• Melody Fwygon@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    @ #9; Whoa there. 100% is unreasonable. Still there’s room to start at a hard 90% at about 250 million and then incrementally scale until the tax is say, about 95-97% by about a billion.

    Unfortunately you cannot tax anyone 100%; that would ultimately be unfair and demotivating and only motivate corruption to avoid the tax

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It’s progressive. You’re still allowed to have a billion. That’s just a cap. Anything past that goes to the public.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Makes perfect sense. It’s like having $999,999,999.99 in a management game.

        It doesn’t go above that, but if you buy a ton of assets and set them down, it’ll probably climb right back up there to the limit again at some point.

        You still have a billion bucks to do whatever with.

        Although yeah, businesses routinely buy things for billions (like acquiring Minecraft? Hah) So they’d find some clever way of putting it all in some kind of “company trust” or something, so they don’t have it as an individual.

        But I’m no lawyer. I still think having it on the books would be better than not, if it went to healthcare and education instead of funneling into the defense industry, that is…

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        You’re still allowed to have a billion

        Why? Why do you feel the need to hold on to this “aspiration”?

        You will never become a billionaire, stop defending your exploiters.