A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
What's the downside? If they move away, you haven't lost anything because they weren't paying taxes anyway. If they stay, you have just gained tax revenue. And it isn't like you are going to lose a lot of sales tax money or real estate tax money, since they are not going to stop visiting Paris and buying luxury goods and are not going to sell their properties (that's why they are so wealthy in the first place).
Also, if they move away then you have fewer billionaires fucking up politics.
Capitalist threats of leaving are hilarious. Oh no the non-contributors will leave. The workers are the economy. If capital flight becomes a problem that's only a problem within a larger capitalist framework.
Let them all leave, then we can own our own labour output.
No, you don’t understand, if the gajillionaires leave, then who will exploit our workers and take bail-out money from the government?
It's doesn't even matter if they move away. The things we want to tax them on simply can't just move away. Gary puts it best, as always.
But billionaires are the only source of jobs and if nobody is there to buy yachts how will the trickle-down economics work?
Oh no, Benetteau is in trouble!
That’s why they’re loading us up with trilllions in debt before they leave.
I like the "they'll just move somewhere else" arguments about these wealth taxes. First of all, no they won't. They like their luxury penthouses in Paris and their mansions on the Riviera. Secondly, that's just an argument for having this tax everywhere else too.
And you know, if Russia (or wherever) doesn't want to have a wealth tax and all the billionaires move there, I'm not really seeing the downside.
We had a famous actor Gérard Depardieu move to Russia and renounce his French citizenship because of a 75% tax on earnings over 1 million P/A.
Unsurprisingly he also has been charged with rape and is a Putin lapdog. So getting rid of him was a net positive.
You can implement exit taxes. I think some countries have that already. If you are a billionare, you will have to give up a fixed percentage of your wealth if you move.
Hey, no one is saying they get to take their assets with them when they move to Russia to avoid those billionaire taxes.
They already don't pay taxes anyways, so pay up or leave is perfectly ok but remember to pay you sales tax when you sell your mansions and cottages.
The seller doesn't pay sales tax (and sales tax doesn't apply to real estate transactions, usually it's a special real estate tax and it's much lower).
French lawmakers on Friday voted in favour of a new levy that would tax assets above the €1 billion threshold at 2%.
2%? 🤣🤣🤣
Oh well, it's something...
I know 2% is fairly laughable when we're talking normal people money, but this is 20 million per 1 billion.
when simply considering the 10 biggest fortunes in France, the tax would bring in no less than €13bn for the state.
A country can do a decent bit of good for people with 13 billion.
Making it 6% would cover the cost of retirement pensions.
That would be amazing! No need for 2% to be the end goal instead of just a good start. A good government serves all its citizens, not just the ones with big bank accounts.
And I would suggest that by starting at 2%, it will be easier to get to 6% later, whereas if you try to start at 6%, you may get too much opposition.
It's a first step. One thing this will (hopefully) provide is more accurate data on exactly how much wealth is being hoarded. The current data is being assumed to be underestimating the actual numbers
For a wealth tax that is quite substantial.
Every year paying 2% on the wealth above the threshold means you have to make at least 2% ROI on these assets to stay neutral with the money. That also means there is more of an interest to actually invest the money in economic activity, rather than buy assets that just appreciate price, while being tucked away in some warehouses.
Every year paying 2% on the wealth above the threshold means you have to make at least 2% ROI on these assets to stay neutral with the money
2% is nothing mate. Nothing. The wealth of the rich grew by 30% during COVID IIRC. Housing prices dropped in some places but only marginally and went right back up. It wouldn't surprise me if financial assets / instruments were not included in this bill either. The rich have been getting richer at rates way past inflation and I think by now it's common knowledge that it doesn't happen with income and nearly everything but.
Again, 2% is a starter, but still a joke. Most of their assets can still sit there and accumulate value at rates that easily surpass inflation.
It's a wealth tax and not an income tax? Interesting. Is it annual, or just once, or what?
I think smg like this in most countries would make a lot of difference. It’s a start
Le Coq suggested that when simply considering the 10 biggest fortunes in France, the tax would bring in no less than €13bn for the state.
A 2% tax on billionaires. Give me a break.
The point isn't to bring in money, the point is to eliminate these blights on society by any means necessary. How bad will the world have to get before something that looks like this happens? When the world was more civilized - the world conservatives constantly pine for - the ultra-wealthy were taxed over 90%, because we knew that too much power in the hands of a single person was immensely dangerous. We knew this intrinsically from generations of being ruled by kings, but we got firsthand experience with it from them constantly fucking up the economy.
There was shame in being wealthy. Hell, there was shame in being rich when I was growing up - it was understood that you couldn't get mega-rich without stepping on the necks of the working class and being horrible people. It's nearly Christmas - go rewatch It's a Wonderful Life for crying out loud. 1946!
The 90% tax was on income, this is on wealth.
Which doesn't really change the point does it. These people are de-facto kings ruling us; their wealth subverts the entire idea of democracy. You can't tax them out of existence without taxing their wealth because none of them have any actual income. Banks fall all over themselves to fund anything they care to do.
In any case, 2% isn't going to do fuck-all even if it gets passed which is hardly a certainty.
Within the Barnier government, this law will be quite unlikely applied, yet I'm glad it reached such point of consideration