To think the world should have a 100% tax rate

[notanothernamechange24]

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?

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.

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

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

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.

In our society it is the most fundamental one.

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.

“A global policy”

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

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

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.

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

Thanks, i have not heard of limitarianism before.

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

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.

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.

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

Who pays a billion or more in tax? What lucky government is the recipient?!

There is a reason that tax havens are some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

We need to attract foreign investment from wealthy internationals, not scare them away with high taxes.

If we’re actually talking about taxing people earning £1bn a year rather than just having a £1bn in wealth, they are completely different things.

There would be zero point in implementing a 100% tax on income of £1bn. All you would need to do is buy assets prioritising capital growth and hold them so you don’t generate income/ gains in excess of the threshold.

And there’s a tiny number of people in this category anyway.

Nothing is set in stone, that's the point!

Again it would be taking wealth not just income. There is zero justification for having more than a billion in assets.

There may well “only be a tiny number people” with assets over a billion (approx 3500) however they combined have a hugely disproportionate wealth to the rest of the population.

Yes it is childish and a weak argument.

People earning so much money that they don't know how much they truly have and can't actually spend it within their lifetime even if they tried cannot be compared to the average person living in the Western world whose standard of living is, yes, better than those living in poorer parts of the world.

We are talking here about extreme wealth. A billionaire could give away several million & not notice it.
That's not the same as someone earning an ok salary living on gruel and giving the rest of their money away which is what you seem to be suggesting.
The whole "why don't you give your money away then?" argument is just weak and is missing the entire point

That's the point!!
A tiny and ever smaller number of people have too much wealth.

The problem with thread like this is that it's always "someone else" having to pay for it.

Charity starts at home. If someone is living in the first-world and are somewhat middle class, they are probably in the top 1% for earning/wealth worldwide. If that's you, next time you're buying some completely non-essential item, booking a holiday worth thousands of pounds, or signing a lease agreement worth £500 a month, have a think about how many people you could feed with that money, or how much life-saving medicine that would buy.

Are you a Billionaire?

This argument is faux moralising at its best. Clearly, for the regular tax payer in the western world who doesn't have access to accountants who can help with the loopholes, the actions of giving money and houses away to third world citizens would lead to the immiseration of a large number of people. Whereas, for Billionaires, their status and day to day life would remain exactly the same.

"Faux moralising" going on a moral crusade to help the poor, but wanting other people to foot the bill.