• zeppo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    6 months ago

    I love the people who claim things like “they just have stock! Not money!!” Great, I’ll take $10 billion in stock please. Should be no problem since it isn’t real.

  • TheBronko@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    6 months ago

    For Germany the Informationen is wrong we have at maximum 45% income tax if you mske more then 170k a month and you pay 42% at 66 k. We literally have no wealth tax because of a loophole in regards to inheritance. Also Social security has a maximal ammount that does not increase after a certain income threshold.

    The income ammount is not 100% correct but it is arround that ammount.

    • bleistift2@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      “Amount” is spelled with a single ‘m’. You also forgot to mention that a “rich people’s tax” once existed, but was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the principle of equal treatment, and that no legislation since has made an attempt at crafting such a tax that would hold up to the court.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    Ironic to include Sweden, when they are one of the worst countries in Europe in terms of wealth distribution.

    There’s not a single inheritance tax in Sweden, meaning if you’re super rich there, you and your family will stay rich forever. Creating larger and larger gaps between the 1% and the 99%.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    6 months ago

    The United States used to have a high tax rate for millionaires.
    Then the voters and non-voters let Reagan in through the door.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      My ideal would be setting the brackets at the quintiles of household incomes, then setting the tax rates for those brackets at the share of national wealth all the brackets below a given bracket, plus the median point between that and the total including that bracket’s share of the wealth.

      Allows for dynamic tax adjustment by pegging it to a calculation instead of a congressionally set number, and benefits the working classes by significantly shifting the national tax burden off of them whenever wealth accumulation starts peaking, effectively giving them free money to rebalance the economy with while taking the ultrawealthy through the nose for their shenanigans.

      Not to mention how you can adopt similar models for other taxes bracket percentiles for total land value, for unrealized gains, for income tied to productive property assets like factory equipment, etc. etc. etc.

      The real sticking point will be finding a way to address how the rich get most of their spending cash outside of direct income streams.

  • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    6 months ago

    This is just false. Those are the income tax rates for highest earners. Billionaires’ wealth is mostly tied up in stocks, property, and other investments. Someone like Jeff Bezos does not have $196bln in his bank account, like you and I have a few $100.

    If we want to really tax billionaires, we need a wealth tax on any homes you own after your first, luxury cars, private planes and yachts, a passive tax on holding stock and stock options, and also clamp down on tax loop holes.

    • zaphod@feddit.deEnglish
      11·
      6 months ago

      It’s 45% income tax plus 5.5% of 45%, the 5.5% is the so called Solidaritätszuschlag a kind of tax which was originally introduced to pay for the gulf war in 1991 and then kept to pay for the reunification with eastern germany. Anyway, income tax barely applies to the super rich, they pay 26.375% capital gains tax (25% + 25% * 5.5%) on dividends.