@the-grifter removed their quoted postYou conveniently omit that people with billions INVEST their billions. Do you think they just buy 3 yachts and ride around? Their hobby is making money, which requires investments. They don't lay bricks....they think, they reason, they take risks, and with their investments come jobs and new jobs.
If you restrict them to $1B, they can hardly buy a yacht, and what is left over is not enough to invest in new facilities ..........and create new jobs, for your uncles.
So, Musk and Bezos are taken out of the picture, and what COULD have been,, men on mars in record time, etc, will not come to pass.
When Bernie takes over the administration, one party rule etc, the $1B will prob be reduced to, say, $200,000 which I guess is enough to 'live on'. That is, as long as we all still have jobs.
Next stop: A society like that of Cuba.
You libs are like kindergarten.
There are only 735 billionaires in USA. They are a drop in the ocean. Any of the crap you and Bernie dream up would have no effect.
Edit: You say 'the rest goes to taxation'. So if Bezos earns $2.5 B, he will have to pay $1.5B in tax.
Grifter.....follow me here, don't be a Sonhouse....If he knows he has to pay the $1.5B tax (all his earnings over $1B), Grifter, why would he bother working, earning anything over $1B? WHY would he bother earning anything over $1B.
@the-grifter removed their quoted postYou are looking at it from *your* point of view, not a billionaire's.
As one example, Elon Musk just paid $40 Billion to acquire Twitter. He would not be able to do this under Bernie's rule
because he would not be close to having the funding. No more BIG deals.
This rule of Bernie's is a once-in-a-lifetime application. *If* there were any billionaires that were too daft to have that money
in this country when the law goes into effect, they will lose what they have, and in successive years, there will be nothing left to tax.
How to make the economy stagnant!! Face facts, this is one of the dumbest taxation ideas I have ever seen.
02 May 23
@earl-of-trumps said“Big deals” by sole billionaires are few and far between; as rare as hens teeth in fact. What about corporate buyouts which happen all the time?
He would not be able to do this under Bernie's rule
because he would not be close to having the funding. No more BIG deals.
Furthermore; the “big deal” of Musk buying Twitter and subsequently sending the company into operational chaos was hardly a good investment for neither he, the platform users not Twitter itself.
02 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidthe tax would be after investing, dumbass.
You conveniently omit that people with billions INVEST their billions. Do you think they just buy 3 yachts and ride around? Their hobby is making money, which requires investments. They don't lay bricks....they think, they reason, they take risks, and with their investments come jobs and new jobs.
If you restrict them to $1B, they can hardly buy a yacht, and what ...[text shortened]... would he bother working, earning anything over $1B? WHY would he bother earning anything over $1B.
and no, yachts wouldn't count as investment.
02 May 23
@earl-of-trumps saidhe didn't "pay" 40 billions. he borrowed against his assets.
You are looking at it from *your* point of view, not a billionaire's.
As one example, Elon Musk just paid $40 Billion to acquire Twitter. He would not be able to do this under Bernie's rule
because he would not be close to having the funding. No more BIG deals.
This rule of Bernie's is a once-in-a-lifetime application. *If* there were any billionaires that were ...[text shortened]... make the economy stagnant!! Face facts, this is one of the dumbest taxation ideas I have ever seen.
"they will lose what they have"
damn you're dumb. they wouldn't lose jack. they would be taxed on new income.
"How to make the economy stagnant!! Face facts, this is one of the dumbest taxation ideas I have ever seen."
only appears dumb for those that aren't too bright and don't know history.
It has already been done in the US during the communist regime of Dwight Eisenhower. He tyrannically instituted a 90%tax rate and if i remember history correctly, the US didn't collapse. In fact it established a massive grid of highways and it allowed factory workers to buy homes on one assembly line salary per family.
The marginal tax rate would be applied after investing. It's simply a mean to avoid wealth hoarding. You can avoid it by spending your dollars above 1 billion on higher wages (which helps the economy), on investing in new jobs (and you can make it mandatory to be american jobs if they want it tax exempt), you can increase working conditions( this also helps the employer) you can donate it, etc. In short, all things to boost the economy as opposed to keeping billions in off-shore accounts
You dumbasses thought that we're advocating nationalizing everything over 1 billion.
02 May 23
@the-grifter removed their quoted postThat may seem good at first, but then you have to ask what happens when the billionaires take their money to other countries and invest it abroad. How would that help anything? Didn't France make that mistake and had to reverse it because of an exodus of money out of France?
02 May 23
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidNo, the point of buying yachts and riding around is that they would NOT invest the money; But, we want them to have the billions, to invest so that uncle Morty could have a job......why, you dumbass. Is that you, Shav?
the tax would be after investing, dumbass.
and no, yachts wouldn't count as investment.
I think the bottom line with you lock-step comrades is that you
do not want people to be rich in your equitable agenda.
Idiot. Hey, I just topped out at $1B yesterday. Would it make sense for me to keep working and earning for the next 8 months?. Zahlanzi, why won't you answer this question?
02 May 23
@zahlanzi saidI think you are, Zahlanzi. Why do you have a problem with freedom? What has what I do everyday and earn everyday got to do with everyone else? You do not live in a free country, so you wrestle with this concept. Govt people would be at your door if you were not in lock-step. Face it, man. And why does what Musk do or how much he loses or runs twitter have anything to do with you or me?
he didn't "pay" 40 billions. he borrowed against his assets.
"they will lose what they have"
damn you're dumb. they wouldn't lose jack. they would be taxed on new income.
"How to make the economy stagnant!! Face facts, this is one of the dumbest taxation ideas I have ever seen."
only appears dumb for those that aren't too bright and don't know history.
It has ...[text shortened]... re accounts
You dumbasses thought that we're advocating nationalizing everything over 1 billion.
Have you heard that we are heading more into a socialist direction, by making (MAKING) good credit borrowers pay MORE in mortgage fees, to make the loans of low credit people easier to get.????
You sit on your little brain throne and understand this concept, being the financial genius you are, but there are a LOT of smart legislators in this country who find it abominable.
02 May 23
@the-grifter removed their quoted post===i am no fan of senator bernie sanders ( a dedicated socialist ) but i have to fully agree with him that if you should be able to live on 999 million dollars a year ( and the rest goes to taxation ).===
Okay, so I assume you're talking about unrealized capital gain. If you're not talking about unrealized capital gain, then your point is irrelevant, since nobody realizes a billion dollars of income in a year.
If you are talking about unrealized capital gain, then you're capping the level of business interest a person can own.
The premise based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives billionaires. Elon Musk isn't building tesla and SpaceX so that is annual income can grow. Nobody could spend that kind of money.
Billionaires are driven by the desire to grow their empire; their mark; their power. The desire to win, to grow, to secure the admiration and honor of people.
Capping unrealized capital gain at a billion means that billionaires can't grow their companies. The Amazons and Googles of the world would be limited in scope unless and until their ownership were spread thin enough that no one person had much of a share in it.
Personally, I think this policy would be disastrous, though I suppose this policy would be more like a second layer of antitrust laws.
02 May 23
@sh76 saidWow. Thumb up. A pleasure to forum with sensical logical opinions. I can't add much to that. Libs find fault with this logic, it is like they are saying..."Hey, what about US?!?!?"
===i am no fan of senator bernie sanders ( a dedicated socialist ) but i have to fully agree with him that if you should be able to live on 999 million dollars a year ( and the rest goes to taxation ).===
Okay, so I assume you're talking about unrealized capital gain. If you're not talking about unrealized capital gain, then your point is irrelevant, since nobody realizes a b ...[text shortened]... uld be disastrous, though I suppose this policy would be more like a second layer of antitrust laws.
02 May 23
@zahlanzi saidI don't converse with filthy racists
the tax would be after investing, dumbass.
and no, yachts wouldn't count as investment.
02 May 23
@Zahlanzi said - "he didn't "pay" 40 billions. he borrowed against his assets."
HE SOLD HIS OWN STOCK IN TESLA YOU IDIOT
02 May 23
@Metal-Brain SAID - "Didn't France make that mistake and had to reverse it because of an exodus of money out of France?"
yes, that happened
02 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidyou will never be in danger of making a single billion
No, the point of buying yachts and riding around is that they would NOT invest the money; But, we want them to have the billions, to invest so that uncle Morty could have a job......why, you dumbass. Is that you, Shav?
I think the bottom line with you lock-step comrades is that you
do not want people to be rich in your equitable agenda.
Idiot. Hey, I just topp ...[text shortened]... e to keep working and earning for the next 8 months?. Zahlanzi, why won't you answer this question?