372

Global billionaire tax could yield $250 billion annually, study says (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/7812500

PARIS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Governments should open a new front in the international clampdown on tax evasion with a global minimum tax on billionaires, which could raise $250 billion annually, the EU Tax Observatory said on Monday.

If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's honestly pretty pathetic. Even a 5% tax on their $13 trillion (per the article) would yield $650 billion, and that doesn't even come close to the annual proportion the average person pays. It's time we stop treating the rich a special sunflowers and make them pay their fair share like the rest of us, and close the loopholes that allow them to exploit us.

Edit: should've said taxing income not wealth, these numbers don't really apply

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

I agree, but the problem is that the rich have all the best fiscal experts, lawyers and politicians on their payroll.

And the rest of us are fighting amongst ourselves on which bathrooms transgender people should take or whatever symbolic pro or anti-immigration policy the politicians should implement.

As the majority, we have all the power, in theory. But until we have solidarity amongst the working class, we will not be able to yield that power effectively.

[-] Changetheview@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share and that is something that needs to be corrected. The arguments in favor of progressive tax systems are countless.

It’s important to note that taxing wealth isn’t the same as taxing income. But you can do both and the US has a very well established system for doing so: income when earned and wealth when transferred to the next generation. Unfortunately, both of these systems have been gutted.

I’d love to see these both get their teeth back. Pretty simple really: (1) make progressive income tax rates apply to all income sources and decrease income exclusions/deductions and (2) lower the wealth tax exemptions and clamp down on tactics used to skirt around the exclusion amount (primarily family partnerships). This is basically just returning to policies the US had from about 1950 to 1970, which also was a time of exceptional middle class growth. It’s really not breaking new ground and it’s a proven, sound way to generate widespread economic success while also battling greed and inequality.

We could go a step beyond and do a value-added tax system too, which effectively taxes consumption, but that’s another topic entirely.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

There is a very real logistical problem with directly taxing net worth. It's extremely difficult to actually assess, especially when you're targeting people with extremely expensive lawyers. They also very directly encourage wealth flight, which has happened in other countries that have tried them. They can also be avoided by accounting trickery, shell companies, and all kinds of bullshit. It's not me that owns $1 billion in Amazon stock, it's a shell company in the Cayman Islands that happened to buy a yacht. Sure, you can unwind all that, but enforcement takes a lot of time and resources.

There are other much more efficient tax schemes out there focusing on consumption that can't be easily escaped.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bribes should be taxed at least 15%!

(The actual point being that billionaires don't necessarily spend their money on things normal people would consider consumption.)

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

This would be bad because it would make people not want to be billionaires

-billionaires probably

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's bad because the only way this could work is by taxing unrealized capital gains on all investments, which will hurt non-rich people that invest.

I wouldn't trust any government to not fuck with things retirement investment vehicles or property value increases if they started down this path, or to not put in a thousand loopholes that make it so the bottom 99% are the only ones paying it.

Remember, billionaires don't have their money sitting in a bank. The vast majority of it is in non-liquid assets.

[-] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 year ago

That's really easy to avoid. Make the tax start at 100 million or something and you won't hit a single middle to upper class home owner.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

You'll suddenly find a lot of people with 99 million in assets and a cousin in the Cayman Islands that owns a few yachts and jets.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

When they pass all those millions to a cousin, they can be taxed.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, the system designed by billionaires makes it seem wrong to address the systemic corruption of their system.

Liberating nonliquid assets from billionaires to workers is the whole point.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Translation: I don't trust governments to do anything at all, because I might not like some of the things they do.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So, you trust the governments that created the loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes to not put in loopholes that allow the ultra wealthy to avoid taxes?

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

So you believe any kind of positive change is possible or are you just fatalistic about everything?

Governments can do good things when they try. They don't always succeed, but they definitely won't accomplish anything if all they do is maintain the status quo.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

With the current state of the world, I don't believe a change like you're suggesting is possible without large scale violence from the people (I'm not advocating large scale violence from the people)

I think positive change is possible, just not if it impacts the ruling class's hoarded wealth.

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Then tax stocks. 1% per stock.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

That seems really low...

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

What if the IRS waits for these big companies to release their annual earnings report boasting about their profits, then tax 15% of whatever amount they state in that report?

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Corporate taxes already exist. It's 21% at the federal level, with some additional state taxes.

The profit number that's reported to investors already is taxed.

So I guess you're happy now?

[-] Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

Stop. I can only get so erect.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.

"In our view, this is difficult to justify because it risks to undermine the sustainability of tax systems and the social acceptability of taxation," the observatory's director Gabriel Zucman told journalists.

U.S. President Joe Biden's 2024 budget included plans for a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01%, but that proposal has since fallen by the wayside with lawmakers in Washington preoccupied with government shutdown threats and looming funding deadlines.

Though a coordinated international push to tax billionaires could take years, the Observatory pointed to the example of governments' success in all but ending bank secrecy and reducing opportunities for multinationals to shift profits to low-tax countries.

The 2018 launch of automatic sharing of account information has reduced the amount of wealth held in offshore tax havens by a factor of three, the observatory estimated.

For example the rich increasingly park wealth in real estate instead of offshore accounts while companies can exploit loopholes in the 15% corporate tax minimum.

The original article contains 491 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] bundes_sheep@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

If they don't like their "tax evasions", then they should change the laws and remove the loopholes that allow it. I'm not a supporter of a wealth tax (i.e. being taxed on something repeatedly because you still happen to own it) no matter who it is that would suffer from it that we all collectively dislike.

[-] rchive@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago

I know in the US, if we taxed 100% of all US billionaire wealth, dropping their and their companies' productivity to zero, you could fund the federal government for only like 7 months. You'd squander tons of production for comparatively little gain. The problem isn't that we don't tax the rich enough, the problem is that we waste money left and right.

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

Is this a fact or a "fact" you pulled out of your ass?

[-] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

PolitiFact article about it

Pretty much a fact, with slightly fuzzy details.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023

372 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38978 readers

1337 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.