Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Spain and Brazil push global action to tax the super-rich and curb inequality

    (news.un.org)
    131 points Traces | 14 comments | 02 Jul 25 10:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.431s | source | bottom
    Show context
    samiv ◴[02 Jul 25 11:52 UTC] No.44442587[source]▶
    I hope this works. The only way to save the economy and the society is by taxing the rich.

    Think about it for a minute. The rich people hoard all the resources, financial assets, means of production and in the competition for resources they will (and are doing so) displace everyone else in the economy (and really from society also).

    This means that those who are displaced have no means to participate in the economy. And not only that but also they will be pushed to the fringes of the society and exists in slum conditions. This will stiff the economy and hollow it out.

    Let's say for arguments sake that the government taxes X hundred of millions of $ from the bezos/musks/gates/etc. and put that into the economy by

      - indirectly or directly hiring people
  - building infrastructure
  - providing services for the citizens (education, health care etc)
  - providing benefits to those who need.
    All that money will immediately go back into the economy stimulating all kinds of economic activity. And essentially two weeks later that same X hundred million is back in the bank account of bezos/musk/gates and it can be taxed again!

    By letting the uber rich hoard the wealth that wealth is essentially away from the economy providing very little economic activity.

    In economy this is known as the "high propensity to spend". The "poor" (i.e. working/middle class people) have high propensity to spend, the rich have low propensity to spend.

    Tax the wealth, not the work!

    This has been done before and it can be done again!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

    replies(5): >>44442678 #>>44442803 #>>44442851 #>>44443141 #>>44450759 #
    1. tzekid ◴[02 Jul 25 12:00 UTC] No.44442678[source]▶
    In modern societies: top 1% of earners pay roughly 30% of taxes top 5% pay 65% of taxes top 10% pay 80% of taxes while bottom 50% usually barely make 2% of taxes.

    Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.

    replies(7): >>44442710 #>>44442717 #>>44442719 #>>44442741 #>>44442742 #>>44442804 #>>44443065 #
    2. samiv ◴[02 Jul 25 12:04 UTC] No.44442710[source]▶
    "Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better."

    You're right, because the distribution is removing large groups of people from the economy.

    Just for reference, this has been done before and it produced possibly one of the best economies (at the time) and it was very social democrat. This was the United States after the so called "New Deal".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

    And just to make it crystal clear, we're not talking about taxing working people. We're talking about taxing the obscenely wealthy people who just sit on massive amounts of wealth, whether it's stocks or property or yachts or mansions or gold and jewelry. You know the > 10-1000x millionairs

    3. robin_reala ◴[02 Jul 25 12:04 UTC] No.44442717[source]▶
    I’m not sure how your second statement follows your first? It’s implying that your numbers are “heavy” but not backing it up.
    4. thinkcontext ◴[02 Jul 25 12:05 UTC] No.44442719[source]▶
    > Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.

    Really? Universal education and healthcare don't make things better?

    5. ulrikrasmussen ◴[02 Jul 25 12:08 UTC] No.44442741[source]▶
    But the top 1% still pays proportionally less of their wealth in taxes than the bottom 50%. Yes, they may pay a large fraction of the total taxes, but with what they own they should pay even more.

    I think another big problem is that this extremely uneven distribution of wealth is a basic democratic problem. The reason we have states is, among other things, to put the allocation of our finite resources under democratic control. If the majority of those resources are on private hands, then states get less control and our votes have less power.

    replies(1): >>44442798 #
    6. misterhill ◴[02 Jul 25 12:08 UTC] No.44442742[source]▶
    A lot of people survive and tolerate a lifestyle that comes from these redistributions of things to people who no longer have direct access to means of survival like water and land. You really have to qualify what you mean in better.

    Many rich people with heads should consider that the current situation is making things better than the next version of the French Revolution.

    replies(1): >>44442797 #
    7. logicchains ◴[02 Jul 25 12:15 UTC] No.44442797[source]▶
    >Many rich people with heads should consider that the current situation is making things better than the next version of the French Revolution.

    The French Revolution was a revolution against the French government, and its high tax policies.

    replies(1): >>44443143 #
    8. myrmidon ◴[02 Jul 25 12:16 UTC] No.44442804[source]▶
    Sure, but how "heavy" is that redistribution though?

    Top 1% paying 30% of taxes sounds like a really rough deal for them at first, but if those 1%ers already own over 30% of your country in the first place (which is the case in the US), then thats barely their "fair share", and you are not really achieveing any redistribution at all.

    How can you be certain that the problem is "progressive taxation is not working" instead of "taxation does not help against wealth inequality because it is actually barely progressive"?

    replies(1): >>44442848 #
    9. hnhg ◴[02 Jul 25 12:21 UTC] No.44442848[source]▶
    Also the top 1% covers everything from the very affluent middle class to billionaires - the distance from the least rich part of the 1% to the richest part spans billions, much greater than the rest of the distribution's 99%.
    replies(1): >>44443105 #
    10. koonsolo ◴[02 Jul 25 12:43 UTC] No.44443065[source]▶
    Do you have a source for this?
    11. cloverich ◴[02 Jul 25 12:47 UTC] No.44443105{3}[source]▶
    top 1% net worth is around 10 million says google. That's enough to live off and not need to work at any age. It's clearly not middle class.
    replies(1): >>44444472 #
    12. skywal_l ◴[02 Jul 25 12:51 UTC] No.44443143{3}[source]▶
    No. It was a revolution against a regime where the rich paid NO taxes.

    Article 9 of the august decree – Fiscal privileges in the payment of taxes were abolished forever. Taxes were to be collected from all the citizens, in exactly the same manner, and plans were to be considered to set up a new method of tax collection. [0]

    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_feudalism_in_Fran...

    13. hnhg ◴[02 Jul 25 14:50 UTC] No.44444472{4}[source]▶
    It depends on where you are. There are parts of the USA where a 10 million net worth does not mean you are "yacht rich" (but certainly very comfortable).
    replies(1): >>44448054 #
    14. ethbr1 ◴[02 Jul 25 19:50 UTC] No.44448054{5}[source]▶
    No one has a right to live anywhere specific. That seems like an individual's problem rather than a government's.