Topic: Should billionaires exist?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Discussion is also welcome..

[kavah]

Good way to find out if we have any on RAWK

[Circa1892]

Probably not to be honest.

I’ve always considered myself quite good at maths but this last week with all the sketchy maths going on from twitter warriors I’m actually confused as to how much a billion is...

[Crumble]

I’ve always considered myself quite good at maths but this last week with all the sketchy maths going on from twitter warriors I’m actually confused as to how much a billion is...

I'm afraid we've capitulated to the US billion, which is a thousand million, rather than the old British billion, which was a thousand times bigger.
But it's still quite a lot...
If you'd started saving a million pounds a year starting at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, you still wouldn't have a billion stashed away.

So no, there's no reason for billionaires. I'd have thought a couple of hundred million would be enough for anyone.

[BarryCrocker]

They should, as long as they participate in a fair progressive tax system.

[-Willo-]

I don't know is the honest answer, if we take £100 billion off Bill Gates for example, can we be confident that the money will be spent better than how he does it with his own foundation?

On the other scale you have pieces of shit like Jeff Bezos, but then what are the effects of this? Do really rich people stop putting in effort once they hit a certain amount of money because they think 'whats the point if it's being taken'? Does this hinder economy growth, and with that do we have less jobs?

Etc...

[TepidT2O]

Yes.... But they need to  pay their taxes..

A billionaire is the logical outcome of a successful small business or creative idea.

Say you invent a machine.  Your company could be sell around the world and you could become a billionaire on paper... that’s not absurd.

Take J K Rowling. She’s actually a little different. She’s (or not that far off) a cash billionaire.  Who has she exploited? What taxes has she avoided?  None.

I know that people see Musk and Gates and Bezos and ask how can they have so much, but they started businesses that changed the world.  They set the market for 8billon people. So it’s not surprising they have such a high net work.

Now it’s much more difficult to run the same argument for bankers or traders etc because it’s much more difficult to gauge their work or impact in society. This I do accept.

And if we do ‘ban billionaires’ how much wealth is enough?  What do you do when some one starts a company and it’s REALLY successful? Rip of up when it gets to a billion?  That would possibly push private companies into the hands of pension companies and investment banks..... which seems an odd thing to want to do.


The real question here I suspect, is how do we ensure  the wealthy pay taxes in global environment?

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Yes.

I like a lot of Warren's ideas but the way she's gone about the wealth tax and the rates mooted are ill planned.  You tax income.  If you're actually serious about a wealth tax and it's not just a campaign gimmick,  be polite about it above all else.  You're asking to randomly take their wealth,  regardless of how rich they are.  Just cos the optics favour you doesn't mean it is a fair move.

If the mere mention of billionaires gets you emotional and rage go take their wealth,  the problem is in your head.

If anyone's actually serious about this,  then the rates have to be well within 1 percent,  capped.  It has to be done in a civil manner,  with a clear focus on it being a societal contribution rather than a demand.

I've seen this before,  and ultimately it could even result in a shrinkage in the tax base and a worse off economy if you turn this confrontational.  You don't last long managing money if your mentality isn't based on finding every gap,  it's a dumb move to have the rates she does,  those numbers just make the decisions for her targets.

Edit: I'm all for a high rate on their gains alone  that's an area where the US has a lot of room to manouevre.

[-Willo-]

Yes.... But they need to  pay their taxes..

A billionaire is the logical outcome of a successful small business or creative idea.

Say you invent a machine.  Your company could be sell around the world and you could become a billionaire on paper... that’s not absurd.

Take J K Rowling. She’s actually a little different. She’s (or not that far off) a cash billionaire.  Who has she exploited? What taxes has she avoided?  None.

I know that people see Musk and Gates and Bezos and ask how can they have so much, but they started businesses that changed the world.  They set the market for 8billon people. So it’s not surprising they have such a high net work.

Now it’s much more difficult to run the same argument for bankers or traders etc because it’s much more difficult to gauge their work or impact in society. This I do accept.

And if we do ‘ban billionaires’ how much wealth is enough?  What do you do when some one starts a company and it’s REALLY successful? Rip of up when it gets to a billion?  That would possibly push private companies into the hands of pension companies and investment banks..... which seems an odd thing to want to do.


The real question here I suspect, is how do we ensure  the wealthy pay taxes in global environment?

Land value tax seems a really easy solution to some of these problems I think, I don't claim to be an expert but how the fuck can you avoid tax on a literal building? Or a literal piece of land from where you operate.

The tory c*nts basically do this already, they just punish the poor in the form of 'bedroom tax' instead.

[filopastry]

Interesting topic and some interesting posts on here.

I suppose I am also in the position of saying yes as long as they pay their taxes and as long as they aren't abusing the taxation regime with aggressive avoidance/evasion, although we need much more international cooperation to genuinely close many of the loopholes which are there for those individuals/corporatins who wish to use them.

Surfer, I think raises a very good point about the whole tone of the debate being important, I personally have no real issues with a wealth tax on very high levels of wealth, but it should clearly be set at a very moderate level if the goal is to actually raise money, the kind of numbers that Warren is talking about and the kind of tone she is taking, makes that sound much more like a populist posturing exercise than a genuine effort to maximise the much needed tax take.

I don't care about being seen to be tough on the rich, I don't think everyone who has significant wealth or a high income (very much different things) is automatically evil or undeserving and should be publicly shamed, I care about raising the taxation we need to raise as efficiently as possible to contribute towards the many things we need the state to spend money on.

[thejbs]

The problem is their disproportionate influence on politics. Should they exist? When there are people dying of preventable diseases every day and children going hungry, the idea that someone can have a personal wealth counted in billions is actually vile. A redistribution of wealth from the top 1% to the bottom 50% would make this a better world.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

They should, as long as they participate in a fair progressive tax system.

this

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Land value tax seems a really easy solution to some of these problems I think, I don't claim to be an expert but how the fuck can you avoid tax on a literal building? Or a literal piece of land from where you operate.

The tory c*nts basically do this already, they just punish the poor in the form of 'bedroom tax' instead.

mentioned this in another thread but pensioners on a relatively low income who bought their houses in 70s and that area shot up ridiculously in value since then, how do you tax them, as current value would be totally unfair

Yes.

I like a lot of Warren's ideas but the way she's gone about the wealth tax and the rates mooted are ill planned.  You tax income.  If you're actually serious about a wealth tax and it's not just a campaign gimmick,  be polite about it above all else.  You're asking to randomly take their wealth,  regardless of how rich they are.  Just cos the optics favour you doesn't mean it is a fair move.

If the mere mention of billionaires gets you emotional and rage go take their wealth,  the problem is in your head.

If anyone's actually serious about this,  then the rates have to be well within 1 percent,  capped.  It has to be done in a civil manner,  with a clear focus on it being a societal contribution rather than a demand.

I've seen this before,  and ultimately it could even result in a shrinkage in the tax base and a worse off economy if you turn this confrontational.  You don't last long managing money if your mentality isn't based on finding every gap,  it's a dumb move to have the rates she does,  those numbers just make the decisions for her targets.

Edit: I'm all for a high rate on their gains alone  that's an area where the US has a lot of room to manouevre.

Not accusing warren of this but a lot of politicians play on envy of others (and others, see the amount of shit top footballers get for making millions but not the top actors who often make much more), screaming ‘tax them to the heavens’ works well with the less educated on this issue but those who understand the realities of things like tax policy know full well there is a fine line between raising taxes which lead to more money and raising it too much that shifts money offshore and getting less money, ditto the talk in the uk of increasing corporation tax will bring more money when since cutting it the tax rake has actually gone up quite a lot (20% or so)

[TepidT2O]

Footballers get such a bad press...

Why?

Because there seems to be an odd resentment against young working class people making lots of money quite quickly .. oddly  the same isn’t true of middle or upper class people

[TSC]

Yes for those that have amassed through legitimate means, I.e through creating and growing a business that doesn’t involve the exploitation of others.  Of course there maybe an argument that most if not all involve exploitation throughout supply chains, etc. Which is another discussion involving ‘ethics’, etc.

Notwithstanding that some billionaires named in this thread are using their wealth to the benefit of society.

[Kashinoda]

I think it's mostly been covered in this thread. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to their wealth and should pay their fair share in taxes.

I don't like the guy but Elon Musk isn't able to continue innovation without all that capital. Bill Gates has already been mentioned in this thread and I'd struggle to find a bad word to say about him.

For every one of these there's a twat oil tycoon of course. A bit like for every sound working class person there's a dickhead.

People gonna be people.

[Giono]

Psychologically speaking, I've wondered before what hole all those millions fill? Could we not get someone reasonably intelligent to run a big company for 500,000 per year? Why does a board of directors think that someone is worth 50x that? Are they really 50x better? Maybe it is because the same class of connected individuals sit on corporate boards that award these salaries? If Jeff Bezos was to die, would Amazon decline? I'd argue that the chef in a successful restaurant is more critical than some of these businesspeople that are paid so ridiculously.


We do need a rethink in how we tax in these modern times. For example, how many of these personal fortunes are down to restructuring the economy and laying off millions of workers. For example, Musk's Paypal and Besos' Amazon have led to an army of unemployed retail workers. So in that case, income has been transferred from the many to the few. That goes for many corporations that have turned to AI or outsourcing to transfer more income up the food chain. I'm not arguing against progress, but there needs to be a reflection of this in the way the tax system operates and government operates.


For example, companies should be able to reduce their taxes in only 1 way...a reduction by a factor of how much taxes their median employee pays in taxes each year. If you don't hire or pay well than you must contribute more to society. And if you hire and pay well then you will not be discouraged to hire more and pay better because your tax burden would be lighter.


Corporations (and the billionaires that own them) should pay for the value they extract from the country and rewarded for the benefit they give back.


I think that In the current 2020 field for the Democrats in the US, Bernie and Warren are tapping into the anger (like Trump did in 2016). But Andrew Yang actually is talking sense about how the economy is evolving and how to address it. He is for Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare. He wants to pay for it by having the US initiate a VAT, so that services bought must be taxed to pay for the adjustments of former employees being displaced. Amazon would be a tax source for the government and not a tax freeloader as it is now.

[vagabond]

Absolutely not.

It is just staggeringly immoral that we have set up a world where some have so much, and so many have so little.

The idea of just desserts is just nonsense. Nobody could seriously believe that these people work tens of thousands of times harder than nurses or teachers or shelf stackers. Sure, some folks that have amassed wealth probably did work very hard, but it's just wilful ignorance to pretend that they worked so much harder than people struggling that the disparity in wealth and power and control over other people is warranted.

Rather, you only get to that kind of wealth by either horrendously exploiting labor in the third world, inheriting it, or else getting lucky enough to own a near monopolistic business. Nothing needs to be said about the former. Inheritance just shows how silly the 'they worked for it' argument really is. And if you are a true liberal, who believes in the marketplace of goods and ideas, then companies getting to run monopolies should rile your anger too.

Moreover, these people have captured the political system. They own nearly all the major media outlets, have the vast majority of politicians in their pockets, continually pressure governments through armies of lobbyists to pass legislation in their favor and to the detriment of everyone else. Who the hell signed up for this? Who really enjoys having a class of unaccountable, untouchable overlords that control so much?

Nobody should have that kind of wealth and that kind of power. The sheer chutzpah of these people to get affronted at the notion of a wealth tax or that maybe they should make do with having hundreds of millions instead. Given the scale of misery that so many live in, this is the best deal they're going to get. They've already bought the system and rigged it in their favour. Inequality will only get worse. They should willingly start sharing now, while people are being polite and letting their disgusting capture of wealth and power slide.

[TepidT2O]

How has JK Rowling exploited labour??

[vagabond]

Oh yeah the one example everyone likes to make. Sure, you can have that one. It's still a shitty system.

[Something Worse]

Nope, not at all.

[TepidT2O]

Nope, not at all.

And....?

[Something Worse]

And....?

We should take 95% of their money and use it to help those less fortunate?

[rob1966]

How has JK Rowling exploited labour??

She's exploited others labour. The Potter books are nothing but LOTR, Star Wars and a few others stuffed into a book

[TepidT2O]

We should take 95% of their money and use it to help those less fortunate?

We did that in the 60s... did it work?

And I think there’s a really crucial issue here.

Being a billionaire doesn’t mean you have a billion in cash (much to all everton fans surprise!). What do you tax?

There is a much bigger differential between the top 10% and bottom 10% than there’s has been, I accept that.  But I’m not convinced a 95% tax rate will do anything a part from encourage tax havens.

[Elmo!]

How has JK Rowling exploited labour??

She exploits her power on twitter to set her followers on people she doesn't agree with.

[TepidT2O]

She exploits her power on twitter to set her followers on people she doesn't agree with.

She’s also given hundreds of millions to charity....which should we consider most significant?

[Something Worse]

We did that in the 60s... did it work?

And I think there’s a really crucial issue here.

Being a billionaire doesn’t mean you have a billion in cash (much to all everton fans surprise!). What do you tax?

There is a much bigger differential between the top 10% and bottom 10% than there’s has been, I accept that.  But I’m not convinced a 95% tax rate will do anything a part from encourage tax havens.

Tighten up the laws and they'll have to leave the US permanently (or wherever) to live in their tax havens. Pretty big decision, either pay your fair share and help out those that made you rich, or never come back home ever again.

So much money has been siphoned away from the average person over the last 30 years, it's time to take it back.

And to be clear taking 95% of Jeff Bezos' money will leave him with 5.6 billion.

[redmark]

No, but they do, so they can't simply be abolished or have their entire wealth confiscated. They shouldn't exist, because we should have had economic and tax policies which protect consumers, workers and society, rather than setting 'wealth creation' as an aspiration without limit or responsibility.

Again though, some in Labour (and it's useful media idiots like Owen Jones) have made the issue into an own goal by playing to the core, giving the impression that we want to abolish billionaires rather than a more nuanced debate of what a more balanced economy and tax structure could do for society and the things people care about - NHS, schools, child poverty etc.

[TepidT2O]

Tighten up the laws and they'll have to leave the US permanently (or wherever) to live in their tax havens. Pretty big decision, either pay your fair share and help out those that made you rich, or never come back home ever again.

So much money has been siphoned away from the average person over the last 30 years, it's time to take it back.

And to be clear taking 95% of Jeff Bezos' money will leave him with 5.6 billion.

But taking 95% of his money wouldn’t leave him with £5.6bn

He’s doesn’t have £100bn in cash.  He owns a company that he has built from scratch that is worth £100bn.

Should he have to give up his company because it’s been successful?


(I don’t have the answers to these questions by the way, they are just questions that pose themselves to me when the billionaires question is aksied.)

[Elmo!]

She’s also given hundreds of millions to charity....which should we consider most significant?

Its easy for abillionaire to give a lot ofmoney to charity. How you behave towards other people is a lot more revealing of someones personality.

[TepidT2O]

Its easy for abillionaire to give a lot ofmoney to charity. How you behave towards other people is a lot more revealing of someones personality.

Easy, but most don’t, so maybe not that easy?.  Seems popular with people who’ve met her.

[Something Worse]

But taking 95% of his money wouldn’t leave him with £5.6bn

He’s doesn’t have £100bn in cash.  He owns a company that he has built from scratch that is worth £100bn.

Should he have to give up his company because it’s been successful?


(I don’t have the answers to these questions by the way, they are just questions that pose themselves to me when the billionaires question is aksied.)

That's for lawyers and finance experts to figure out, the important thing is the top 1% are forced to undo the damage they've hit the rest of us with.

As for Rowling, let's let elected officials and the like decide what to do with her money, not her.

[TepidT2O]

That's for lawyers and finance experts to figure out, the important thing is the top 1% are forced to undo the damage they've hit the rest of us with.

As for Rowling, let's let elected officials and the like decide what to do with her money, not her.

But that means letting Bros Johnson decide..... is that a great idea?

My thought is that we had a 95% tax rate.... and it really didn’t work... 

[jillcwhomever]

She's exploited others labour. The Potter books are nothing but LOTR, Star Wars and a few others stuffed into a book

That is true of virtually every book that has ever been written. Every author borrows ideas from somebody else.

[jillcwhomever]

That's for lawyers and finance experts to figure out, the important thing is the top 1% are forced to undo the damage they've hit the rest of us with.

As for Rowling, let's let elected officials and the like decide what to do with her money, not her.

I would sooner trust Rowling than any politician.

[vagabond]

But that means letting Bros Johnson decide..... is that a great idea?

Wait, are you serious here? It might be better to let billionaires control untold wealth and power, spend it where they like, unaccountably, than a democratically elected government? We're going to give up democracy now to protect billionaires??

[Elmo!]

I would sooner trust Rowling than any politician.

But would you trust the average billionaire over the average politician?

[Something Worse]

But that means letting Bros Johnson decide..... is that a great idea?

My thought is that we had a 95% tax rate.... and it really didn’t work...

Then let us seamlessly merge two threads and get everyone to vote for Jeremy Corbyn!

I would sooner trust Rowling than any politician.

Oh...oh no.

[TepidT2O]

Wait, are you serious here? It might be better to let billionaires control untold wealth and power, spend it where they like, unaccountably, than a democratically elected government? We're going to give up democracy now to protect billionaires??

No. That’s quite clearly not what I was suggesting.

My post is that philanthropic wealthy people are to be lauded.  There are far fewer than there were historically.

Maybe we should be working out how to encourage it?