I like his way of thinking but I really don’t like his nothing burger suggestions.
Like why are you telling civilians to do it. Like I’m gonna say “oh, ok I’ll go tax the wealthy then”. If you’re that rich as he claims to be why not go be a politican and represent us? Tax the rich my ass. Like it’s our fault. Like we can do anything at all.
There was one vid of him saying “oh I got richer because I bought oil commodity when the war started” like what the fuck man. And then he kept saying tax the rich again.
Also his book sucked. He was basically telling how clever he was and how everyone is else was an asshole tools. Sorry but unless he uses his power (money) and start moving some stones, he’s just another rich cunt that just talks bs to me.
Sorry, downvote all you want. But I’m sick of hearing people telling me to do something while they already have all the power to blast the things. I got fucking bills to pay and I’m dead on the evening can barely read a single page of a book without falling asleep. What the fuck am I supposed to do more? I’m drained.
If you watch any of this youtube video you will find he repeatedly says that he is a stock trader and economist, and that he knows exactly where his expertise starts and ends. He knows very confidently that his past predictions have been highly accurate and successful, so he can see where this is heading.
But he also knows that he doesnt know how to implement the changes he wants to see. He knows his limitations and lack of skills as a politician, a taxation designer, lobbiest, etc. and that he isnt the right person for the job, which is why he is promoting Gabriel Zucman to design the taxation system, and is in contact with other figures to convince the politicians that vote on the laws.What he does say is that he knows the problem, he knows the solution, he knows whats going to happen if we dont act. His whole goal is to get the message out to people and find the right voices to make the change, whether its the comman man who knows what to care about when voting, the people with power to change minds to talk to the politicians and law makers to make the change, and the economists to forge the right tax to actually effectively target the 1% before everything is taken from us.
So no, he doesnt have all the answers, but he just wants people to know there is a problem, what that problem is, how it will affect everyone and to not sit on your hands. I dont hold it against him that he doesnt have the whole package A to Z, he has gone above and beyond for a cause he is essentially committing his life to, even though he is (probably) wealthy enough to not give a shit.
Tax Wealth?
I want wealth caps!
Say, 10 million dollars, is simply the maximum amount of money anyone can have / control. Any income after that is 100% taxed
No more extreme riches
Governments get huge influx of resources which they can use for free healthcare, free education, universal basic income
Poverty could disappear. Poverty related crimes could disappear
Companies can no longer have huge share holders and owners, now requiring loads of smaller shareholders.
Limit company worths to max 1 billion too while we’re at it.l, because no ultra large company ever did something that was good for humanity
Now we have boat loads of smaller companies, makes your economy more stable
Since you can’t pass that wealth limit, incentives to screw over customers are gone because it won’t get you more anyway.
I can go on listing the benefits for another hour but you get the idea …
I literally can’t see bad sides to limiting wealth. It’s a simple rule to get control of the narcissist psychopaths that are ruining the world
Why haven’t we ever done that before?
The resources required to enforce such rules are controlled by the people who benefit from that not being the rules. Hell, the IRS has essentially said they don’t have the resources to go after the biggest tax evaders because it costs too much.
https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-richExcuses it cost everyone more if they don’t
“It costs too much” is a horseshit excuse when the result of the audit would likely pay for itself many times over. Use the first couple of years to automate/streamline as much of the process as you can, and they’ll likely start just paying the damn things like they should have been in the first place, if only to avoid the hassle.
Abandoning tech for a few generations might be a good thing. It seems all of society is forced to re-engineer itself based on the latest tech/gizmo/widget invention, in order to streamline “business”, but everything gets more expensive with diminishing quality over time. Knee-jerk reactions to the shiny and new aren’t good for anybody.
Abandoning tech for a few generations might be a good thing.
Are we “abandoning tech” or just segregating access to infrastructure based on professed loyalties to surveillance tyrants?
You’re either on the bus or off the bus.
Ludd is love
Tech is dreck
Somewhere we lost sight of the idea that just because a person has an idea, does not make it a GOOD idea.
Even worse at least the local noble was local and would usually invest within their community instead of what we have now where they barely have to see us.
Yes thats entirely the point. All these ketamine snorting tech bros have hyped each other up into believing they are the new aristocracy who deserve an underclass
Taxing wealth strikes me as like trying to scoop out the ocean. We have to recreate beaver dams and restore the metaphorical flood plains. Spread out and soak in. The water table is going down and the land is subsiding; moving some water isn’t enough.
It takes a long time to construct those things though right - you can take a bucket to the beach today.
Even if its the tiniest fraction of what they have, if it can fund campaigns and programmes that work toward a more just society, its helpful, right? Obviously it’s more important that we build those things, but while we’re building them if we can get a bucketful its better than nothing
How is a wealth tax just moving water? What would you say is more effective? A wealth tax isn’t just about recapturing some of the wealth back from the wealthy, arguably that isn’t even the most important aspect of it, but rather having the mechanisms in place to map out and track wealth. Having that in place would massively benefit us to understand the velocity of wealth and where exactly it is being accumulated so that we can more effectively act to remedy massive inequalities.
If you want to learn more, this video goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmK74mfpHQA
This man is a clown and can safely be ignored without negatively affecting any part of your life.
It’s a parody that this charlatan is making bank shilling populism to a magazine that is sold on the street by the homeless.
Listen to this self-aggrandising spiv winge about the “academics in their ivory tower” and how he’s so smart that none of them take him seriously, while making a career out of surface level platitudes like the title. It’s wild that anyone can listen to him without cringing out of their skull.
Apparently the hosts of that video you shared don’t like graphs either because they covered the most critical part of the graph with their dumb grinning faces:
Gary has a point, there can be endless playing about with numbers, and looking at a single graph is not enough to draw a vast conclusion. How about we look at a stat from the same page that graph was pulled from?
and that stat highlights the point Gary was trying to make about looking at the wealth of the top 0.1% who are largely the ones taking wealth from everyone else, including from the rest of the top 10%. The host trying to pull a gotcha on Gary can’t even read the graph he handpicked because he said that things are better now than in 1980 before trying to correct himself by saying “they’re kind of like they were in 1980” even though actually the share of wealth for the top 10% was lower in 1980 and the share of wealth for the bottom 50% was higher.
On top of all that, the numbers end at 2020, which is right before plundering frenzy that the wealthy did thanks to all the money printing that took place during the pandemic. Here’s the page with graphs and stats for anyone interested: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
Your framing of that video is complete rubbish. The hosts repeatedly state that they agree there are problems with economic inequality, and accurately describe the problem at every point. Their point isn’t about the stats, it’s about how Gary is a grifter that tailors his message to attract simpletons who like shiney words and empty rhetoric. That he can’t even engage with a chart that might support his message because actual data isn’t a part of the equation for him, only rhetoric and whatever cherry picked headlines he can find to support it.
You’re also just framing this as a gotcha for the same reasons, that Gary is constantly playing victim, so his fans carry that message as well. He wasn’t a victim, he’s a grown ass man that can’t handle any push back without crying like a little bitch.
You complain about a graph not being enough to draw a conclusion then point to an even worse data point that completely misses 49.999% of the population in its analysis. That’s some turbo charged populist brainrot, and Gary will definitely add it to his grab bag of factoids to dazzle his audience for year to come, like jingling keys in front of babies.
Those two hosts agree there are problems with economic inequality, so then what’s the point of the graph? Is the graph showing there isn’t an inequality problem? If so, doesn’t that mean the hosts themselves are dismissing the graph?
Their point isn’t about the stats, it’s about how Gary is a grifter that tailors his message to attract simpletons who like shiney words and empty rhetoric. That he can’t even engage with a chart that might support his message because actual data isn’t a part of the equation for him, only rhetoric and whatever cherry picked headlines he can find to support it.
You claim it’s not about stats and yet their issue is that he didn’t want to get dragged into a pointless argument over the minutia of some chart. If these hosts agree that wealth inequality is a problem, then it’s an established point that doesn’t need to be rehashed through arguments over a chart. Gary knows this, his audience knows this, the hosts know this, and we know this, and many are living through this. What purpose does arguing over a chart do other than to try to distract from the message? If you want a strong message that resonates with people, you have to keep it simple and straightforward.
Whether he’s a grifter or not is a matter of opinion. Dismissing his message by calling him a grifter is a textbook example of ad hominem. His message is simple:
- There is massive wealth inequality.
- Wealth inequality tends to get worse since the more assets one owns, the more they can use that as leverage to obtain even more assets.
- A wealth tax addresses the heart of the problem by taxing wealth directly.
What is your issue with these key points? That he hasn’t spent enough time in the chart mines? That you think he’s a grifter? Clearly his method of communication has been effective in drawing attention on the issue while offering a solution and I think that’s a great thing.
It’s great for Gary because the 4th bullet point you forgot to add is “involve Gary in economic policy making cause he’s so smart and the academics in their ivory tower are all useless”. He sounds just like the Eric Weinstein complaining that the Trump admin didn’t call the intellectual darkweb for help.
Everything is downstream from that with these people, because they rely on simplifications of complex issues to dupe laymen into thinking they are the only ones with the answers.
Here is a OECD paper looking at the pros and cons of a wealth tax https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-role-and-design-of-net-wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd_9789264290303-en.html it won’t go viral because it isn’t written by slopulist clout goblins like Gary. I doubt he’s read it because it contains a LOT of graphs, but that’s just the kind of thing you need if you’re going to start advocating for tax reform. Showing a graph or two might have helped him if this article is to be believed.
Gary is a flashy spiv with boring, half-baked ideas and he will never provide information in this much detail. He needs to keep it simple for the clicks, inevitably pushing his audience up mount stupid so they can walk into the ballot box with confidence and vote for economic arsonists with shiney slogans like his. People like Nigel Farage who also benefit from Gary’s bipartisan message of broken institutions and elite corruption.
I think you’re missing the main point a little bit, the problem with Gary is that he oversimplifies everything. He bigs himself up as this decisive voice without actually engaging with inequality research and policy holistically, consistently. He is not an exceptionally good economist, however he has vast reach and a large social media presence. The problems arising from this sort of populism is less apparent while his mission is aligned with what one believes, but is concerning nonetheless. He is just a burnt out millionaire turned influencer/media figure, who larps as this down-to-earth campaigner for good, while building his youtube brand and selling a book about how he was the tippy-top trader at Citibank.
When you want your message to reach the masses, you have to oversimplify, otherwise it gets bogged down in details that ultimately may not even matter. People are having trouble with basic cost of living: shelter, healthcare, education, and even food. Focusing so heavily on numbers and graphs is how you get clowns claiming that it’s just a “vibecession” just because some dumb metric like GDP or their arbitrary basket of goods looks fine, meanwhile these people can’t afford the basics.
The problem is that the field of economics is biased so heavily towards policies that benefit the rich because that is how you get funding. Economists are largely in servitude to the rich and that is why they consider an effective tax on the rich “bad economics”. What these past decades have clearly shown that catering to the rich does not work. Why do you think they’re so vehemently against a wealth tax? If it was so ineffective then they wouldn’t care about a wealth tax getting established.
Love your reply, glad to read that we are agreed on the important things.
I know Gary likes to play dumb and assume this isn’t actually the goal of the rich and powerful all along but they have been executing this class war now for 45 years. Its not like its new and its had universal support from every government since the early 1980s. It is what the ruling class wants, because they get to own everything and live even better. There is a reason you can’t get Labour to do anything about it they have been pursuing this intentionally since the 2000s.
And also bizzarely attached to Labour.
Even his chats with Polanski seem to get ended with a “come and talk to me Labour-daddy and I’ll play with you instead, he’s not my first choice” attitude.
Maybe its genuine on his part then and he isn’t playing dumb he just doesn’t actually realise that Labour has been bought and paid for by the rich and wealthy since the end of the 90s. He does keep thinking he can get Labour to change tune, yesterdays interview on channel 4 he is still talking like Labour can be pressured into wealth taxes to save themselves from wipe out in 2028.
My brother in Christ, class war has been active for thousands of years.
Ever since the priests convinced others to work for them. The orginal lazy wealty class.
How does he play dumb?
By not admitting this is actually something the government is intending and helping happen. He is treating the powerful as if they are unaware of the impact of what is clearly their chosen strategy and what will happen.
I think he does so in that he makes it out as best as he can to not be left vs right as people have been propogandised as to what those terms mean, and he wants to appeal to the masses; but in practice it’s pretty left coded.
Facts are facts regardless of who says them. It doesnt matter that people think it’s a left wing idea bcz honestly this affects everybody and is the reason right wing demagogues such as Trump have risen to power.
They offer simple solutions to problems that don’t address the root issue.
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Tax Wealth, or well shift from Trickle Down Economics to Robin Hood Economics, which usually doesn’t turn out well for the leadership.
Why do you think the tech bros are so busy investing ? When you don’t even need the other people to maintain your luxury, they can just die off and leave the planet to them. Clean, empty, serviced by “I have no mouth and I must scream” AI robots and rewilding. Paradise for them and death for the rest of us. The stench of death will only last 10 years and then the robots can clean up.
gary mate, i think thats what they want
He’s fucking right
his discussion with Dan Neidle indicates strongly that this is slopulism
it needs to happen but not in the magical way gary the dunce suggests
He is wrong in one thing. The timeline. Digital feudalism already exists and we are living it.
Have been a while. The American tech monopolies and their awful business practices have been with us decades. Been “too big to fail” and “too big to jail” for a while. Just now it’s in everyone’s faces.
If you put a wealth tax on billionaires where you tax them on their total asset value, they’ll simply leave the country and take all of their millions/billions of dollars in taxes every year that they, their companies, and their employees pay, out of the country, leaving you in a much worse position than you’re already in since those are the people that already pay the majority of the countries income taxes etc.
Taxing wealth is a pathetic idea by people who can’t stand others being more successful than them.
Let them live in their floating city states or in their underground bunkers like erzatz Bond villains. Let’s see how much wealth they create there.
This objection has been brought up repeatedly but these are solvable problems.
Firstly, a lot of assets the wealthy own cannot be transferred out of country. Stock in companies, real estate, etc. The super rich are not rich because they have bank accounts with all of their money that can just disappear overnight, but because they own real things in the real world.
Secondly, economist Gabriel Zucman has proposed a solution to the “they will all take their money and leave.” The USA taxes all citizens on their income no matter where they are in the world. You could simply create a wealth tax that says “if you have wealth over 100 million USD and have lived in this country in the past 5 years, you have to pay the tax no matter where you live for the next X years. (X could be 5, 10, 15, whatever.) If it goes into effect starting in some future date of course people will try to shift assets and move but if you make it retroactive they can’t. Also the tax needs to apply to companies so they can’t have an LLC holding all of their assets tax free neither.
Finally, taxing wealth is not about being jealous or craven that others have more. It’s about survival of society in some form that isn’t “ten people own everything and the rest live in desperate poverty.”
For the ultra wealthy, their wealth can grow passively from compounding interest leaving them will little choice but to continue acquiring assets. If you were given a million dollars every week (that’s roughly 5% annual growth on a billion dollars) you would quickly find that you had lots of money sitting around despite paying off all of your debt, upgrading your house, having fun trips. Eventually you would start using that money to either buy stocks, real estate, etc. Then those things appreciate and your $1M per week begins to climb despite living a lavish lifestyle. It’s just a natural consequence at that point that you buy up and own real world assets at an increasing rate. This means there is less and less available to own for everyone in your community.
Essentially, at a certain point these individuals become financial black holes where their wealth is not only self sustaining but continues to grow and consume things. There is no stop unless society puts brakes on it to limit the growth beyond a certain point.
You’re totally right, thanks for not making me write this comment.
Hey guys, the world’s smartest people are saying tax the multi-millionaires and some of them have spent their life working on this topic. There’s nothing you can bring up that the economists pioneering the modern version of this solution haven’t considered. If you think taxing the wealthy won’t work, for any reason besides they have a whole lot of power and will fight it, than you’re a part of the problem and being propagandized into an apathetic state.
We can win, we will win, it’s not that hard of a problem to solve, we just have to fight for it.
Let millionaires leave every country to form their own utopia. Let them try and live without anyone making the life go around. Just millionaires eventually eating each other.
And what do you think happens to the countries that just lost 50% of their tax revenue because the 1% left?
Hang on…
So most assets are shares and structures. Shares you can sell, but someone still holds them, structures can be sold, but someone still owns them.
If a billionaire left, a fortune in capital gains would be made, the wealth would remain to be taxed from other hands, and that precludes the destination not having a higher wealth tax.
Wealth taxes are never one off. They might get a big payday once, but then thousands of people have lost their jobs, 50% of the income tax is now gone from the books for the next year, along with all the other business related taxes.
Most places would love billionaires to move in, because then they get enormous amounts of extra tax revenue and, typically, jobs.
Hang on - so you’re saying that when a billionaire sells something it ceases to exist? Surly not!
You might be suggesting that a billionaire creates jobs that vanish when they leave, however that’s not likely to be the case. Got any data to back that figure up?
They don’t sell, they move. All those jobs and taxes move somewhere else.
What did Musk do with Twitter/X when California became too hostile politically for his business? Moved it to Texas. All those jobs moved to Texas. Those jobs in San Francisco disappeared, as did the revenue and taxes that they brought in.
Still waiting on the source of your 50%.
They arnt paying anyway so it’s not a loss.
That’s just not true. Elon musk paid the single highest tax bill anyone has ever paid, for example.
Not false, but something has to give. Billionaires are a drain on society, the conditions that allowed their creation tanked the middle class. They centralize capital in their hand at the downfall of everyone else. A wealth tax is a step forward. Ideally, combined with international agreements with the biggest fiscal havens to not let them run away.
I want to stress how the rise of billionaires is a global phenomenon. In an ideal world, all nations would slowly implement wealth taxes.
Billionaires are generally the wealth creators, not drains. How many people do bezos and musk employ? How much tax do they, their companies, and their employees contribute?
I want you to engage in good faith with this thought experiment.
On one hand, you have Costco - many employees, no billionaires, all employees have good benefits, company pays its taxes. On the other you have Amazon - many employees, one billionaire, many employees are working poors, on snap or similar benefits. Amazon skirts its taxes as much as possible, while US subsidies its employees.
Which one helps society the most as a whole?
Google Jim Sinegal mate lol
Also Amazon seem to have great benefits:
https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/benefits-us
One will die:
Society or the billionaire.
This just isn’t true. Billionaires do very little that negatively affects society. Mostly they just pay all the tax and provide all the jobs.
Amazon in the past was often able to overcome threats from state governments by cutting ties with local partners or leaving the state in question. Amazon severed its relationships with affiliates in Colorado due to efforts by the state government to collect sales tax on internet purchases. Amazon has threatened similar action against affiliates in Illinois over the same issue.[47] In February 2011, Amazon announced that it would be closing its Dallas, Texas, distribution center over the sales-tax dispute[145]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax_avoidance
Of course…
That’s got nothing to do with billionaires though. Are you suggesting that businesses that don’t have a billionaire founder never have and can’t do things like that?
Everyone tries to pay as little tax as they can. Big companies are just better at it because they can afford lawyers and financial controllers who know all the laws and how to avoid paying certain taxes. That’s all your link says - Amazon know how to avoid paying taxes based on tax laws.
You know the solution? Fix the tax laws. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I do not try to pay as little Tax as i can, because i am not a selfish piece Shit.
So you never claim a single thing as a tax deduction?
Nope. Never did.
Come find me boot licker, I’ll show ya jealousy. Its damn near dinner time, I can’t wait I’m starvin.
PS bring army cause you can’t do shit for yourself, ya gonna need it
At least you admit it’s jealousy.
You realise that they’ll not leave because it would be A LOT more expensive than just paying their taxes right ? Moving assets is expensive, they will not sell all their property, they will not move their companies. Them moving away is just propaganda for fools like you.
And in any case, they already don’t pay much, even if 1% of them move away, the tax income from the rest will make up for it.
Short term cost for long term profit. Look at all the companies that up and left Delaware after what their courts pulled with musks pay packet.
A wealth tax wouldn’t just be a one off thing either, so it might cost them 2x what they’d have to pay to leave, but that has paid itself off after 2 years.
According to Abigail Disney they already pay more to avoid taxes than the cost of the taxes themselves.
That’s absolutely not surprising. Paying for attorneys, transfer pricing experts, etc. would definitely cost a lot more
How is it not surprising when it contradicts your argument?
Because it allows them to increase their wealth while lowering their taxes, and the assets and properties are not moving or changing hands (well, they kind of are by moving from holding A to holding B, but the holdings are still entirely within their hands). That’s the expensive part which justifies paying experts.
Look I’m not married to this argument about fleeing capital, I don’t think it’s convincing that everyone will run off to Sweden or whatever. I just think that whatever the solution is will not be the most obvious one that can fit on a t-shirt sold on Gary’s merch page. Imo Gary is a grifter and I don’t appreciate how he denounces the “academics in their ivory tower” while saying he’s got all the answers and it’s so important that the prime minister calls him for help.
I don’t really know the guy, he just pops up on my feed sometimes, so I have no idea if he’s a self important jackass or not. But he raises a lot of important questions with answers we already know to be part of the solution. Raising taxes, destroying inheritance above a certain threshold, the looming threat of extreme Victorian-like inequalities, are all valid points.
Thry are a drain on society. If they leave, it’s a net positive. If they start to pay their fair share, it’s a net positive. Either way we win.
They literally pay the majority of all tax in a society lol. They usually create tens of thousands of jobs, and pay those wages.
There aren’t many billionaires that don’t own and run massive companies that contribute greatly to society.
They literally pay the majority of all tax in a society
I’m going to have 1000 pizza pies, you’re going to have one. We each need to contribute to the group. You’ll give half of your pizza pie, I’ll give one whole pie. I’m a much bigger contributor than you. No one hungry should be upset with me, especially since I periodically give a slice to the people who bake all the pizzas for me. Enjoy your half pizza.
Only that’s not how it works. That’s not how the tax system works.
That’s literally how it’s working now. The top 0.1% pays propotionately less than top 10%
No they don’t.
Yes they do - https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1318404470397885&id=1518151076345001 https://youtube.com/shorts/mL796eqCQko (same lecture snippet) https://youtu.be/uz350LTmusw (full lecture)
The top richest times list and the top taxpayers list don’t have any overlap. The majority of billionaires pay fuck all tax.
https://nchstats.com/who-pays-most-taxes-in-america/
You’re just wrong.
You have no idea, tax on income is nothing.
We should be taxing wealth, not work.
And I was referring to UK times richest list vs top taxpayers list. We tax income, so workers, we don’t tax the wealthy who never earnt their money in the first place.
No, you shouldn’t be taxing wealth for all the reasons I’ve listed many times.
We should absolutely be taxing wealth, if we don’t the economy will continue to become more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer.
Wealth should be taxed, if you can take loans out against the value of your stocks, then that should be taxed.
The only other workable solution is to make those types of loans illegal, then taxes on realised gains can actually be utilised.
If not, we should absolutely be taxing wealth, otherwise the wealthiest will continue to not pay their fair share.
The idea that billionaires would leave the economy that made them billions, the services and amenities that make being a billionaire worthwhille, and all their rich friends, all for a little tax break is pretty ridiculous. They already choose to live in California, New York, and London - expensive places with high taxes - rather than Cayman Islands or South Dakota.
They’re definitely not uprooting the whole corporate campus, moving it away from the skilled workforce it needs, the housing that they need, and the good schools that they want.
Billionaires’ personal wealth isn’t generating any taxable income, anyway, so there’s no income tax to lose if they do leave.
Avoiding a “wealth tax” isn’t just a “little tax break”.
Most wealth is on paper. Billionaires don’t just have a billion dollars of cash. I’m technically a multi-millionaire, but if I suddenly got hit with a 5% wealth tax I’d have too sell my house and be homeless to pay it. That’s not right or fair.
It’s basically a tax on unrealised gains, and I shouldn’t have to explain to you how that is terrible.
-
no one’s talking about a 5% wealth tax, and few people are even talking about applying it to people with fortunes as paltry as $10,000,000.
-
Us middle-class shlubs are already paying 1-2% wealth tax on our biggest asset, and that asset doesn’t even generate income. Why should billionaire stock portfolios be exempt?
-
Asset taxes, whether real estate or equity, encourage those assets to be put to productive use. If you can’t figure out how to extract 1% economic value out of your $100,000,000 company to pay the wealth tax, then maybe you should sell that company to someone who can run it right.
Missed the point of the example.
Unrealised gains should never be counted or taxed because of their very nature. So you even understand the difference between realised and unrealised gains?
Just because someone has more money than you it doesn’t mean they should be unfairly charged with extra taxes. That’s pathetic.
What 1-2% wealth tax are us shlubs already paying? Why are billionaires exempt from this?
You fundamentally don’t understand the difference between the value of a company and the cash on hand of that company.
Billionaires make money on those unrealised gains. Therefore they are an asset, and must be taxed.
No they don’t lol. Do you understand what unrealised gains are? It means you haven’t actually made the money. You haven’t got it. It’s an “on paper” gain, not realised until you cash out - at which time it counts as income and you pay income tax/capital gains/etc on it.
Think about it like this: you have $10 to your name. you buy a share for $10. It doubles to $20.
With what you’re suggesting, you would now be hit with a tax bill of say $4………but you have $0 dollars of actual money. How are you going to pay that tax bill?
What if your share lost value though, and dropped to $1? Should you get a tax refund now? Even though? What if it then goes back up to $15, souls you have to now pay tax on your “gain” of $14 from it going from $1 to $15? How often should you have to pay these taxes? Every day? Week?
It’s a truly idiotic idea, ranted by people who clearly have no idea how capital gains and assets work. Is likely driven by jealousy because the people who want it have no assets.
Have you not heard of corporate/profits tax?
You don’t understand how any of this works.
What 1-2% wealth tax are us shlubs already paying?
You’re honestly lecturing me about unrealized gains and you don’t even know about Property Tax?!? Primary residence is the closest most people get to an investment portfolio, and they get taxed on its full value, not just the equity fraction they own.
We don’t have property tax where I live.
-
He’s right but people in the UK are too racist to gain a collective class consciousness.
Right or wrong, it’s bizarre to make an overgeneralised statement accusing others of bigotry.
It is overgeneralised, but I look at how many people are feeding into the lies told by Nigel Farage and similar people, a lot of people hang on their every word and take it as gospel.
There are articles every week regarding racist attacks and outbursts, most recent discussion I could find: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/13/belfast-southampton-riots-racism-why-is-the-uk-burning
There will never be class consciousness as long as even a decent minority of people listen to the hate being spewed in this country.
What do you feel is “a decent minority” that could prevent it? I think I’d say that Farage’s recent poll numbers are easily sufficient, but if his latest alleged corruption is found to be real and it halves them, then I’d say that wasn’t enough to prevent class consciousness.
In other words: I really disagree with your generalisation being permanent. Things change in politics and sometimes it’s even for the better.
I honestly hope you are right. We are well overdue for change in the UK.
I just feel pretty hopeless about the whole situation as I honestly don’t feel like there has been a time in the UK where the working class were not being manipulated by politicians in conjunction with the tabloids to make out that the enemy of the working class is anyone but the rich.
You have to turn that hopelessness to motivation. I have been reading about resistance. I’m moving through anger towards determination and figuring out how I can personally contribute to change, What I can influence or control.
I defo feel more empowered.
It’s a comment that is used to make everyone feel like it’s pointless trying to fight this.
We are powerful united and they don’t want us to fight back.
Eat the rich.
return to the feudal age
Ummm… we never left.
