139
Brazil, France, Spain, Germany and S. Africa Push To Tax Billionaires 2% Yearly; US Says No
(www.ibtimes.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
139 points (96.6% liked)
World News
32322 readers
1733 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wealth taxes have been tried and later rescinded. They are extremely hard to administer for rich people. They usually have their wealth tied up in assets, not cash. Valuing those assets is itself expensive. What is a painting worth? Their entire stock portfolio? It is much easier to tax money as it moves through capital gains, income, and estate taxes.
The fact that even this largely performative measure is being opposed by the US makes it pretty clear that no real action will be possible under the current regime.
Okay, and how is that a rebuttal? Wealth taxes cost a large amount to administer and don't provide much revenue. Any tax should be weighed against its side effects. If a type of tax has a history of being mainly performative with little revenue, what's the case for swallowing the side effects?
Again, it's much easier to tax wealth as it moves because typically that movement involves putting a value on it. Estate taxes also require appraising the value of assets, but they are literally once in a lifetime.
I'm not rebutting that wealth taxes don't really work. I'm saying that even this performative measure is not palatable to the oligarchs, then obviously any serious measure won't be either.
If they won't accept bloodletting to release the bad humors, then surely they won't accept acetaminophen for a headache?
It's bad policy. Many countries have experimented with it and given up. Others like the UK looked at it and couldn't find a way to make it worth the administration cost to begin with. There is simply no excuse for enacting known bad policy, and no amount of blaming things on oligarchies is going to get around that.
Oh hey, I remember how this guy Sanders was proposing a lot of good and sensible policies with his green new deal idea. How'd that work out?
Mixed. Quite a few policies have been passed into law as part of the "Inflation Reduction Act" (which was more geared toward climate change action). Then the bipartisan infrastructure bill finally had some halfway decent funding for rail instead of scraps. Still not enough, but it's a start. The Biden administration set a goal of making the power industry net zero by 2035 and the US net zero by 2050. Not as good as is ideal, but the Green New Deal had some policy effects. That's just kind of how things usually work, you throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.
The inflation reduction act is a perfect example of an idiotic policy that failed to achieve either reducing inflation, which is still climbing, or making any impact in terms of reducing emissions. In fact, U.S. fossil fuel production was reaching new highs in 2023 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50978
And what are the tangible effects of this bill?
Once again, tangible results point in the opposite direction here as seen above. And now US is criminally putting tariffs on Chinese solar panels and EVs in a middle of a climate crisis to make things worse.
All the policies that have been passed do have a common theme though. What has happened consistently during Biden admin is that the oligarchs have increased their wealth substantially while the working majority became more poor. The purpose of the system is what it does.
Wrong. So wrong. Inflation in the US is around 3.5%, down from a high of 7%. Whether that's attributable to the IRA is, of course, up for debate.
Regardless of fossil fuel production, actual CO2 equivalent is dropping and has been dropping for a long time.
Those numbers are complex because the Biden administration has dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout its entire existence. But recently, wage growth has been catching up, with the lowest wage workers getting the strongest growth. Inflation is slowly getting under control. But then too the stock market has been on a high. Will that burst at any moment? Hard to tell.
The rate of inflation has slowed, but the inflation is still rising https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/what-is-inflation/
And the elephant in the room is of course the way inflation is measured which excludes key things that affect people the most such as rent and gas prices since they're deemed too volatile. This gives a very skewed picture of what's actually happening with real inflation, as in the rise in cost of living that people are experiencing. (more on that later)
This is largely a result of deindustrialization because US doesn't produce much of anything domestically with industry being only something like 11% of the economy. So, all this shows is how US increasingly outsources emissions for the goods consumed in US. And the oil that US exports is used to fuel those emissions.
the improvement https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/
false https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61943
And this is going to get a lot worse with Biden's tariffs on cheap solar panels and batteries from China.
🤨
Last I checked the pandemic was a global event, so why is China's economy growing at over 5% with people's savings hitting a record high?
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j
And now we can circle back to the reality of the rise in cost of living compared to wage growth:
I'm going to stop arguing since this has nothing to do with a wealth tax. That said, you should reread the source you gave:
Wind capacity is at an all-time high. There was less wind than usual that year, so less electricity was generated.
It has everything to do with your original point that the tax law was rejected because it was a bad idea. What I've demonstrated for you is that the policies that have been implemented don't actually work any better than the rejected tax law in accomplishing their stated goals.
very clearly showing there's no tangible increase in capacity, with it decreasing slightly in 2023
Again, here's what we see in a country with a functioning government that's able to pass effective policies. World wind report shows that China's wind capacity is now more than the US, EU and UK combined. Meanwhile, the US installed less than 1/2 of what it did 2 years ago, and lowest level since 2014.
https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GWR-2024_digital-version_final.pdf
You're confusing capacity factor and capacity. Take a look at both graphs in that document, including the one that shows a steadily increasing capacity. It's the graph you apparently cut out of the above image, can't miss it!
I'm not confusing anything. I'm pointing out that the actual tangible change in electricity production is effectively non existent. The increase in overall capacity is not actually very large, and that's why the capacity factor is effectively flat. Again, compare the increase in capacity in US with the increase in capacity in China to see what actual progress looks like. It's incredible to me that you're incapable of accepting what's happening.
Capacity and capacity factor are not connected. You could have one wind turbine or a thousand and they would tend to have a similar capacity factor, all else being equal. If you need another illustration of this, consider this table of China's stats, which includes the capacity factor. It stays steady at around 20% in a time period where capacity has increased by a factor of over 300.
You're right, but steady capacity factor with the total capacity doubling every year is a very different situation from what you see in US where it took a whole decade to double, you get that right?
if third party sites can come up with someone's net worth without access to any tax returns/financial data, I'm sure the US government can do the same. Honestly they could just give a broad estimate and if its wrong have the taxee fight it with the data proving its wrong. The system for this already exists on tax forms. The administrative costs part of the argument seems really weird, it's not like the US is like most other established governments and gives a bill/check. It requires citizens to calculate their own taxes so they technically don't even need to do the math outside a simple "does this look right? ah probally" or audits
Those are estimates based on published data that are often wildly inaccurate. Taxation would need real numbers. The way that things have typically worked in the past is that taxees self-report their assets, which leads to widespread cheating.
widespread cheating is still a net plus though, worst case scenario they pay less taxes then needed, but any non-zero number would be money that otherwise wouldn't have been recieved. Actual calculations can be done on audits so if someone sends something in that is drastically different than what you would expect it should be then they can do the actual calculation but for the most part estimates should work fine for that matter.
The way I see it a 5 to 10% variance in what is actually owed isn't going to mean much in the long run, and if a number is submitted that does raise eyebrows, which would be easy to implement just based off what their annual income(which is already reported) is versus what their reported assets are, a more in-depth calculation can be done