ 2. www.epi.org/publication/the-new-gilded-age-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-by-state-metropolitan-area-and-county/ 3. www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[@sunshineimperials1600]

How about instead of taxing rich people as if taxes were fines, and instead we should reduce government deficit and purge the bureaucracy clean.

[@nathanwang3528]

Property tax is targeted on the proportional wealth, I think it already let people suffer a lot.

[@furtim1]

As property tax consultant, I assure you that your assessment is correct.

[@TheWatchfulWolf]

Given how much suffering the ultra-wealthy are responsible for in everyday America, I don't think any amount of suffering is enough for the billionaires that would be targeted by such a tax. I just don't think it could realistically be achieved.

[@Alex-dn7jq]

Will not happen because: 1. Wealthy people make laws 2. Wealthy people would find a way to avoid taxation of their wealth, eg. offshore.

[@ninja1inblack105]

Alex 1. the government makes laws. Rich people influence them. But money related bribes are illegal. 2. All wealthy people pay taxes. I say that because I don’t consider people in jail for tax evasion wealthy people. Now of course you can funnel money or assets into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it. But what’s the point? You might as well not have gone to the effort of making the money if you never see the benefits of doing so. That money is nothing but an unofficial statistic.

[@realdeal5712]

Or u learn criticle thinking skill then rethink about it. U only create unfair ground

[@probably9085]

No

[@henk-3098]

Warren's plan would include assets overseas, so the wealthy would need to move to foreign countries en renounce their US citizenship to avoid paying this tax.

[@Alex-dn7jq]

@@realdeal5712 first you learn spelling and then we have a conversation

[@mhpora]

We've tried this wealth tax in France for 30 years and it didn't work (Impot sur la grande fortune). Although the intension of evening out wealth is good, its mechanics doesn't make sense: you pay tax when you earn money, and then EVERY year you pay tax again on that same capital. So little by little you're eating out your capital. Understandably, this lead to rich people leaving the country. Also in France this lead to people who inherited a big house having to sell it in order to afford the tax on that house. It would make more sense to increase minimal wages for example

[@Tamashka17]

a higher minimum wage would result in more unemployment furthering the gap between the poor and rising middle class. People like Bernie say raise it to 15, if they did that my school would get robots.

[@mhpora]

@@Tamashka17 fair point but it should at least keep up with inflation. Prices for rent, gas, food increases every year, it's unhuman to not at least align people's wages to it. I read it hasn't been raised for 10 years in the US. Also studies show that when it's raised little by little it has very low impact on unemployment.

[@mnovaraisso6880]

Well our beloved multimillionaire banker/president was tired about paying the wealth tax so abolished it and raised VAT and fuel taxes on workers. As a result he is now very popular in France (sarcasm). Like 80% of French I'm in favour of putting it back, like in Switzerland, but probably the 1mn euro threshold was way too low because with the housing bubble upper middle class people got subjected to it. Some people will choose to move their tax residency which will slightly reduce the income raised so we can mitigate that with an exit tax.

[@hyort3613]

mhpora well, since this tax starts very high you won’t get a house with that value...

[@liampezzano]

I'm sorry, but in the US we aren't likely to do that either. Our leaders are economically illiterate, and refuse to listen to experts that propose any policy that would make our country more equitable, because the US doesn't believe in equality.

[@chadliampearcy]

Check out Andrew Yang's Value Added Tax

[@somebodythatyouveusedtokno9604]

"Danganronpa"

[@chadliampearcy]

@FlameofOath Eh? I just haven't had the chance to change my profile pic. This has been an old one. Glad you know the game through.

[@chadliampearcy]

@FlameofOath Thank-you but That's even older, I don't even know what I wrote there. I used to have some poor quality videos of some small time musician that traveled to my school. They're still there. Just, they are private. I"m thinking of changing my profile pic to Steins;gate similar to my discord account; my favorite show. Dangaronpa and death games are fun, but it has nothing on Stein;gate.

[@GreekMishima]

Value Added Tax hurts the poor. Wealth tax doesn’t.

[@rudde7251]

If you spend all of your income on travels and experiences, while I save mine to buy a yacht, why should I be punished for that for the rest of my life? Shouldn't we also tax your travels for the rest of your life?

[@aaditya7616]

True!! Same thing applies to debt, poor dad saves enough for her daughter, in return he sees an alcoholic get debt waiver!!

[@for_light_and_life]

Travels are taxed with sales tax, so it would be at a higher rate than a wealth tax. Buying a yacht would get off easy. Btw, do you have more than $50M?

[@NadeemAhmed-nv2br]

Well one stimulate the economy and the other is a waste of assets so yes. Also those that spend it on experiences pay up to a 10% sales tax while you don't so once more yes

[@user-nh3gu1ge3d]

@@for_light_and_life Except "travels" are taxed only once, whereas the "yacht", according to this plan, would be taxed EVERY YEAR IN PERPETUITY. And before you say it, "yacht" in this context refers to wealth over the imaginary line that this plan intends to tax. Just to head off your likely "nOt iF tH3 YAcHt iS l3sS tHAn 50 MiLliOn d0lLar$!!!!1111" response.

[@user-nh3gu1ge3d]

@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br Totally clueless. Who builds the yachts? Not those who buy them, obviously. Luxury goods stimulate the economy just as much, arguably more so since they are more expensive, than travels. And I guess you forgot about sales tax and property tax for luxury goods, as well? Yep, you're clueless.

[@indiraespinal8015]

People that earn less than 1M: BUT OUR TAXES. Like no honey sit down u nowhere near that rich yet

[@lukeuseforce]

XD

[@nexus1g]

It's still stealing.

[@black_wink1649]

nexus1g steal from the rich and give to the poor.

[@nexus1g]

@@black_wink1649 And you feel that's noble?

[@black_wink1649]

nexus1g No but calling taxation theft just makes me think some forms of theft are acceptable.

[@AB-hi6ru]

Ironically,it's the poor, ignorant people voting against common sense solutions that would benefit the exact people who are voting against their economic self interest.

[@tiredox3788]

Facts

[@sadcastudio]

Taxation is theft, prove me wrong. If not, any action against one's property is still wrong, doesn't matter the pros or cons.

[@sadcastudio]

@@bighendrix5696 that's some good sense right here.

[@CrazyWeeMonkey]

@@sadcastudio Taxation is what you pay as a citizen who lives in the US and uses public services like roads; It's your fair share. If the US didn't have taxes, the government would be unable to function properly or fund schools, roads, and a bunch of other public services.

[@MrDragonorp]

@Andy Bernard so how you get free high school, out of thin air. ok if you say it let your kids and you live on a planet with no electricity. cus all of the power plants are funded. you think that the money that you pay for electrical bill covers the cost to produce it. you dumb. maybe let's take away transportation, no cars no train no bus. who will maintain the roads and infrastructure if the government will not get money? and forget about the police and the army. let big black man rape your wife and steal all your money. taxes prevent the rich of the rich from controlling the world and keeping all the knowledge and power to themselves. taxes used to be only rich taking from the poor. but now it's taking from everyone to give to everyone. you paying for stuff you live around you. taxes keep our world from collapsing on itself. taxes are not stealing cus you get the money back. go to the jungles of Africa and live on your own there, you will not be taxed.

[@BenYourDealsFinder]

Who said wealth was supposed to be equal?

[@bloodcards3084]

Nobody, but you need to pay your fair share. Its our nation, our people. We need Healthcare, education (desperately), adorable housing, food and water. All of which are essential human needs in the modern ear. Not a luxury. USA shouldn't be a ponzi scheme for the privileged.

[@BenYourDealsFinder]

​@@bloodcards3084 And you think that paying taxes will even this out? How is that "fair"?

[@daddydiesel7177]

@@bloodcards3084 Shouldn’t that be the governments job and not the rich?

[@Sanjayk270]

The rich should be taxed just like us. It’s their money.

[@bloodcards3084]

@@BenYourDealsFinder its not fair because they pay less than us lol.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

If your friend has more wealth despite you having the same income, the most likely explanation is you are spending your money differently. Instead of spending money on restaurants, instant lottery tickets or Netflix, he saved it for the yacht; and you want to punish him for that.

[@thibauddrion8501]

In France we don’t have this much inequalities, but we implemented this tax 30 years ago for every person earning more than 1M€ per year. Recently the tax was transformed into a lighter one, because so many rich left the country or stopped investing in France that the whole economy was suffering from it... I mean, we really need to find a way to tax those ultra rich, but on the other hand, their wealth are usually only assets based, that can lower every day significantly...

[@xponen]

France should let the ultra-rich leave, seriously, and to prevent an asset drain; just outlaw the transfer of a local asset to any foreigner; such as having a Quota/percentage system for real-estate, property & stock-share that is reserved only for French citizen, so that if an ultra-rich leave France; the asset must be handed over to the government or liquidised for cash, and still get taxed for that. So, why didn't French government do that? is there a hidden agenda for politician to accumulate wealth? I mean, a quota/privilege system is very common everywhere, otherwise what's the benefit of being a citizen of a country?

[@pussylord69]

thibaud drion ISF was a tax levied on wealth not income. Most rich people actually left France in 2013 and 2014 when the 75% high income tax was voted. (pas la peine de savoir parler anglais si c'est pour faire de la mal-information) edit: it was 1.3MM not 1MM btw and the "light one" as you call it is pretty much the same

[@thibauddrion8501]

Keushenflam on peut concéder que cette taxe était une catastrophe en tout cas

[@xponen]

@PLK123 no, it's not illegal nor unethical, actually it depends on Reasons. For example in the US; there's tech company who can't leave; like chip manufacturer Broadcom, which was recalled from Singapore due to national security reason, and rocket company, like SpaceX & Boeing, can't hire non-American nor export to any other country. In other country like Malaysia for example, affirmative action require some company shares to be hold by local people. I don't see it being unethical nor illegal if Reasons exist.

[@kingdeedeedee1450]

Equal opportunity is true equality, not equality of outcome.

[@kingdeedeedee1450]

@Sam Yes, I do, that's my point.

[@otinanai5439]

King DeeDeeDee You don’t have the same opportunities jeff bezos’ kids have.You just want to believe you do

[@kingdeedeedee1450]

@@otinanai5439 Why don't I? Cause I don't have as much money? Nothing is stopping me from running my business, getting an education, or making money. To be upset that other people are successful, and you aren't is nothing more than jealousy.

[@niklasfransson4938]

@@kingdeedeedee1450 Actually yes many large companies are actively stopping competing companies who might offer a better service from becoming big. This is very common so you are not competing on the same terms as everyone else.

[@user-hb7sj1jm6o]

King DeeDeeDee being rich undoubtedly gives you advantages that the poor don’t have though. Eg: tutoring, paying the way into college, better job opportunities / not having to worry about money, etc

[@rothbardfreedom]

The Debunkers brought me here.

[@ayanverma5746]

3:26 *Jeff Bezos* :- you can't see me

[@superness97]

Federal income tax was also supposed to be solely for top earners.

[@ben8557]

We can't base whether or not we implement a policy based on a hypothetical future one. If it's a bad idea to put a wealth tax on non rich people then you can vote for candidates who don't support that if it comes up

[@croweater6814]

This was the first thing i thought of, in typical government fashion it would be expanded to catch the middle class then everyone. It is much harder to get wealthy when your savings are being taxed.

[@joecadzow4482]

You should look at Australia’s taxation, it’s quite simple and has been working for decades

[@zander1011011]

Im pretty sure we don't have the kind of wealth tax he's talking about, we only have income. Estate taxes are the closest thing and that only taxes when someone dies.

[@joecadzow4482]

Alex yeah it’s not inherently the same but we tax most assets and our tax brackets are much more diverse. How good would a system like this be in Aus

[@Deathmastertx]

Australia gives out too many handouts to the upper-middle-class in its taxation system imo. Simplifying the tax rate and cutting down on a lot of the exceptions would make it fairer.

[@schumanhuman]

Sorry Joe, but your comment is going to look very silly in a year or so. Australia are heading into a probably deep recession due to their bursting housing bubble, a failure to tax land (and many explicit subsides and turning a blind eye to terrible lending practices akin to US sub prime) is the culprit.

[@lockhrt999]

Does Australia need to run a trillion dollar military?

[@QuanMa]

1:07 "an idea never done before in America" ask Europe

[@theodorwicklin2976]

Yeah our left wing parties repealed it, it disincentivizes investment and incentivises spending, exasserbating class differences, especially within the economy. It also costs billions just to run and super hard to administer. youd probably get closer to 40 billion while spending 10 billion and exasserbating class differences and disincentivizing billions and billions from being invested.