• prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Also, the “taxed at 90%” is a red herring too, since that’s not how progressive tax brackets work. Nobody’s effective tax rate would be close to 90%, even if we raised the top marginal rate to nearly 100%.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If tax brackets were sensibly set, with a >90% rate for the top bracket, these people would still be very wealthy but the amount given to tax would be almost all of their wealth, since the highest tax bracket would kick in just a few pixels into the giant boxes on that diagram. And there would be nothing wrong with that.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Right. If they were sensible. But I’m OK with taking it one step at a time and ease into it so it doesn’t immediately get shut down.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That’s why taxing net worth is our next step. Make it a sigmoid curve that starts out at $10M and hits 100% taxation at $100M.

      And yes, plenty of things can be “valued”. The Insurance industry has plenty of experience at this, as do branches of the government that estimate property values so cities can levy property taxes, and banks that extend loans to billionaires on the basis of securities being held.

      If companies can attach dollar values to the lives that they destroyed due to OSHA/labour violations, then a taxable value can be assigned to pretty much anything a card-carrying member or the Parasite Class might own, or holds through a shell corp, holding company, or trust.