You are conflating the tax revenue from a wealth tax with "funding the government for a year" which is precisely a balance vs cash flow mistake like you rightfully pointed out to someone else in the thread.

So given the government will still collect taxes for every foreseeable year, I ask you, what impact would it have if we used it not to fund the government but to pay down some of the debt?

The US debt is nearly 39 trillion dollars.

Confiscating all of the assets of the nation’s billionaires wealth would yield 6-8T, depending on what kind creative accounting is done in anticipation of a wealth tax.

So yeah it would help reduce the debt slightly but doesn’t address the bigger culprit - spending and government inefficiency and bloat

>You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year.

1. I see that being 14 trillion. That would in fact fund the government for a year. even for 2 years.

2. taxes aren't about achieving perfect equality. But it's in part to incentivize people to not hoard wealth and spend it in the company. Few of the busnesses in the 50's/60's paid close to the tax brackets they had back then (Which would give modern billionaires a heart attack, despite that being "the times to return to).

Except is not 14 trillion (in the US) It is closer to 8 trillion.

Even if it WAS 14 trillion, the fact that such an insane measure wouldn’t even fully fund the entire government for two years shows you can’t just confiscate your way out of things. It is spending.

Okay. Can you engage with the real point instead of the Wikipedia figure I googled in 5 seconds?

I mean when you just make up a number, you should expect to be called out for it, lol.

And I did engage with the real point. Even if it WAS 14 trillion dollars, that wouldn't fund the government for 2 years. And then what? Why is the solution for government bloat and inefficiency always just taking more?

>And I did engage with the real point

You did not and still are not. This isnt about making billionaires cover the entire country's budget. Its about making sure power doesn't consolidate in any one person.

Do I really need to repost the other 80% of my comment (the entire 2.point?) Which part of "high corporate taxes mean business owners invest in business" needs clarification? Are we suggesting that the tax codes in which the baby boomers boomed under did not in fact make America Great?

You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.

I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.

The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

There are arguments to be made how much those policies contributed to the boom of that decade, but those are separate to arguments about the practical, legal, or efficiency concerns with just imposing a 5% levy across all assets and net worth

>but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

Yes, thanks for reiterating my main point.

Now if we use that same mindset and apply it to a wealth tax...

Hence my main point. Taxes aren't all about extraction of money, they also help to nudge people to do things they normally wouldn't do. So nudging them to actually help the area they are in is really powerful.

Or they can leave. If so: good. Make room for those who do want to innovate and not extract money from the people (and more beach space).

Not all billionaires are "job creators", especially given the actions taken the last few years. That's why some of the legitimate "millionaire flights" that do happen don't necessarily impact the way that's predicted on paper.

If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.

Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.

I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)

I do agree it is a spending issue, for far too long corporate welfare has flourished in America. None of these rich people would exist with out the federal teat they suckle from, truly pathetic. Remove their bloat, take their money, and fund programs that will enable REAL economic value like medicare for all, universal childcare, free school lunches, public jobs programs, and universal education.

What do you think happens to the money when it gets distributed to low income people?

They spend it, it gets injected back into the economy and the economy grows. It doesn’t sit in a hidden bank account to avoid paying taxes on it.

Probably the same way that the republicans are able to generate funds out of thin air to pay for tax cuts. If MMT is good enough for them, it's good enough for everything else.

> And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land ...

What are you talking about? Current administration is doing exactly that. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and adding all those loses to national debt at record level increments. No fiscal responsibility at all.

Total fantasy and essentially poor and middle-class funds the rich through their taxes (and government money printer), not to mention how mega companies like Walmart constantly underpays workers that those workers then need to survive on government subsidies, yet another funding for the rich.

This is happening with every USA government (AFAIK especially/only republican ones) since Reagan.

EDIT: also as sibling comment said - poor people spend money instantly, returning it back to economy. America was already taxing wealthy through the teeth years ago - that helped fund incredible amounts of infrastructure and let built strongest middle class (probably in history) for decades. Now all that wealth is just accumulating in someones back accounts. Trickling any day now...

> America was already taxing wealthy through the teeth years ago

Except they weren’t. Those lovely 90% tax rates from the 1950s everyone on Reddit loves to bring up weren’t really paid by anyone. The effective tax rate paid after the loopholes and deductions was much lower, closer to 40%

let's make _effective tax rate_ 40% then...

It's already 37% (for Federal). Add in another 14% for California and its over 50%.

But even for simplicity sake, going to 40% would be far better and more practical than confiscating 5% of total assets and net worth.