this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
727 points (96.0% liked)

Work Reform

9970 readers
4 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 37 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Just tax any income above $10,000,000 per year at 90%. There really isn’t a need for more than that.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 26 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Billionaires have very little taxable income. We need a wealth tax.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Billionaires don't have taxable income because they've successfully lobbied for carve outs that exempt them from taxation.

That's what makes a wealth tax impractical. How do you pass it through a Congress that's been wholely co-opted by a billionaire friendly caucus?

Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from Wall Street, isn't going to author a wealth tax. Kamala Harris, the former Senator from Silicon Valley isn't going to sign it. And the SCOTUS majority that's on the Harlan Crow payroll isn't going to uphold it.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Many also don't truly "pay" for things. They leverage debt against their assets, essentially like a fancy credit card that says "I own MegaCorp, you know I'm good for it, just send the bills to this wealth management firm".

So it's not out of the realms of possibility to say that a billionaire is actually spending very little money, ever. What they have is essentially gifts from whoever manages their assets, and that company just skims whatever things "cost".

IMO taxing wealth is what's needed, but it needs to be framed in a way that makes a billionaire want to invest in their country through high taxes. Make it a privilege that is praised, and ostracise those business that excuse themselves from contributing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

That wouldn't catch the people who are the real problem, billionaires, who report something like $1 per year in income.

When you have billions in shares, you can use that as collateral to borrow money from the bank, and then you just spend that money. That's not "income" so it isn't taxed.

What's needed is a 90% tax on people reporting high incomes as a start. But, then you need to close loopholes. The carried interest loophole for a start, which would nail most of the hedge fund crowd. Then, tax unrealized gains when they're in the tens of millions range. Then prevent billionaires from handing billions to their children tax free by preventing the "stepping up" of capital gains for their heirs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] atempuser23@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago

Of course there is a Maximum wage. According to my employers I am making it,.

[–] auzy@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Maximum wage only makes sense as a percentage of other people in the company. Ie. The maximum allowed is 10x more than the minimum wage paid in the company

Anything else means the money would just go to shareholders

And obviously, a minimum wage permitted too by amount

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

C-suite compensation is already largely handled by share offers - which get further pumped/paid for by share buyback schemes.

This would just further exacerbate it, unless we first re-ban buybacks.

Honestly, we should just ban them regardless.

I think we can do better: nobody who doesn’t work X nunber of hours per week can own stock. That’s how law firms organized as S-Corps do it. Even if the decisionmakers hardly do real work, they have to be at work to gain on their investment. But also, no golden parachutes and executives should be legally responsible for suffering and death from their policies.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 72 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Because making 400k/yr by sitting on a pile of assets and living a low-cost life in a paid-off small-town cottage is not the same as making 400k/yr as a debt-saddled surgeon renting in a high-cost city center, so targeting income instead of wealth gets us farther from a fairer economy.

Next question.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago

Next question, why did you immediately go to 400k? Why not 1 million? If you make a million dollars then you've made half the average lifetime earnings of a worker. Double question, if we capped earnings at 400k, would school lenders not take that into account?

I think a maximum yearly income, including any money you could conceivably spend for personal use, would be a wonderful idea. It would certainly put a damper on being a billionaire if you know you could never actually get more than about a hundred million dollars in your life. Just literally running the score up at that point.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok sure, but if you frame the conversation to mean the limit would be set at $400k/year then you're missing the point. We're talking billionaires not single digit millionaires. Despite how those numbers sound to the average person there's several orders of magnitude between them.

[–] Custodian1623@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

i couldnt read the article (paywall) but is that applicable when billionaires often get paid significantly less than $400k/yr?

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I don't mean to argue against your point but they became billionaires somehow. There are people who are becoming billionaires today and their wealth accumulation could be limited. It seems like more than one solution is needed. I don't think billionaires are good for society... They have too much power, political power

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Lets put that maximum at $10M/month (or year). Now your counter argument doesn't work any more.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (10 children)

The people who make that kind of money don't make it through wages but other compensation.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] piecat@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

I think we should be setting these max/min wages as relative values, not absolute values. Otherwise we have to pass laws every time the min wage needs to be adjusted. And we'll end up with stagnation.

For example, a person's wage can only be X% higher than the lowest wage of someone a step below them in hierarchy. Including contractors and suppliers so they can't skirt or find loopholes.

There still might be some haywire incentives that require more thought, but it should hopefully encourage labor to be valued at an appropriate proportion of value. Either everyone makes good money, or nobody does.

Should also probably deincentivize layoffs, stock buybacks, etc. at the cost of shareholder earnings / value.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 36 points 6 days ago (10 children)

I've often said we don't need billionaires. That when one reaches that milestone anything above $999,999,999 should be taken as taxes from that person.

When I say this people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn't be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate. (It also happens that many of these people are prolife but that's neither here nor there.) Often times comparing this action to communism which of course it isn't.

The issue of course is that many people don't understand what a billion of anything is. The human brain can't comprehend such massive numbers. But nevertheless, there are people that are approaching the trillion dollar mark a number even further removed from a billion by several magnitudes.

Should there be billionaires. Probably not... What do you think?

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 14 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I was thinking about this the other day, one of my favorite analogies is seconds.

A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is ............ 31,688 years.

The analogy already breaks down, because while most people could understand 12 days and a lot of adults can understand 31 years for having lived it (some even twice or more!), 31,688 years is completely incomprehensible again. How many human generations is that? All of recorded human history is only like 5,000 years. It's utterly, mind-numbingly insane. No trillionaires, ever! No billionaires!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/business/elon-musk-richest-person-trillionaire/index.html

This was published on September 17th of this year, after most of the nonsense of Twitter and utter things. He's still on track, by 2027 no less. There's no telling how directly and flagrantly he'll benefit from a Trump win, either.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

My favorite is "do you know the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? About a billion dollars"

Like, being a millionaire is a pretty sweet spot to be in if you're lucky enough. Not quite like a millionaire of decades ago but still good. But if you're a billionaire, a million dollars is basically a rounding error.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

I think the best way I've seen to illustrate it is the stories of immortals earning incredible amounts of money every day who still can't reach the wealth of Elon Musk.

Like, you're an immortal born during the ice age 80,000 years ago. You are somehow making $5000 per day (or its equivalent in gold for the 79,700 years before dollars are invented, and you save all of it. You're not as rich as Elon Musk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago

I think all the talk about billionaires is using a completely arbitrary number and subject to inflation. Wealth inequality is the big problem, it doesn't matter what number on their bank account is.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Considering there's no fully legal and definitely no moral way to get that kind of money, they should all be behinds bars. As for kids that inherit such wealth, shame on them for accepting blood money and doing literally nothing with it, besides make the world around them even worse.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

people often become defensive saying that the government shouldn’t be able to dictate how much wealth one person can accumulate

Of course it should. If we're expecting to live in a democracy, then people need to have equal voices. If you're a billionaire you have a megaphone, as Elon Musk has shown. Democracy can't work if some people have far more power than others.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago (7 children)

The problem is that they have enough independence to just cross borders and easily pay for new citizenship if it suits them. It would have to be a world wide movement. It's impossible, or at least would only be possible within some mythical completely self-sufficient country that could withstand their meddling.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (5 children)

My solution:

Your tax burden is your tax burden. If it's 15% and you run off to a country where it's 5% to avoid taxes, that's fine. You can pay them 5%.

But you're still on the hook for the remaining 10%.

If the 5% country tries to act as a tax haven and refuses to enforce the remaining 10%, they get a national embargo until they get in line.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago

There really isn't much difference in lifestyles between billionaires and people with 100 mil. No one needs that much money. Anyone who has made more than 100 million has done something truly heinous to do so. I feel we should set our sights at a much lower tax bracket to cut down any potential antisocial oligarchs.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

if you exceed $999,999,999 it should reset, giving people a motivation to keep things well under the cap. like exceeding the high score registers in a game, let it roll over.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago

To read this article, log in

I'm good, random website. I'm good.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 32 points 6 days ago

Oddly enough, the same people that wouldn’t want a maximum wage also don’t want a minimum wage. Go figure!

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 29 points 6 days ago (2 children)

If the minimum wage was a comfortable living wage


like it should be, in my and many other folks' opinion


then it wouldn't matter. One person's excess isn't a problem, unless it's at the expense of someone else (which, you know, is kinda the case...).

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago

Even if it’s not at the expense of someone else, too much wealth in the hands of one person is still harmful. It gives one person too much power over others, allows for people to buy their way out of legal trouble, buy politicians, etc.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

A handful of people’s excess is exactly the problem.

[–] bamfic@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Jello Biafra proposed this as a policy when he ran for mayor of SF in 1980 and has been humping this idea ever since. It wouldn'f fly legally but as someone else here noted, you can tax at 90% above a threshold and do it that way.

[–] CCL@links.hackliberty.org 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

well most of us super poor can't even make an afternoon, much less an entire day. jfc the entitlement of these assholes

[–] homesnatch@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Most of the super rich don't make their Monday through wages.

Certainly they must make their Tuesday through wages?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

In the mean time, decorate some pikes with billionaire noggins. The problem might fix itself if extreme wealth becomes a mortal liability.

Trickle-down economics works like a piñata - you gotta crack it open before anything starts to trickle.

load more comments
view more: next ›