Should there be a max net worth tax...

Should there be a max net worth tax? I don't see why anyone needs more than 1 billion and every dollar above that gets taxed 99%

Other urls found in this thread:

vixra.org/abs/1605.0166
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why work then? Why build your company? Why hire more people? Why invest? Why make risks?

No. Wealthy people who work hard allow their wealth to continue throughout generations.

I expect you a poo-lord, like the one in pic related, and no nothing of hard work.

>why work past one billion dollars

FTFY

>"I WILL NEVER BE RICH THEREFORE NOBODY SHOULD BE RICH

t. failure Canadian

You don't know how net worth works then, nobody owns a billion dollars of liquid cash that's easily taxable, you'd essentially need to create a communist police state with an iron rigid level of regulatory control of the economy which stopped everything from advancing to do what you're talking about.

Honestly, once you hit the 1 billy mark """work""" turns into buying out other successful companies that are doing fine on their own, laying off half the staff, and merging the jobs with your current company so your old employees have to do twice the work but be happy about it because otherwise they will be the ones getting fired. Then, leveraging the profits from the combined firm to do it again with another successful company even faster.

Look at Warren Buffet, the fucking scumbag.

> What is the purpose of profit
> What is an economic service
> What is economic efficiency
> What is vertical integration
> What are economies of scale
If you can't see why what he does is useful work and economically productive you just need to learn more about what he and people like him do.

Maybe Canada should implement this stupid idea. That way no company or rich person will ever want to invest in the US' whiny little northern sister.

While you're at it, open those borders up (as well as your ass cheeks) for those poor refugees. That way, when they overrun your country, we can destroy them all and make you our 51st state.

Seriously though, why are leafs such retards?

I know what he does, squeezing middle class families and making their lives miserable to line his and his shareholders pockets.

>needs
You can pinpoint the exact moment the fucking leaf loses the argument.

>ITT brainwashed masses who will be "self-made men" and die with a net worth of 7 or less digits at best

Another note, a maximum wage cap would be a much better idea and much more feasible and enforceable than what you're talking about with a max net worth.
Yes, that's literally the only reason successful people do what they do, they fucking hate middle class and poor people and want to fuck them over. There are no ulterior economic motives whatsoever.

>buying out other successful companies that are doing fine on their own
lol
You're presupposing billionaires are bad guys by irrationally thinking anyone they buy out was fine on their own, didn't want to be bought out, just good boys and dey dindu nuffin

You think people on here seriously believe that they're going to become extremely wealthy and successful? Where do you think you are? Also if you're retarded enough to think that why people are opposing this is because they're brainwashed and vote against their economic interests then learn what the fuck net worth even means and is and how impossible this idea would be to actually implement.

Only the government should have money.

OP we need tits or ass pics plz tnx

how bout hips??

The ulterior motive is it makes them and the people selling rich you fucking scumbag.

Don't worry, your day is coming.

>tfw Buffet's and other fatcat scumbags entire families will be hanging from the top of a lampost in your lifetime

Who is this semen demon?

just make 999 million dollars and pay no additional tax

>7 digits
>this board is filled with fucking NEETS
>try again sweety

>a maximum wage cap would be a much better idea
Why

Tits or gtfo

Yes, but then require them to invest in the area for tax breaks.
This forces corporations to improve the local area, or pay a bunch in taxes to do the same
This is old school economics

>Somebody owns a building worth I billion
how do you tax them?

It's at least enforceable, wages are solid, well defined, and come from a single source, so they are easy to regulate and control, trying to cap or even regulate net worth which is extremely multidimensional and nebulous would be a fucking bureaucratic nightmare larger than anything that has ever been tried in the world.

Increase property taxes by 99% duh

>pol
>fascist
>anti-capitalist
Keep up

a) because you're retarded, seeb) because they'd just find a way around it like they do with any other regulation

> Sup Forums is a single person
> Sup Forums has an ideology

So it's not better from any functional standpoint, it's just easier to implement?

And I think you're kind of missing an overlying point of OP's idea

>I don't see why anyone needs more than

You don't see...
You don't think...

Who the fuck are you? Democracy is such a cancer: where every ignorant brick-layer and garbage-man thinks he should be consulted for his opinion... and be able to dig into the pockets of his neighbor.

Neither of those things need to be true

This is a national socialist board. Maybe if Libertarians weren't hijacked by globalist cucks like Randlet and Johnson it wouldn't have died so easily.

His idea is to limit wealth and inequality. Btw if something is completely impractical and can't be implemented at all, like trying to cap worth, than any measure which attempts similarly limit wealth but is at least practically feasible is functionally superior.
You do realize that limiting net worth would essentially mean stuff like Mark Zuckerberg losing control of over 80% of his FaceBook shares, Sergey Brin and Larry Page losing any controlling stake in Google, and basically private property being completely revoked as a concept, right?

I think judging the rewards one can reap from one's own labors shouldn't be capped at any arbitrary amount, but you are correct that if someone is going to get fucked with an unfair tax code (and this is given) then it might as well be the person with a billion dollars in the bank. He will never stop being a billionaire no matter what the rate of taxation over $1B is, although 99% might be inefficiently high. If it was, say, 90%, then someone who has $1B would end up with $2B if he found some way to cause an extra $10B of activity in the market. That seems fine to me.

>a bunch of faggy kikes lose their mansions, cancers like Facebook and Google finally die, and basically private property being completely revoked as a concept, right?
Congratulations, you've arrived at the overlying point.

Everything you're saying about these kinds of ideas being impractical are working on the assumption that we want to prioritize private wealth over the common good because muh rights muh liberty

welcome to commie logic
>hey why do you have money gibs me dats you don't need it anyway

If you want to revoke the concept of private property as applies to businesses and firms then go for it but don't be shocked when America literally becomes a third world country because literally ALL large-scale business investment will leave the country if their assets are potentially in danger.

>Be the 1% in America
>Government decides they want to tax me 99%
>Me and all my 1% friends leave
>government loses 40% of its income

Good thinking guy

4th amendment, faggot.

Nobody has a billion dollars sitting in a checking account you idiot. Net worth is calculated by the value of total combined assets. If your house is worth $100k, that doesn't mean you have 100k sitting around in a bank for you to spend.

You check out these dank memes

>On Certain Aspects of American Economics Relevant to 2016
>vixra.org/abs/1605.0166

Nobody becomes a billionaire from earning a wage.

>their assets
>"their"

Your logic is backwards anyways.

>Government let you leave with the 99% you owe it
>???

> Everything you're saying about these kinds of ideas being impractical are working on the assumption that we want to prioritize private wealth over the common good because muh rights muh liberty

Point out how Zuckerjew's wealth took anything away from anyone else. It's not a zero sum game. Him being rich didn't make you poor. He's just smarter/luckier/better connected than you.

I was arguing about this with some douche bag on face book a long time ago. He said, "it's not fair to tax rich people at a higher rate because then what reward do they get for beating the market?" I said, "Well... they get to be rich for one. Even if you tax those guys at 99% they will still be rich." He said, "You can't tax bill gates at 99%, the man has to put food on the table for his family."

>0.01 * 80,000,000,000 = 800,000,000

Is $800,000,000 enough to buy food?

A billion fucking dollars?

That's 1,000 stacks of 1 million dollars. You could have ten kids and give each of them 10 million dollars, and still have 900 million left over.

A single human being/family does not fucking need 1 billion dollars.

Who is this sand cum vacuum?

>Billion dollar corporations = personal property?
Fuck your constitution

What about people who like large yachts, such as myself? Do you think there should never be another super-yacht?

If you had taxed Bill at 99% the government would own most of Microsoft. How well do you think the company would have done back in the 2000's?

moot point. Every billionaire has the means to hide his wealth in other cunts. The head of Ikea pays token amount of Taxes in Swden and holland for example.
A flat 10% tax would wipe out a lot of criminal tax evasion ,and put a damper on the social state,as gouverments love to borrow money on some meme math that says that 3 years from now X corporation will pay 3 bn nto the system for example

>efficiency is a bad thing

>Him being rich didn't make you poor
I don't need to be poor to say I don't want him to have the right to amass obscene amounts personal wealth and thus influence.

That doesn't make any sense at all. At what point in taxation would the government have started taking MSFT shares?

Also, we are talking about taxing high rates AFTER THE FIRST BILLION you fucking retard.

Why should the government have all this money, put a max limit on how much tax they can collect instead. When this figure is reached, no more taxation this year.

>Him being rich didn't make you poor

I think the counter point to this general line of argument is that him being rich means the taxes wont him at all and you being poor makes taxes a major bitch

What are you talking about, do you know anything about business law or how legal claims to ownership work, or how stock works? You can wax poetic all you want about your hypothetical world of moral Platonic NatSoc Ideals but the real world doesn't work that way and nobody gives a shit what you think if it isn't consistent with reality.

Let's say you have to kick someone in the shin. Do you pick the small child with frail bones disease or do you pick the guy in heavy plate mail?

If your government's not doing what you want with the taxes it collects, get a new government. That's what the USA did.
Just saying "less taxes please" is half-assed.

Nobody fucking owns a direct liquid credit line or cash equal to 1 billion fucking dollars, learn what net worth is, learn about assets and equity, and read the fucking thread.

If you tax the rich, the rich will simply move and you lose the taxes you'd get from them.

they wont *hurt* him

> You're on a desert island with 5 other people.
> You spend all day sharpening a stick to make a spear while the others sunbathe on the beach.
> You spend the next day spearing fish and catch 5 fish.
> The others tell you to hand over 4 of your fish or they'll beat the shit out of you.

Do you find this morally acceptable? What would you do on the next day?

Influence I agree. Wealth is immaterial.

Do you think old bill has a billion dollars in his checking account? Microsoft would simply move.

That's why there should only be only country with one tax jurisdiction

Why would it be a good idea to legally stop him from creating more economic value by working more? That's essentially what you'd be doing because of your envy, lots of people will make less money, have a larger proportional tax burden, etc. because your jealousy made them poorer.

*one country* as in one world government with one currency

What is her ethnicity? Indian? Looks extremely attractive! I would enrich her with my Finnish genes, if you catch my meaning...

>net worth of 80 billion means Bill Gates has a bank account with 80 billion dollarydoos on it and you can just take 79.2 billion
I seriously hope you guys don't believe this

That isn't anywhere close to happening, focus on pragmatic goals instead of hypothetical masturbation. Do you know what comparative advantage is? As soon as you try implementing something like this countries which don't have the policy start to look a lot nicer, and some countries will even go out of their way to enact policies to attract the people who want to leave your country. How do you think Switzerland is so nice/rich? It's because shit tons of rich people move there because it's good for them and enacts policies to protect privacy, that are pro-business, etc. and their money flows into the economy.

Less talking, more Karishma.

People would just setup micro nations to avoid such a thing. What'd happen then, the NWO going to invade the island some billionaire bought?

This is proof that ethnocentrism doesn't work. Exotic girls (and traps) are always more attractive than the boring local ones. Fucking a boring blonde Finnish girl might be interesting if you were from Asia or Africa. Me? I go for the fierce dark ladies from the south!

well i don't see the need for you to have more than 10K
any dollar above that is taxed 99%

look poor fag.

Why should anyone be penalized for over achieving

fuck off you socialist POS

$1 billion in..what? Liquid assets? Combined assets?
Who's going to be accountable for the financial judo involved in calculating the worth of non-liquid assets in a world where capital accumulation from non-liquid assets caps out and puts the worth of the asset in some fucking quantum state of value?
And if only liquid assets count then why fucking bother acting like you've stopped anything?

>(((business law)))
>(((legal claims)))
>(((stock)))
Fucking hell does it have to be spelled out for you?

The only consistent reality here is that your shitty system is going to crash hard again like last time, and it's gonna take down every economy attached to it like last time, and the places that will make the best recovery are the ones that shed your business (((investments))) and adopt economic policies that aren't retarded.

When you tax billionaires at 90%, that means all the poor people get to keep the ~20% taxes they were paying before the 90% tax kicked in.

All those people have more money. They are poor and they probably spend every penny they get.

The billionaire tax is good for consumer capitalism for this reason, among others: Even though the billionaire will get a smaller cut, the billionaire will still want to scoop up that extra money the poor people have because of the switch from the poor-tax to the rich tax.

You are techinically a leaf

Can I be a leaf too? Please?

>Influence I agree. Wealth is immaterial.
In a capitalist society they're the same thing

Because you're a retarded consumer and only think of wealth as a pile of cash ready to be mindlessly spent on shit. That's why people like you always say "but you don't need that much", presuming to know what other people want or need.

Quit counting other people's money and learn to manage yours.

marry me,make me a fucking leaf

Nice larp nigger

That isn't proof at all senpai. Hot chicks are hot doesn't invalidate group psychology.

>Creating more economic value by working more
What the fuck? Value for who?
The tax burden's subjective.
Make an argument that doesn't hinge on pretending I'm jealous.
If I were envious I'd be an equal-distribution communist faggot.

>Success tax
I hate rich people too but you should honestly consider killing yourself for suggesting a glass ceiling. Proof that liberal progressive feminist cucks have literally no grasp on rationale.

I'd much rather give them tax break for investing in local businesses that they can hope in seeing some return on.

They have the money to hire people to do it for them, and they can't complain that they're losing money. They're supporting the local economy and seeing a return in profit as opposed to just letting it stagnate in their vaults.

I hope your father finds out and honor kills you.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that the economy is going to crash and destroy the world with it this time? No, you don't.
Are you even understanding what I'm saying? You're decreasing the wealth and productivity contained within the economy if you do something like that because it provides no incentive for them to work more if they gain nothing more personally from working. Also, those people are the people who provide and create the wealth for those less rich people. And you still aren't aware of the difference between taxable wages and net worth, which is why you'll never be rich and why you probably think in this way and are so envious.
> Because you're a retarded consumer and only think of wealth as a pile of cash ready to be mindlessly spent on shit. That's why people like you always say "but you don't need that much", presuming to know what other people want or need.
/Thread

>Why should anyone be penalized for over achieving
Why should they have been allowed to over achieve in the first place?
If it's "over" achieving you're acknowledging they crossed a line.
So are you just too big of a pussy to enforce that line?

> taxing your betters as a consolation prize for your own inferiority

gas yourself

So much this. It's amazing how you can spot the mentality of poor people when they talk about money.

Why not reduce public spending by 20%? The British government wastes £120 billion a year. I can't even imagine what the number must be for the US government. Why decrease productivity and wealth even more?

how does man B being rich have anything to do with man A being poor again?

Still not nearly enough to operate a mega corporation off of.

There should be high taxes on high incomes but also incentives like greatly reducing their taxes if they invest in building the nation and creating jobs

They will find some way to define net worth that benefits them.

> What the fuck? Value for who?
Everybody in the company and pretty much everybody in the economy. Do you have any idea how much AI, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing, etc. software research he's probably in charge of overseeing? Do you know how valuable it is and how much it will increase the economy's productivity? Jesus Christ you people can only think in terms of like one layer of abstraction and can't think of any externalities at all. He's created or overseen more wealth creation, before you bitch about it I'll point out mostly indirectly, than you ever fucking will and he deserves more money than you ever do too.