Also if you have a million dollars or more and put it into the most generic stock/index imaginable, then it will grow by a few percent annually, while you do jack-ass nothing. Therefore it is only fair to introduce a wealth tax to tax these unearned-profits by maybe, let's say 3% annually. That money could well go towards society, i.e. the people.
Decent idea, but the calculation is flawed based on the average US citizen income tax being ~14%. Why should excessive profits for the rich be only taxed 3%?
see, this exact type of infighting is exactly why leftists never get anything done in the US. instead of agreeing on a proposal that will make everyone's living condition a little bit better, people infight about it "not being good enough".
Agree with the sentiment but the logic in this is flawed. It is comparing a value with a rate of change with the final comparison being tried to make against a value vs a rate of change. Wealth is a value, wage is a rate of change. The comparison is being made against a defined rate of change (minimum wage) vs a value (billionaire wealth). It’s still wildly obscene.
5 Comments
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 1y
Also if you have a million dollars or more and put it into the most generic stock/index imaginable, then it will grow by a few percent annually, while you do jack-ass nothing. Therefore it is only fair to introduce a wealth tax to tax these unearned-profits by maybe, let's say 3% annually. That money could well go towards society, i.e. the people.
Evolith@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Decent idea, but the calculation is flawed based on the average US citizen income tax being ~14%. Why should excessive profits for the rich be only taxed 3%?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1y
see, this exact type of infighting is exactly why leftists never get anything done in the US. instead of agreeing on a proposal that will make everyone's living condition a little bit better, people infight about it "not being good enough".
Dubiousx99@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 1y
Agree with the sentiment but the logic in this is flawed. It is comparing a value with a rate of change with the final comparison being tried to make against a value vs a rate of change. Wealth is a value, wage is a rate of change. The comparison is being made against a defined rate of change (minimum wage) vs a value (billionaire wealth). It’s still wildly obscene.
Thebigguy@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1y
Nerd,
Yassin rockets now