Page 3 | To think the world should have a 100% tax rate

MsGreying · 22/05/2026 18:22

notanothernamechange24 · 21/05/2026 22:27

On anyone with assets or income over 1 billion pounds. Nobody needs to hoard money / wealth to that degree. There is no justification for it.
The world would be a far better place without billionaires let alone trillionaires.

I know it will never happen. But it should. AIBU?

Once you agree in principle that we're just quibbling about the number.

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 18:17

RosieHosie · 22/05/2026 17:56

Are there many people actually earning a billion + per year, rather than just having a billion +?

Show quote history

Yes there are. Some pay a billion or more in tax annually now. Elon Musk is on tract to becoming the first trillionaire!
These are people who gain wealth at such a rate that something like every minute their wealth increases by more than the average UK annual salary.

OP posts:

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 18:14

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:46

But it seems totally arbitrary to draw the line (globally) at a good standard of living in the uk. A huge proportion of the world couldn't dream of that and think we are impossibly greedy.

However I agree that the driver should be wanting better for everyone, I just think people are drawing a line in terms of their own norms, not global norms. But without acknowledging that we are among the wealthiest cohorts in the world

Show quote history

Maybe but the line had to be drawn somewhere. Drawing it at a point above which the vast majority would even be able to comprehend having seemed more reasonable than below the generally considered acceptable by the western world.

OP posts:

RosieHosie · 22/05/2026 17:56

Yellowingtrees · 22/05/2026 07:49

Op I agree with you.

How can it be that people are making arguments saying ‘oh, but this happens already for people earning 100,000’

you’re right - 100,000 is loads! But a billion a year is 10,000 times more! It’s an impossibly vast amount of money. Having that amount of wealth is astonishing. Having that income????

Are there many people actually earning a billion + per year, rather than just having a billion +?

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 17:55

cloudtreecarpet · 22/05/2026 16:46

I think what the OP is really hinting at or suggesting is Limitarianism. Ingrid Robeyns has written a good book about it.
Maybe read it and see what you think?

Show quote history

Thanks, i have not heard of limitarianism before.

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:46

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:40

And? It’s a standard of living that we should be aiming for the majority of people to have. The lifestyle and greed of the uber wealthy are not.

There is enough for every mans needs not enough for every man’s greed.

Show quote history

But it seems totally arbitrary to draw the line (globally) at a good standard of living in the uk. A huge proportion of the world couldn't dream of that and think we are impossibly greedy.

However I agree that the driver should be wanting better for everyone, I just think people are drawing a line in terms of their own norms, not global norms. But without acknowledging that we are among the wealthiest cohorts in the world

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:40

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:31

Their standard of living will be infinitely higher than the vast majority of the world. Standard of living is always relative.

Show quote history

And? It’s a standard of living that we should be aiming for the majority of people to have. The lifestyle and greed of the uber wealthy are not.

There is enough for every mans needs not enough for every man’s greed.

OP posts:

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:31

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:17

A significant number of people on here may well be in the highest percentage of wealth yet still be struggling to maintain a reasonable standard of living. I’m not discussing these people because it’s not reasonable to dictate that people who are already struggling give more.

Im talking about people who have enormous wealth to the point that they could never spend it. They don’t need it. It wouldn’t affect their lifestyle in the slightest!

Hoarding money like that is pure greed. It’s not sustainable. Nor is it ethical.

Show quote history

Their standard of living will be infinitely higher than the vast majority of the world. Standard of living is always relative.

Hassell · 22/05/2026 17:23

“A global policy”

can’t see the likes of the Russian government, UAE, China following any such global policy

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:17

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:06

It's not childish at all. Most people on here will be in the highest percentages of assets compared to the world as a whole. But everyone always thinks it's someone's else's job to give their money away, not theirs.

Show quote history

A significant number of people on here may well be in the highest percentage of wealth yet still be struggling to maintain a reasonable standard of living. I’m not discussing these people because it’s not reasonable to dictate that people who are already struggling give more.

Im talking about people who have enormous wealth to the point that they could never spend it. They don’t need it. It wouldn’t affect their lifestyle in the slightest!

Hoarding money like that is pure greed. It’s not sustainable. Nor is it ethical.

OP posts:

Monty36 · 22/05/2026 17:12

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:05

And there is no other ways of being rewarded than money?

Show quote history

In our society it is the most fundamental one.

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 17:06

cloudtreecarpet · 22/05/2026 16:44

That's such a childish, immature comment!
The OP is talking about billionaires who wouldn't even notice if some of their wealth was actually syphoned off and gifted to the poor because they will pay people to manage their money for them - they probably don't realise exactly how much they have and have more money than they can physically spend in their lifetimes.

That is not the same as saying that every ordinary person has to give their money away too or just buy the "absolute basics" and give the rest to the poor and you know it isn't.

Come up with a decent argument or don't bother.

Show quote history

It's not childish at all. Most people on here will be in the highest percentages of assets compared to the world as a whole. But everyone always thinks it's someone's else's job to give their money away, not theirs.

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:05

Monty36 · 22/05/2026 16:47

I agree that billionaires could do more. They cannot spend their money in their lifetime.
But taxing the world at 100% is simply mad. Why? Because you are discounting human nature. The need to achieve, the need to be rewarded.
That too many billionaires do so little good with their money is another matter.

Show quote history

And there is no other ways of being rewarded than money?

OP posts:

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 17:03

YoBetty · 22/05/2026 16:55

No, it isn't nonsensical at all. I studied statistical probability many moons ago, and I can still remember a lecture about pretty much that very thing.

Multi-billionaires will have business interests in many different countries, and would easily be able to afford to pay specialist tax accountants to minimise their tax liability in any given country. After all, it's what they do already.

Adopting a 100% scheme would very likely produce a net tax revenue of £0.

Show quote history

If it was a global policy they wouldn’t be able to. Thats the point!

OP posts:

YoBetty · 22/05/2026 16:55

notanothernamechange24 · 21/05/2026 23:39

But that’s a nonsensical argument. These people will not suddenly stop earning money or gaining wealth at the point they hit 1 billion. Thats not how it works. The interest alone is massive.

And there is a huge argument that many of these enormous corporations are not healthy for the planet or humanity.

Show quote history

No, it isn't nonsensical at all. I studied statistical probability many moons ago, and I can still remember a lecture about pretty much that very thing.

Multi-billionaires will have business interests in many different countries, and would easily be able to afford to pay specialist tax accountants to minimise their tax liability in any given country. After all, it's what they do already.

Adopting a 100% scheme would very likely produce a net tax revenue of £0.

Monty36 · 22/05/2026 16:47

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 13:17

What is sensible about someone having over 1 billion in assets whilst 300 million people are starving. On their own each of the top 12 richest people could feed every single starving person without even noticing the cost. What is sensible about that?

Show quote history

I agree that billionaires could do more. They cannot spend their money in their lifetime.
But taxing the world at 100% is simply mad. Why? Because you are discounting human nature. The need to achieve, the need to be rewarded.
That too many billionaires do so little good with their money is another matter.

cloudtreecarpet · 22/05/2026 16:46

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:16

Why would they have an incentive to create these large companies that provide thousands of people with jobs if they're going to have 100% of their profit taken away? You do realise 100% tax means they are working for free?

I think what the OP is really hinting at or suggesting is Limitarianism. Ingrid Robeyns has written a good book about it.
Maybe read it and see what you think?

cloudtreecarpet · 22/05/2026 16:44

TheKeatingFive · 22/05/2026 15:05

The vast majority of the people in the uk could save lives by buying only absolute basics and giving the rest to the poor in the developing world. Are they guilty of manslaughter too?

Show quote history

That's such a childish, immature comment!
The OP is talking about billionaires who wouldn't even notice if some of their wealth was actually syphoned off and gifted to the poor because they will pay people to manage their money for them - they probably don't realise exactly how much they have and have more money than they can physically spend in their lifetimes.

That is not the same as saying that every ordinary person has to give their money away too or just buy the "absolute basics" and give the rest to the poor and you know it isn't.

Come up with a decent argument or don't bother.

Monty36 · 22/05/2026 16:41

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 15:02

As in the Rolling Stones- are they still producing music? You would hope that when they were more concerned with their creative output than incredible wealth being the end goal.

You could harmonise policy and practices with the EU to tackle the issue of loopholes. It's done with lots of things like Food standards, the Environmental commitments, data protection etc.

Show quote history

They are people. All human. And didn’t want to make music that would take pretty much all of their earnings.

And yes, they still are producing music. A new album is out or coming out soon.
Best band ever.

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:41

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 15:30

Yes you would probably have to set a value at which a company has to go public or become some other entity.

Show quote history

Quite easy to reach just under that value and open multiple companies with different brand names to sell the exact same or very similar thing.

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:32

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 16:22

Or another way to look at it is huge companies that prevent competition. Have such large monopolies and buying power that simply force smaller companies to fail.

If a billionaire chooses to walk away and not continue then that just creates a vacuum for other businesses to thrive.

What do you think is going to happen to these enormous businesses once they have sucked the life out of all of us? When we simply have no money left to pay them?

Show quote history

Usually these massive corporations don't just operate in a single market.

Facebook isn't just social media, it is also a tech firm.
Amazon isn't just shopping, it is in entertainment (Audible, Amazon TV etc)

Boeing isn't just into holidays, they produce jets for the military

they aren't going to run out of customers because they have diversified.

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:29

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 14:01

My situation isn’t relevant! My disgust that we have over 300 million people starving in 2026 is!

Show quote history

While not nice to think about that's only just over 3% of the worlds population.

🙃

Original poster

notanothernamechange24 · 22/05/2026 16:22

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:16

Why would they have an incentive to create these large companies that provide thousands of people with jobs if they're going to have 100% of their profit taken away? You do realise 100% tax means they are working for free?

Or another way to look at it is huge companies that prevent competition. Have such large monopolies and buying power that simply force smaller companies to fail.

If a billionaire chooses to walk away and not continue then that just creates a vacuum for other businesses to thrive.

What do you think is going to happen to these enormous businesses once they have sucked the life out of all of us? When we simply have no money left to pay them?

OP posts:

LeaderBee · 22/05/2026 16:16

Why would they have an incentive to create these large companies that provide thousands of people with jobs if they're going to have 100% of their profit taken away? You do realise 100% tax means they are working for free?

CruCru · 22/05/2026 16:03

Goldenbear · 22/05/2026 07:57

You could align your tax principles, harmonise fiscal policies to close loop holes as I stated in my previous post. Admittedly this is not going to be globally feasible but I wouldn't see how it isn't from Jersey ans Europe.

Show quote history

I’m not sure that I understand your last sentence.

It wouldn’t be in the interests of Jersey to harmonise its fiscal policies. Part of what makes Jersey rich is that it is very attractive to the rich. It has laws and policies which are quite different from ours - for instance the state pension is far more generous.