Absolutely! And it’s in too few hands. Spread it around and we’ll have a better economy.
6 Likes
How much stock did Bezos sell to buy this badboy?
Or how about the almost $100 million support vessel? Or how about the $25 million per year just to keep his yacht running?
Come on.
14 Likes
This is absolutely not true. They go to a bank and say “Mr. Banker I am a superwealthy person and would like to take out a loan at a favorable rate. Would you like to do business with me? And of course the banker says “You bet!”
So they take out a loan secured by the stock, which they do not sell.
They then live on that million, or those millions, paying a paltry few percent interest instead of paying capital gains or income taxes off any sort, which even in the worst case scenario with be 4 times their interest rate. Thus they have millions of dollars and have not paid a penny in tax, and they still have the stock with its voting power and control.
A “loan”, you see, is not “income”, and if you are a billionaire the pathetically small amount of interest you pay (you have anticipated this by loaning enough to pay the interest as well as however much you really want) is all but irrelevant.
You can stack this up and do it year after year until a year comes along and you wish to “get income” and pay off the loan, usually with your appreciated stock, or die, in which case your heirs pay it off again, with appreciated stock.
Bankers love to pal around with billionaires. They love making loans secured by stock owned by billionaires. The bankers get their interest, the billionaires live all but tax free, and the only people getting screwed are the schlubs paying taxes.
18 Likes
Once SCOTUS (oh thank you Federalist Society!!!) declared money to be speech for purposes of politics, our government has been falling ever more under the control of the people with the most, ahem, speech.
End of Message and End of Democracy.
13 Likes
Even were that the case with all billionaires, it seems that Buffet and Gates are able to both sell a few shares and a la Goofy above, finance a little bit, for their multi-million dollar charities each year. Somehow, they seem to survive just fine.
Pete
9 Likes
Perhaps once J6P owes less taxes as billionaires pay their share (hypothetical, I know) he/she will then have the funds to gobble up those shares, so pension funds may actually not suffer?
Or are you trying to make a case for government deficits having to continue in nose bleed territory to avoid pension schemes to falter - that would sound a bit like a pyramid scheme 
6 Likes
David,
That is partially true, but I have breakfast with a gentleman from the 1%. He is not from the .1%. He sees no separation between the two when it comes to tax policy. That is our fault. As much as Bernie preaches, he is poor at making the distinction of who is who and what the tax monies would do for industry. The same people who want civil rights do not necessarily want more factories. But the option is not offered to them.
2 Likes
Another repeat of an unworkable bad idea from Warren.
How about eliminating the payroll (SS/Med) income cap on individuals only? Everyone would pay 6.2% in. Then we wouldn’t have “the Lebrons of the world” hitting the income cap in the first quarter of the first game of the season and paying the same into the system as a middle-class couple. That would be fair, and easy. And it would make SS solvent immediately. Companies would stay at the cap, of course, otherwise it would never get the votes.
FC
10 Likes
High value collectibles is the big issue in many cases. The way their value is determined is generally what a willing seller sold to a willing buyer (or what that number is for comparable items). So, for example, if billionaire A owns a Renoir worth $51M, and billionaire B owns a Matisse worth $54M, what if on Dec 30th, billionaire A sells the Renoir to billionaire B for $100,000, and billionaire B sells the Matisse to billionaire A for $150,000? What’s the value of these items on Dec 31st for the asset tax calculation?
3 Likes
Don’t worry about it - just confiscate both pieces of art and stick them in a museum for everyone to enjoy! And thank the billionaires for their contribution to a civil society.
JimA
3 Likes
No. The overall underlying point is that it is never a tax/revenue problem but a spending problem. Warren is prime typical politician (from both sides of the isle) - blah, blah, blah, we need to tax the rich so I can spend more money. It is never cut spending first.
As far as hypotheticals go, I always find it amusing that people scream the rich need to pay their fair share but never define what that is beyond “more”. Reminds me of this scene from “Little Shop of Horrors”.
1 Like
Because it won’t solve the whole problem we shouldn’t do it? Solving part of the problem isn’t a good enough reason? The fact the problem is so large it warrants solutions from multiple angles means we need to find just one magic angle?
Cutting spending to fix the problem is simply not possible. There is nowhere near enough fraud and waste for that to work. We do have a problem with some spending. We have a larger problem with revenue however. We simply do not tax wealthy enough and haven’t for a few decades. There is a reason why tax rates for the wealthy were so much higher in the 1950s.
11 Likes
I’m all for more from the billionaires, heck, even the millionaires. But the math still doesn’t work. Confiscating all of the billionaire’s money gives us only enough money to operate deficit free for 4 years. What do we do after that? Tell me where the math is wrong.
I literally admitted taxation won’t solve the whole problem. But it must be part of the solution. Interesting note: over the last several decades the Dems have been better than the GOP in terms of budgets and deficits, despite being “tax and spend”.
9 Likes
Taxing the billionaires may not be the solution; but it is part of the solution. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that in the post war years and up through (the 80’s) over 50% of government revenue came from taxes paid by corporations. (If I remember correctly, which is by no means likely) We need to get back to taxing business. Additionally, we need to be putting an end to private equity, hedge funds and financial manipulation as a business model.
JimA
9 Likes
“Tax and spend”… isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
Both parties are at fault, to some degree.
Tax fairly: Maybe remove cap on Social Security tax? Increase inheritance tax on wealthy, progressively? Tax income producing assets, loans on portfolios, corporate means of manufacturing, real estate, and land?
Spend wisely: Reduce military profligacy? Cut health care bloat with Medicare for all?
Surely, we can come together on some ideas like these and this fine country can get it together.
6 Likes
There is a spending problem, and there is a wealth distribution problem. Both need addressing.
If you don’t tackle the latter, you’ll enjoy a society with
- rich family dynasties that bribe their way through everywhere and buy themselves the policies they want, and everyone else,
- a shrinking middle class, and
- a large contingent of have-nots.
Oh wait, who thinks we might be already there?
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning,”
Warren Buffet, 20 years ago
11 Likes
We are, and have been for a long time, as Warren says.
If the 99.9% want any leverage, they have to pay attention and vote for change.
Other forms of leverage are boycotts and strikes.
7 Likes
Re: Money is speech for politics.
We can always ask Congress to correct this problem w new regs but of course they need more “speech” too.
1 Like
Re: shrinking middle class
They tell us some of that is middle class moving into wealthy class. Due to investment success. Due to hard work and good business sense. This is not all bad.
We hope more find a way out of poverty.