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?

Why do people on here constantly defend the ultra rich?

Again, we are talking about people who have amassed great wealth, more than they can possibly ever need or spend.

That is wildly different to even the highest earners in this country.

We are talking about people with over one thousand million in the bank which is ever growing with interest.
Those are the people with the capacity to make a difference without even noticing it.

How many of those promotions would make those people billionaires?

You've never run a business have you?

Exactly! We need to stop comparing people on normal, even if high, incomes with BILLIONAIRES.
They are not one and the same!

I've never understood the argument that we musn't make billionaire individuals or huge multinational corporations pay too much tax, because if we do they'll withdraw their investment from our economy.

Suppose the UK government decided to tax Amazon properly, and Bezos responded by closing Amazon.co.uk altogether and no longer operating here. What would happen? There's already thousands of other companies involved in e-commerce here, just none quite as huge or centralised as Amazon. The DEMAND wouldn't disappear just because Amazon does, so surely those other companies would just expand to meet it, or UK-based startups, paying UK tax, would do so?

And empirically, this is what seems to happen in eg the Scandinavian countries where high wealth and income is taxed, while at the same time regulation and barries to entry are minimized to make starting small businesses easy. Plenty of successful businesses leading the world in their field, funded by people paying their tax and getting on with life because they're happy to have stable, relatively fair societies and a high standard of living.

I get that some of those who hold vast amounts of wealth invest that wealth in things that provide jobs and stimulate the economy. What I don't get is the idea that they are the ONLY people who can. Capitalist economics tells us that where there is demand, someone will meet it with supply. Yet the argument above, made by those supposedly defending capitalism, seems to contradict it.

Can someone make it make sense?

Well 'no' as the argument is insincere and is an attempt to whitewash of the truly reality of the situation which is that wealth inequality at this level is a threat to the social fabric of society. If those in the Western world living an average life gave the money from their one house or half of their monthly income to those in developing countries to address the global ibbalance, then this would only lead to a furthering of wealth inequality - do you not understand that? Again, the Billionaires would be untouched by such actions, their lives changing not one bit. Impoverishing people in the western world in regular lifestyles would serve an either greater threat to democracy!

Apologies for poor grammar

Forgive me for asking AI to provide a list of advantages and disadvantages/unintended consequences, but I find this such an interesting topic to debate. Here’s what it said:

There would probably be some very big benefits — but also some serious risks and unintended consequences. Economists and political philosophers argue about versions of this idea all the time.
Possible advantages
1. Huge reduction in inequality
A hard cap of £1bn would dramatically narrow the gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else.
Supporters would argue:

1. nobody needs tens or hundreds of billions
2. extreme wealth creates extreme political influence
3. democracies become distorted when a tiny number of people can shape media, lobbying, elections and markets

For example, the money above the £1bn cap could theoretically fund:

1. healthcare
2. education
3. infrastructure
4. climate projects
5. poverty reduction

Even a single centibillionaire’s excess wealth could equal the GDP of smaller countries.

2. More government revenue
A global 100% tax above £1bn could generate trillions.
Governments could potentially:

1. reduce debt
2. lower taxes for ordinary people
3. invest in public services
4. provide universal basic income
5. fund scientific research

Whether governments would spend it effectively is another question.

3. Less economic and political concentration
Some people worry that billionaire-level wealth gives individuals too much power over:

1. News and media
2. technology platforms
3. AI
4. housing markets
5. labour conditions

A cap could reduce “oligarchic” influence.

4. Possible improvement in social cohesion
High inequality can create resentment and instability.
Supporters might argue that societies become:

1. more trusting
2. less polarised
3. less status driven

Countries with lower inequality often report higher social trust.

5. Encourages wealth circulation
Instead of wealth endlessly accumulating at the top, it might:

1. flow into wages
2. be reinvested
3. circulate through the economy faster

Some economists argue this could stimulate broader economic activity.

Possible disadvantages
1. Reduced incentive for innovation and risk-taking
Critics would say:
Why build the next Amazon, Tesla or biotech company if you can never earn beyond £1bn?
Even though £1bn is still enormous, some argue that extreme rewards motivate:

1. entrepreneurship
2. innovation
3. investment
4. long-term risk-taking

A hard cap might reduce ambition among founders and investors.

2. Capital flight and tax avoidance
In reality, wealthy individuals might:

1. move assets offshore
2. hide wealth
3. relocate to non-participating countries
4. use trusts/foundations/crypto structures

A truly global system would require unprecedented international cooperation. Without that, enforcement could become extremely difficult.

3. Problems valuing wealth
Much billionaire wealth is not cash.
It’s often:

1. company shares
2. ownership stakes
3. intellectual property

If governments force sales of shares to tax excess wealth:

1. markets could destabilise
2. companies could lose control continuity
3. stock prices might crash

For example, much of Elon Musk’s or Jeff Bezos’ wealth historically existed “on paper”.

4. Governments becoming too powerful
Some people would argue this gives governments enormous authority over private property.
Critics might fear:

1. political abuse
2. corruption
3. inefficient spending
4. reduced economic freedom

The debate becomes philosophical: Does anyone have a moral right to unlimited wealth? versus Does the state have the right to confiscate wealth beyond a limit?

5. Philanthropy could shrink
Many billionaires fund:

1. medical research
2. universities
3. charities
4. disaster relief
5. museums

Critics would argue some large-scale philanthropy might disappear or become state-controlled instead.

Supporters would counter that taxation is more democratic than billionaire charity.

6. Possible slowdown in investment
Ultra-wealthy individuals often invest huge amounts into:

1. start-ups
2. venture capital
3. infrastructure
4. research

If wealth accumulation is capped, investment patterns could change.
Whether that would actually hurt growth is debated.

@doopwoop
Perhaps the first billion would be enough of an incentive? Nobody needs anything close to a billion pounds. Bloody ridiculous

What is the maximum amount of money an individual should be allowed to have?
What about assets? Should the amount of land an individual can own be limited - and if so would the limit be the acreage or land value? (Obvs 10 acres of Mayfair is worth a lot more than 10 acres of Scottish hill side.)

1. Reduced incentive for innovation and risk-taking
Critics would say:
Why build the next Amazon, Tesla or biotech company if you can never earn beyond £1bn?
Even though £1bn is still enormous, some argue that extreme rewards motivate:

1. entrepreneurship
2. innovation
3. investment
4. long-term risk-taking

A hard cap might reduce ambition among founders and investors.

Does anyone really believe this? I mean, when people start companies and put all the hours, work and dedication into them that they can muster, are they thinking it will only be worthwhile if they become a billionaire from it?

Do all the (vast majority) of what we call "successful" business owners whose stake is "only" measured in the millions, therefore consider themselves failures?

Are you aware that the wealthy billionaires from Scandinavia move either themselves or their money out of the country to save tax. In Scotland and elsewhere there are plenty of wealthy Scandinavians who have moved to escape the punitive taxes!

And yet the Scandinavian economies keep jogging along as well as most other western economies, while affording their citizens a far higher standard of living via the kind of tax and public spending policies we keep being told will be The Death Of Civilization As We Know It.

So how does that work then? Is it because those billionaires leaving doesn't actually matter after all?

A certain amount of received wisdom of that sort is just gaslighting.

Exactly this.
It's just the same old nonsense that is parroted out whenever anyone questions the idea of billionaires actually paying their fare share.

Yes, it's interesting that isn't it? The fact that Sweden still carries on and offers it's inhabitants a good standard of living totally refutes the suggested impact of billionaires allegedly leaving in their droves.
Hmmm..
🤔

I have thanks!

Sweden doesn’t have a wealth tax and has higher taxes across the board. If we did something similar, we would have plenty of money to spend on public services - I don’t think it would be popular though.

I accidentally hit that you were being unreasonable! Meant you are being perfectly reasonable!

In terms of realistic taxes on the mega-rich, the 'Zucman tax' put forward by French economist Gabriel Zucman and supported by a number of Nobel prize winners is one to look out for and support: https://taxobservatory.world/publication/a-blueprint-for-a-coordinated-minimum-effective-taxation-standard-for-ultra-high-net-worth-individuals/

Sadly, for billionnaires and most governments, 2% on assets over 1 billion is already too much...

I think you forgot to mention that the average worker in Sweden earns more and the cost of living is lower namely housing which in the UK is down to mega landlords, private equity firms pushing up the rent.

In Scotland, so they have moved away from their life, their culture, their families that are Scandinavian, even though they are very wealthy? I have Scandinavian family, I've never heard of this trend to move to Scotland on mass, I think the standard of living is much better on an average income in Denmark, Sweden etc. let alone at an incredibly wealthy level. Why would you forgo that and move to Scotland?

I didn’t because it wasn’t relevant to the post I’d quoted.

I’d be perfectly happy for house prices in the UK to drop significantly to reduce living
costs - I doubt many would agree with me. House price inflation in the Uk isn’t due to mega landlords or private equity firms, it is due to an ongoing failure for many years to build
enough houses while the number of households is
increasing and interest rates have been low.

The Enron scandal and dot.com bubble spooking shareholders didn’t help, Gordon Brown’s pension raids and equitable life encouraged people to maintain control over their money rather than paying it into pensions or institutions and housing was the recipient.

Well it is relevant as context is everything!

Minimum brain cells are needed to understand that the housing crisis has many interelated factors causing it - mega landlords are one of them!

I was adding context as that seems to matter so much to you when commenting on other people’s posts.