this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
406 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38569 readers
1651 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/7812500

PARIS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Governments should open a new front in the international clampdown on tax evasion with a global minimum tax on billionaires, which could raise $250 billion annually, the EU Tax Observatory said on Monday.

If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This would be bad because it would make people not want to be billionaires

-billionaires probably

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

It's bad because the only way this could work is by taxing unrealized capital gains on all investments, which will hurt non-rich people that invest.

I wouldn't trust any government to not fuck with things retirement investment vehicles or property value increases if they started down this path, or to not put in a thousand loopholes that make it so the bottom 99% are the only ones paying it.

Remember, billionaires don't have their money sitting in a bank. The vast majority of it is in non-liquid assets.

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's really easy to avoid. Make the tax start at 100 million or something and you won't hit a single middle to upper class home owner.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You'll suddenly find a lot of people with 99 million in assets and a cousin in the Cayman Islands that owns a few yachts and jets.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

When they pass all those millions to a cousin, they can be taxed.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago

Yes, the system designed by billionaires makes it seem wrong to address the systemic corruption of their system.

Liberating nonliquid assets from billionaires to workers is the whole point.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Translation: I don't trust governments to do anything at all, because I might not like some of the things they do.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So, you trust the governments that created the loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes to not put in loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So you believe any kind of positive change is possible or are you just fatalistic about everything?

Governments can do good things when they try. They don't always succeed, but they definitely won't accomplish anything if all they do is maintain the status quo.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

With the current state of the world, I don't believe a change like you're suggesting is possible without large scale violence from the people (I'm not advocating large scale violence from the people)

I think positive change is possible, just not if it impacts the ruling class's hoarded wealth.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Then tax stocks. 1% per stock.