Tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy

[Monoriu]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.  There are still plenty of opportunities around for people to work their way up.  Maybe not as many opportunities as we would like, but still very much possible for those who are sufficiently determined and able.  Perhaps the super rich are really smart, really lucky, really hardworking, or all of the above.  I have used Amazon and Microsoft products and services and they do benefit humanity.  I mean, unless there is good evidence showing they got their money through illegal means, I don't see any point thinking about other people's money.  Instead of devising ways to rob them, it is much more productive to consider ways to make money ourselves. 

[Threviel]

The way to get at it is with a progressive inheritance tax. If the inheritance is above a certain threshold, say 1M$ or something the tax kicks in and it might increase exponentially when there's more money. So you can make sure that your kids will be well off and if they take care they will leave resources for the next generation. But in time this culls out all old money families that don't keep up and levels the playing field somewhat.

This also makes it so that you can have a tax on unrealized wealth increases.

[Tonitrus]

I wonder how much of the unrealized wealth of these guys is actually realizable.  If Jeff Bezos tried to sell his 8% or so of Amazon shares, what would that do to the price of the shares?

Indeed...to take an Elon Musk example...if the price/value of Tesla stock is the benchmark for his "wealth", but Tesla stock is thought to be significantly overvalued, and mostly based on expected future earnings...then could it be said that much of Musk's current wealth is something like a loan given to him by the collective of stockholders/investors?

[Tonitrus]

It seems a lot of the problems could be avoided without a wealth tax if you have a significant estate tax (which would include the unrealized gains on assets transferred). And also more teeth in anti trust enforcement/possibly strengthening of laws.

An estate tax is just a wealth tax that is levied only occasionally but at a higher rate.

How about a universal 100% estate tax? 

[Valmy]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.

They are not actively doing it, but it is measurable how huge gaps between the rich and the poor has a detriment to society.

The problem is rarely the players, it is the game.

[Valmy]

Or rather, my attention is their product. They charge their customers plenty for their product. They just pay me for my attention with brightly colored doodads.

They are nice doodads. Though they did not invent youtube or even make it a success, they just bought it and use it. I always find that slightly annoying, so many of our most successful companies did not actually develop or even really innovate on their products. So what are they actually doing for society besides just owning stuff?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It is not good tax policy to rely on taxing the super rich.  Government expenditure is mostly recurrent and somewhat fixed.  You want tax revenue to match the expenditure to be as stable as possible.  The fortunes and income of the super rich fluctuate a lot, because there are so few of them and their wealth is tied to the markets which can be very volatile.  You want the tax base to be as broad as possible, and to make that happen you want a lot of people to pay tax, not a few.  Targetting the super rich is just to satisfy some people's desire for revenge and because it is politically convenient.

Government expenditures and tax revenue do not and in fact should not always match, but rather they should match over a cycle (and maybe not even then).  Deficits during a down cycle and surplus during an up cycle is precisely what you want.

but that is not what happens of course. Deficits during the down cycle because 'investments' and deficits during the up cycle cause "now's the time to expand expenditures"

[Valmy]

but that is not what happens of course. Deficits during the down cycle because 'investments' and deficits during the up cycle cause "now's the time to expand expenditures"

Or "now's the time to cut taxes" if you are the Republican Party taking power during the up cycle. Never a bad time to run up massive deficits.

[Zoupa]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.

They are not actively doing it, but it is measurable how huge gaps between the rich and the poor has a detriment to society.

The problem is rarely the players, it is the game.

WHY DO LEFTISTS LIKE YOU WANT TO CANCEL CAPITALISM??????? DO YOU NOT SEE POOR PEOPLE CAN FEED THEMSELVES NOW!!!!11111!!

[Berkut]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.

They are not actively doing it, but it is measurable how huge gaps between the rich and the poor has a detriment to society.

The problem is rarely the players, it is the game.

WHY DO LEFTISTS LIKE YOU WANT TO CANCEL CAPITALISM??????? DO YOU NOT SEE POOR PEOPLE CAN FEED THEMSELVES NOW!!!!11111!!

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Poor people can feed themselves now - the #1 health problem of the poor in the USA is obesity.

Why is it so upsetting to you that that is true?

Aren't you like....happy that poor people are not starving to death anymore? Why are you so angry about facts?

[Zoupa]

 

3/10, put your back into it!

[crazy canuck]

It seems a lot of the problems could be avoided without a wealth tax if you have a significant estate tax (which would include the unrealized gains on assets transferred). And also more teeth in anti trust enforcement/possibly strengthening of laws.

An estate tax is just a wealth tax that is levied only occasionally but at a higher rate.

How about a universal 100% estate tax? 

If one adheres to classic liberal ideology, that would actually be ideal.

[Zoupa]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.

They are not actively doing it, but it is measurable how huge gaps between the rich and the poor has a detriment to society.

The problem is rarely the players, it is the game.

WHY DO LEFTISTS LIKE YOU WANT TO CANCEL CAPITALISM??????? DO YOU NOT SEE POOR PEOPLE CAN FEED THEMSELVES NOW!!!!11111!!

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[crazy canuck]

I don't get the hate about people being really, really rich.  It is not like the super rich are actively and intentionally harming me.

They are not actively doing it, but it is measurable how huge gaps between the rich and the poor has a detriment to society.

The problem is rarely the players, it is the game.

WHY DO LEFTISTS LIKE YOU WANT TO CANCEL CAPITALISM??????? DO YOU NOT SEE POOR PEOPLE CAN FEED THEMSELVES NOW!!!!11111!!

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Poor people can feed themselves now - the #1 health problem of the poor in the USA is obesity.

Why is it so upsetting to you that that is true?

Aren't you like....happy that poor people are not starving to death anymore? Why are you so angry about facts?

Obesity is caused by eating too much healthy food.  I don't think so.  Obesity is caused by eating cheap foods which are very unhealthy.

[Malthus]

It seems a lot of the problems could be avoided without a wealth tax if you have a significant estate tax (which would include the unrealized gains on assets transferred). And also more teeth in anti trust enforcement/possibly strengthening of laws.

An estate tax is just a wealth tax that is levied only occasionally but at a higher rate.

How about a universal 100% estate tax? 

If one adheres to classic liberal ideology, that would actually be ideal.

I've always thought there were good arguments in favour of it. The notion being that wealth 'ought' to be earned by the person earning it, not merely accumulated. Though the children of the wealthy would get a major boost nonetheless, having grown up with the benefits of having wealthy parents ... after all, given average lifespans, they would be teaching retirement age themselves by the time such a tax would affect their parents.

The main strike against it is the difficulty in preventing the wealthy from getting around it in various ways.