
Make Billionaires Pay Act - ToFab123
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/sanders-billionaire-tax-bill-would-cost-bezos-musk-zuckerberg.html
======
bleah1000
This bill on the face of it is pretty dumb. Most billionaires do not have
liquid assets that are easily converted into money. In fact, most of the
people's wealth increased due to their company stock price increasing. In
order to pay these bills, the people would likely have to break sec laws to
sell the stock quickly since there are all kinds of rules in this area. And if
they get around that and are forced to sell large amounts of their holdings in
companies, I imagine the stock market would crash, or have a local crash. And
almost assuredly the stock wouldn't be worth nearly as much, so they would be
forced to liquidate nearly everything they own to pay this tax bill.

I also imagine these billionaires will find some loophole or simply sue the
government and keep this in the courts for years while they figure out a way
to nullify it.

Honestly, this whole thing is a publicity stunt because the backers all know
it has no chance of ever happening. Then they can pretend they care, and that
they tried to do something. While in reality, they are doing nothing and never
had any plan to do anything achievable.

~~~
sho
What a defeatist attitude. Instead of snarkily poking holes, where's your
better solution?

Because there has to be a solution. Inequality is reaching levels where it's
dangerous. No, it is not good nor stable for 1% of the population to control
99% of the assets, and we'll get there soon enough.

Redistribution will happen either by law or by knife and gun. This is not
about who earned what or what was inconvenient for XYZ person. This is about
the citizens of the country, supposedly equal under law, having no chance
whatsoever of ever owning an equal part. It's about aristocracy, basically.
And do we all remember how aristocracies end?

Real life is not some computer model. In real life, if a father of 6 cannot
feed or house his children he will not be satisfied by you saying that "well,
Jeff Bezos outcompeted you!". There _will_ be a redistribution. Our only
choice is how it happens. This is an attempt.

~~~
babesh
It is not snarky to poke holes. It is snarky to call someone snarky for
pointing out issues. You don’t always have to come up with a solution
immediately. That would be stupid.

Basic income via the printing of money. What do you think those $600 checks
were?

Inheritance tax. Make education at public schools and universities free.
Reform government for greater efficiency.

~~~
Darmody
Printing money is very risky. The US has the stability to print a lot of money
but I'm afraid printing money forever would end up with a huge inflation.

Hi Weimar Republic. Hi Venezuela.

~~~
babesh
Look at the root causes of increasing wealth inequality. Today’s global,
connected world has allowed the winning of much larger markets than before. It
is very similar to how industrialization allowed the accumulation of huge
amounts of wealth. This global, connected world has also devalued low skilled
work. Increasing amounts of work will be devalued.

Any solution should be addressing these root causes while trying to not lose
many of the great benefits.

One aspect should be creating a basic living standard.

Another aspect should be maximizing human potential. This isn’t just education
but also opportunity. This isn’t just STEM but other human potential: music,
art, etc...

The last issue is how to pay for it. Progressive taxation makes sense as does
a luxury tax. An inheritance tax makes sense because it still motivates
individuals to produce.

~~~
creaghpatr
Ok, so let’s pass a Maximize Human Potential bill then instead of a Shakedown
Rich People Bill.

------
narrator
Meanwhile, you can create a billion dollars with a few keystrokes at the
Federal Reserve.

It's really about who has power to control the economy of the country: private
individuals or the banks and the government. It used to be way over on the
private individual side before the fed and the income tax flipped power over
to the banks and the government side. Previously, you had Carnegie and
Rockefeller running very large portions of the economy and the banks and
government were much less powerful.

Today it's govetnment borrowing and the banks that make most of the money.
Yes, the banks create money. It's called fractional reserve banking and the
money multiplier and it's all legal all totally out in the open. Keynesian
economists will tell you that the banks are the most important organizations
in the entire economy because they create money to increase aggregate demand.

Meanwhile in China, the government prints money whenever it needs it and tells
the banks what to do and who to lend to and they haven't had a credit bust
since the 80s, even though The Economist has regularly been predicting one
since the early 90s.

~~~
HissingMachine
Much of the stock market rally was created by this "create money out of thin
air" scheme, it all usually finds it's way to the stock market since you have
to park all the extra money somewhere. And due to interests being at zero or
in some cases negative, only safe places to park all that new money is either
stocks or metals which again rises their stock markets and the price of
commodities, making large stock holders gain even more. The current financial
system is just broken.

~~~
babesh
There is also the realization that money is being devalued. Stocks in
profitable and growing companies are more valuable than this money that is
being printed. The companies are productive capacity.

Not all companies and stocks are doing well. Just look at airlines, retailers,
etc... They are the losers in the new economy.

------
Wolfenstein98k
An obscene and thoroughly unconstitutional (Article I, Section 9) move.

The wealthy pay an incredible amount of tax - Cuomo just said that a single
percent of New Yorkers pay half of the entire tax take.

That may be good and just - it may even be right to increase that share - but
to slap a retroactive tax on their POST-TAX wealth is heinous.

This is before we get into practicalities... if I recall correctly,
nonpartisan modelling of Warren's wealth tax plan would've levied tax rates
over 100% on certain people, and been incredibly inefficient (the cost of
collecting the money, all said, negated a good portion of the takings... much
more than any existing tax targeted at the wealthy does).

Class war greed. It should be opposed. IMHO.

~~~
verroq
They only got this wealthy because the Fed injected trillions into the stock
market, pumping all of their holdings.

~~~
Wolfenstein98k
The Fed didn't pump that money into stocks, it pumped it into the hands of the
citizens, many of whom decided those stocks were the safest place for it.

I am one such person, though in a different country, who has felt these stocks
are the safest place for a good chunk of my portfolio.

What alternatives are there? There's no argument for taxing the heck out of
people who lead incredibly successful (and safe, for investors) companies,
just because they have managed to make that situation so.

~~~
verroq
> The Fed didn't pump that money into stocks

What is Fed Open Market Operations? What is unlimited QE easing? Do you know
how big the Fed balance sheet grew to prop up stocks?

------
Areading314
This is a totally legitimate, efficient, and reasonable method of taxation.
The persons involved are basically lottery winners, due to random and
unjustified gyrations in the stock market, and will remain extremely wealthy
after the tax is levied, barely even noticing the effect of this tax. The real
question is whether or not the government will use the money for something
productive, like infrastructure, or unproductive, like pointless wars.

~~~
neilwilson
It isn't. Taxation is there for essentially one purpose - to free up physical
resources to create public goods with.

Billionaires don't have the physical resources required. Which means you
either get to tax somebody else as well, or you get inflation.

A nation with its own currency has no need of the money of billionaires. In
fact it makes them out to be more important than they are to suggest you do.

Beardsley Ruml explained this decades ago - Taxes for Revenue is an obsolete
concept:
[http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html](http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html)

Look after the unemployment and the numbers will look after themselves.

~~~
DeonPenny
This actually pretty good concept I never thought it like this.

------
leoh
>Bill Gates: I’ve paid $10 billion in taxes. I should have paid more.

[https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2019/2/27/18243183/bill-g...](https://www.vox.com/future-
perfect/2019/2/27/18243183/bill-gates-foundation-reddit-ama-billionaire-taxes)

~~~
_ph_
Yes, over the time of decades during which he became the richest man on the
planet, he probably should have paid more taxes. I fully agree that there
might be more taxes, that should be collected. However this one-time grasp for
a high amount of the actual possession in the form of stocks is just wrong on
some many accounts. Stocks are only money (and consequentally taxable) when
sold - forcing people to sell of large amount of stocks wouldn't only be
detrimental to their companies, but would have the potential to crash the
stock market.

------
kmlx
i see low grade populism is still rife in the US...

~~~
markdown
Low grade? Trump came to power through populism, so I wouldn't call that low
grade.

~~~
Darmody
Well, this proposal is just as stupid as Trump saying he would cover the wall
with solar panels.

Actually if I had to choose, I'd pick the solar panels. At least it would
provide some work and it wouldn't turn to ashes most US companies.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Amazon and Walmart, for example, have both seen their stocks grow as
> Americans increasingly relied on their services during stay-at-home orders
> during the pandemic.

Jeff Bezos through Amazon and the Walton family through Wal-Mart did more to
help me and my family, and I suspect most Americans, get through the
coronavirus than Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Businesses that solve the massive logistics problems of operating in a
pandemic and provided needed goods to consumers should be rewarded. I am not
any worse off that Bezos' and the Walton's stock value increased because of
this. In fact, I am better off.

~~~
brabel
Both Amazon and Walton were not inventors of the technology you're thanking
them for, they were just the biggest behemoths that were able to destroy most
competition in those respective areas (in the US, at least) and take over the
market.

If they had been broken up due to anti-competitive behaviour years ago, you'd
be much better off as can be easily verified historically in similar markets
where this happened.

~~~
babesh
Amazon has advanced the efficient distribution of goods more than any company
in the last 20 years. One day shipping, easy returns, subscribe and save,
photos of the delivery, shipment tracking, etc... The reality is that it is
just a lot better run than it’s competition.

------
082349872349872
The traditional way to make this project feasible is to give the billionaires
(and maybe even a few aspiring multimillionaires; one mustn't be too picky in
fundraising) a piece of coloured ribbon in exchange for their donations to
their fellow citizens, as well as inviting them and their families (especially
marriageable children) to an annual cell-phones-in-the-fishtank no-non-
donators-allowed party celebrating their commitment to their nation.

(TIL "Eat the rich" is attributed to Rousseau, not to Wells' Eloi/Morlock
dynamic. I am disappoint. "Tax the rich" is apparently a 3rd rail in US
politics. "Feast the rich", on the other hand, would use the carrot of
exclusive membership — what Capitalist could resist such an incentive?)

------
42droids
I am sorry to say this but if you want to tax the rich, you don’t have to
reinvent the wheel. Look at the German taxation system and learn from it.

------
Darmody
He doesn't understand what wealth means or he does but he doesn't care and
proposes stuff like this to gain votes.

------
bitwize
Come on, Sanders, don't puss out and stop there. How about: a 100% marginal
tax rate on any wealth earned after personal wealth exceeds 1 billion dollars.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Sounds good to me. This is what we really need. To ban billionaires from even
existing.

