Current Events > 'Billionaires shouldn't exist', Bernie Sanders says as he introduces tax plan.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tyranthraxus posted...

AlephZero posted...

No, wealth taxes are taxes on the sum total of a person's wealth. Property, shares in public and private companies, art, everything.

Incorrect. Wealth tax is for personal assets. Valve is an LLC, so the value of Valve would not be taxed with a wealth tax.

Gabe's 50% ownership in the LLC Valve is a personal asset he owns that has value and would be taxed.
---

AlephZero posted...

Gabe's 50% ownership in the LLC Valve is a personal asset he owns that has value and would be taxed.

Nope. Wealth taxes do not touch any kind of ownership of incorporated businesses of any kind. At least not something that is exclusively a wealth tax.

I have not read all the details of specifically Bernie's proposal so it's possible his plan includes something that is not a wealth tax.

---

the estate tax does, and sanders specifically worded his explanation of his program as piggybacking off the calculation process used by the estate tax
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

AlephZero posted...

Gabe's 50% ownership in the LLC Valve is a personal asset he owns that has value and would be taxed.

Nope. Wealth taxes do not touch any kind of ownership of incorporated businesses of any kind. At least not something that is exclusively a wealth tax.

I have not read all the details of specifically Bernie's proposal so it's possible his plan includes something that is not a wealth tax.

So then billionaires transfer all assets into 100% owned companies?

Wow what a way to avoid this tax lol
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

So then billionaires transfer all assets into 100% owned companies?

Wow what a way to avoid this tax lol

They are still going to be taxed on their house, vehicle, whatever liquid assets they have, etc.

Now, sure, if you want to be a homeless beggar CEO who doesn't own anything except a PO Box, suit, and rents a hotel room his entire life, sure, you can totally avoid the wealth tax. He can also set his salary to 1 dollar a year and dodge income tax as well.

However he's still going to have to deal with capital gains taxes (even if he immediately reinvests them back to his incpororated business) and then there's a separate corporate tax rate. Oh, and if he suddenly dies, no one in his family gets any inheritance because everything is owned by his business.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

So then billionaires transfer all assets into 100% owned companies?

Wow what a way to avoid this tax lol

They are still going to be taxed on their house, vehicle, whatever liquid assets they have, etc.

Now, sure, if you want to be a homeless beggar CEO who doesn't own anything except a PO Box, suit, and rents a hotel room his entire life, sure, you can totally avoid the wealth tax. He can also set his salary to 1 dollar a year and dodge income tax as well.

However he's still going to have to deal with capital gains taxes (even if he immediately reinvests them back to his incpororated business) and then there's a separate corporate tax rate. Oh, and if he suddenly dies, no one in his family gets any inheritance because everything is owned by his business.

This doesn't make sense tbqh. If I'm a billionaire I start an LLC and transfer ownership of all my assets to that LLC. Also I own 100% of the LLC and stipulate in my will that ownership of the LLC passes to my family if I die. The LLC graciously allows me to stay in the home it owns rent free and gives me free use of everything else it owns. Wealth tax dodged!
---

Politics of jealousy strike again.

---

AlephZero posted...

This doesn't make sense tbqh. If I'm a billionaire I start an LLC and transfer ownership of all my assets to that LLC. Also I own 100% of the LLC and stipulate in my will that ownership of the LLC passes to my family if I die. The LLC graciously allows me to stay in the home it owns rent free and gives me free use of everything else it owns. Wealth tax dodged!

I can't address every specific nitpicky thing here however, owning 100% of a business means it's not incorporated. As such, if you actually have an incorporated business that owns all your assets then any time you want to use your own savings account to buy something you have to fight with the board of directors over it. That includes transferrance of shares held on death of the owner.

Valve is considered its own person and is taxed separately from what Gabe Newell is taxed.

Also if you live in a house rent free the government actually considers that to equate to a monetary value and will tax you based on that.

---

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

2019 wealth tax bill estimates
Jeff Bezos $9 billion
Bill Gates $8.6 billion
Warren Buffett $6.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg $5.8 billion
Larry Page $4.8 billion
Charles Koch $4.8 billion
Larry Ellison $4.7 billion
Sergey Brin $4.6 billion
Rob Walton $4.2 billion
Jim Walton $4.2 billion

---

I am okay with this

---

Kombucha posted...

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

Any numbers on their tax liabilities in the Caymans?

Tyranthraxus posted...

I can't address every specific nitpicky thing here however, owning 100% of a business means it's not incorporated

Lmfao you can 100% own a corporation.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
---

No one needs billions. You could never spend it and you could set up your family for generations with less.

It's pure greed if you aren't a massive philanthropist.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

No one needs billions.

Ponder for a moment what the implications of a maximum income would be.

SK8T3R215 posted...

Lmfao you can 100% own a corporation.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

No government in America will approve an application where you incorporate and get to keep ownership of 100% of everything.

---

friendbuddypal posted...

The government should take everyone's money and distribute a yearly salary to every 18+ year old individual, regardless of work status. It's the only way to ensure equality.

I see a lot of crazy stuff on this board, but this must be a joke.

Pretty much every billionaire on the planet gained their wealth by exploiting people and breaking the law.

So no they should not exist.

If more people understood just how much money a billion dollars is, they'd probably agree that higher taxes on the extremely wealthy is a necessity.
---

CrestedTax posted...

friendbuddypal posted...

The government should take everyone's money and distribute a yearly salary to every 18+ year old individual, regardless of work status. It's the only way to ensure equality.

I see a lot of crazy stuff on this board, but this must be a joke.

It's a really bad parody
---

That schedule actually makes sense, the problem I have is that government in general is inefficient. If they were ran with a limited budget, imagine the efficiencies that could be had. I use the examples of non-profits. They have no real income, yet are able to squeeze and make more from every dollar that is supplied. If the governments ran the same way non-profits did, we would have so many more social services at lower overall costs.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

No one needs billions.

Ponder for a moment what the implications of a maximum income would be.

To be clear, I just support higher taxes, not a literal maximum wage. Just riffing
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

Lmfao you can 100% own a corporation.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

No government in America will approve an application where you incorporate and get to keep ownership of 100% of everything.

Lmfao is this trolling? If I want to form a corporation right now for a business I run by myself you're saying NYS is gonna deny it and force me to be a sole proprietar?

https://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/busguide.html

How Do I Form a Corporation?

One or more persons, called "incorporators" may form a corporation.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Kombucha posted...

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

2019 wealth tax bill estimates
Jeff Bezos $9 billion
Bill Gates $8.6 billion
Warren Buffett $6.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg $5.8 billion
Larry Page $4.8 billion
Charles Koch $4.8 billion
Larry Ellison $4.7 billion
Sergey Brin $4.6 billion
Rob Walton $4.2 billion
Jim Walton $4.2 billion

Does that hurt any of them?

You're punishing their success and killing their job creation! Now they only have billions to work with!
---

Don't bother with revenue estimates from wealth taxes, they never take in anything close to that.

shockthemonkey posted...

Kombucha posted...

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

2019 wealth tax bill estimates
Jeff Bezos $9 billion
Bill Gates $8.6 billion
Warren Buffett $6.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg $5.8 billion
Larry Page $4.8 billion
Charles Koch $4.8 billion
Larry Ellison $4.7 billion
Sergey Brin $4.6 billion
Rob Walton $4.2 billion
Jim Walton $4.2 billion

Does that hurt any of them?

That factors in net worth; not income. For example, Bezos only took home $1.6 million.

...Looking at it now, that tax is NOT a good idea. I thought it was an income tax; not a 'wealth' tax. That would essentially cut back anyone in those brackets over time to below the minimum threshold over a few years. No incentive to produce when the more production, the more overall is lost.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Kombucha posted...

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

2019 wealth tax bill estimates
Jeff Bezos $9 billion
Bill Gates $8.6 billion
Warren Buffett $6.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg $5.8 billion
Larry Page $4.8 billion
Charles Koch $4.8 billion
Larry Ellison $4.7 billion
Sergey Brin $4.6 billion
Rob Walton $4.2 billion
Jim Walton $4.2 billion

Does that hurt any of them?

You're punishing their success and killing their job creation! Now they only have billions to work with!

That is per year, every year, which means they are actually having a net loss of wealth in the billions. Bezos is worth $125 Billion. Unless he can create some sort of magic and improve shares by more than 9.5% (the max tax, plus cost of living at 1.5%), he will be losing money every year. If this were an income tax, or a one time tax, etc, that would make more sense.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

It's a really bad parody

Source on this?

---

MaverickXeo posted...

That schedule actually makes sense, the problem I have is that government in general is inefficient. If they were ran with a limited budget, imagine the efficiencies that could be had. I use the examples of non-profits. They have no real income, yet are able to squeeze and make more from every dollar that is supplied. If the governments ran the same way non-profits did, we would have so many more social services at lower overall costs.

Good take imo

---

Spooking posted...

People: Bernie is a socialist.
Regressives: No he isn't!!11
Bernie: Billionaires shouldn't exist.

This proposal does not eliminate billionaires, but it eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have

Boy your reading comprehension skills just go down the fucking shitter every time you log on to GameFAQs.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Incorrect. Wealth tax is for personal assets. Valve is an LLC, so the value of Valve would not be taxed with a wealth tax.

Two different issues here.
Wealth tax is levied on assets owned by an individual. It's definitely not intended to be scope limited to just the liquid cash assets and property... if it was, then it is definitely not what would traditionally be considered a wealth or estate tax.

A corporation would be taxed based on profits (as well as other taxes such as payroll, state taxes, etc. and anything requiring them to withhold payments such as employee entitlements or shareholder dividends)

SK8T3R215 posted...

Lmfao you can 100% own a corporation.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I also have no idea what he's on about here either since privately incorporated companies would serve the same purpose and you can definitely own all the shares in a company either directly or indirectly (e.g. through interspersed entities or trusts).. but even if they were to tax the shares you own (and come up with some way of measuring the fair value of it), then you'd just move things into a trust where you are not the trustee at which point it's no longer your asset. I suspect what he meant by the "you can't own 100% of a corporation" was from an SEC perspective but that's addressing a different question around control.

It's been a while since I became a qualified accountant and had studied tax law (and admittedly not in the US) but it seems there are a lot of easily exploitable holes in this plan, and given it's aimed at those who already take advantage of tax planning, I doubt they wouldn't continue to do so with a wealth tax implemented.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's no place on Earth that will treat them better. Especially not Singapore which doesn't even fucking have room for them because of how tiny it is but even if they were okay with living in some cramped area with no privacy the government is a hell of censorship and obscure Draconian laws that even the rich aren't immune to.

That's a very passionate response. I don't disagree that there are some elements which may not be favourable to individuals who value certain liberties, but as someone who lived there before, there's also a lot of benefit which some may be willing to compromise on in order to achieve banking secrecy which is taken very seriously, and both corporations and bankers/staff have had criminal convictions for failing to follow this.

---

Either they'll find away to avoid paying taxes or you end up slowly making your country irrelevant.

---

Most people will never be billionaires, why are they so personally offended by this?
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Most people will never be billionaires, why are they so personally offended by this?

On one hand, it's about aspiration and trying to avoid having a culture of tall poppy syndrome.

On the other, indirectly, to assume that the increased revenue that the government/tax authority receives from this would correlate with a corresponding increased level of government expenditure/services in ways which improve the day to day life of individuals is naive. And that's before we take into consideration that this could simply lead to an outflow of capital/resources and a reduction in investment which has flow on effects to economic activity/jobs/etc.

---

It's sad what scapegoats the wealthy man have been turned into today as tools to rally against and gain support. All of you jealous, less wealthy people clamoring for this are just the sort of sheep Bernie is trying to manipulate for votes.

The free stuff he was 'promising' is no different, the Democrats are going all in with these one time gimmicks to win this SINGLE election and it is the saddest s*** I've ever seen.

Jeff Bezos wealth even if you took all of it wouldn't make a dent in our federal budget. If they could allot the funds properly before, they won't be able to after eating all the rich.
---

Prismsblade posted...

It's sad what scapegoats the wealthy man have been turned into today as tools to rally against and gain support. All of you jealous, less wealthy people clamoring for this are just the sort of sheep Bernie is trying to manipulate for votes.

The free stuff he was 'promising' is no different, the Democrats are going all in with these one time gimmicks to win this SINGLE election and it is the saddest s*** I've ever seen.

Jeff Bezos wealth even if you took all of it wouldn't make a dent in our federal budget. If they could allot the funds properly before, they won't be able to after eating all the rich.

I know, right? Who cares that the man employs 500,000 employees

Hes rich and he must be destroyed
---

I think the Jeff Bezos example is an interesting one.

Sure some people may disagree with what he does or how he does it, or that he's obscenely wealthy as a result.

But man, I love my quick shipping items bought at pretty reasonable prices with excellent customer service if I'm not happy with what I receive. I'd rather him get rewarded for this (and also incentivise others to be innovative too) than for it to go to a government body to try and allocate those funds somewhere...

---

history shows that these taxes inevitably find their way to the less wealthy as the budget grows and the billionaires find loopholes in the tax code; we are now paying several times what the wealthiest did before ww1, and that's just in terms of income tax

fact of the matter is, each piece of legislation added to the code adds to the complexity, until you reach a point (which we have) where there will be loopholes, even if it's not written by lobbyists and perfectly well-meaning

if you don't want billionaires, lower the regulatory and tax complexity serving as a barrier to entry to smaller/upstart competitors

i'd also consider arguing that companies leveraging walled garden strategies and exploiting ip law should be slapped with antitrust suits
---

gloBal enemy posted...

I think the Jeff Bezos example is an interesting one.

Sure some people may disagree with what he does or how he does it, or that he's obscenely wealthy as a result.

But man, I love my quick shipping items bought at pretty reasonable prices with excellent customer service if I'm not happy with what I receive. I'd rather him get rewarded for this (and also incentivise others to be innovative too) than for it to go to a government body to try and allocate those funds somewhere...

You could have both those things though.

John_Galt posted...

I know, right? Who cares that the man employs 500,000 employees

Hes rich and he must be destroyed

It's kinda sad that despite all the good people like him and Bill Gates brought to society from jobs, benefits and opputnitys people can still be so ungrateful. Their even called lazy and exploitative leeches for whatever reason.

Even though the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes, do not indulge in any of its benefits, and it is in that the vast majority of haters toward them who are in ironically leeches of off their success.
---

That wealth will trickle down any day now... Maybe senpai will notice you.

MaverickXeo posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Kombucha posted...

Here are the yearly taxes that would be paid by current billionaires under the Sanders plan:

2019 wealth tax bill estimates
Jeff Bezos $9 billion
Bill Gates $8.6 billion
Warren Buffett $6.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg $5.8 billion
Larry Page $4.8 billion
Charles Koch $4.8 billion
Larry Ellison $4.7 billion
Sergey Brin $4.6 billion
Rob Walton $4.2 billion
Jim Walton $4.2 billion

Does that hurt any of them?

That factors in net worth; not income. For example, Bezos only took home $1.6 million.

...Looking at it now, that tax is NOT a good idea. I thought it was an income tax; not a 'wealth' tax. That would essentially cut back anyone in those brackets over time to below the minimum threshold over a few years. No incentive to produce when the more production, the more overall is lost.

What it would do is limit net worth (in whatever way it's calculated) to the equilibrium where their income minus taxes and expenses is equal to the payment.

Suppose you have $20B and after taxes and expenses, you get 1 billion per year. At the end of the year, you have $21B, you get charged 8% ($1.68B) and now have $19.32B. Another billion later you're at $20.32B, and get charged 8% ($1.63B), putting you at $18.7B.

When the dust settles, you'll be at $11.5B. A billion later, you have $12.5B and get charged $1B, which puts you back at $11.5B.
---

A_A_Battery posted...

You could have both those things though.

Maybe.

But I'll put it this way, in most places I've lived, I don't think the governments do an efficient or good job of allocating resources. I also worked as a consultant with one government (can't name which one) and there was even the perception internally that they had to spend whatever budgets had been assigned to them (even if it was pointless/fruitless) so that their allocations in future years would not be cut down. And that's where tax dollars go.

---

LightningAce11 posted...

Most people will never be billionaires, why are they so personally offended by this?

Most people will never be shot by an AR-15 either.
---

DevsBro posted...

What it would do is limit net worth (in whatever way it's calculated) to the equilibrium where their income minus taxes and expenses is equal to the payment.

Suppose you have $20B and after taxes and expenses, you get 1 billion per year. At the end of the year, you have $21B, you get charged 8% ($1.68B) and now have $19.32B. Another billion later you're at $20.32B, and get charged 8% ($1.63B), putting you at $18.7B.

When the dust settles, you'll be at $11.5B. A billion later, you have $12.5B and get charged $1B, which puts you back at $11.5B.

But then where's the incentive to get another billion? Wouldn't you just structure it so you don't actually earn income and instead gain through other means? To make it perfectly equal to the movement means you literally get nothing from any gains and hence you're incentivised to find ways to not make a gain.

The other thing I'd wonder is will there be tax deductions? What if your net worth goes down due to say a collapsing stock market, do you get a deduction for amounts you paid in previous years? (admittedly this is all paper gain/loss)

---

They would have to liquidate some of their assets in order to pay the net worth tax. Warren Buffet doesn't even have a lot of assets outside of his business holdings. He would have to divest.
---