- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- news@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
And if after that, they still have a billion, half it again. Etc.
Billionaires hoarding wealth like dragons on gold while society crumbles isn’t a flex—it’s a failure. Die Linke’s plan? Brutal, necessary, and doomed. Measuring illiquid assets? Please. We tax houses and stocks daily—this “complexity” is propaganda to shield oligarchs.
The real issue? A system rigged to protect capital. The 5% threshold? A gatekeeping farce. Even if they breach it, the SPD will fold faster than a wet paper bag, muttering about “pragmatism” while serving neoliberal lapdogs. Revolution dies in committee. But hey—at least they’re trying to light a match in a rainstorm.
Evaluating a publicly traded company is pretty easy. Stock price times the amount of stock = value of company.
However evaluating other forms of companies is a lot harder. Using the same formula is possible (if there is stock) and otherwise you can still look at the equity value, but it will only say so much. Generally looking at future cashflows is a pretty good way of evaluating a company, but there are loads of things you can have discussions about regarding this method (called the discounted cashflow method). There are also others and I have been part of evaluating a company and it’s a fair amount of work. So it’s not something you can really do on a yearly basis for tax reasons.
There are other things you can do like looking at how much wage the major shareholder has or how much they have lent from their company. Both to themselves and to family/friends. In NL we kinda limit the amount you can loan from your own company.
Luckly for the whole situation most billionaires mainly have stock in publicly traded companies. Either directly or indirectly so that is taxable.
Yes, the value of potential future profits as reflected by high stock prices would indeed be hard to evaluate.
But assets, outstanding claims, in part even intellectual property? Companies already have to keep track of those.Yeah you can do that, but often companies keep track of the purchase value minus depreciation. Which means that something like a building is on the balance sheet for 1m, but the actual value might be 10m. the equity is basically the assets minus the liabilities which should be the value. However, paying dividend to the shareholder will lower the equity, but it will earn the shareholders money. So I would see a lot of companies doing that to lower their equity to pay less taxes.
Evaluating intellectual property is also pretty hard to do. Generally it has an original value and you depreciate on it as well.
All of the above depends on the country, the size and type of company it is, but generally it is pretty similar. Across the western world.
You’re not wrong, but let’s not pretend that stock valuation formulas or discounted cash flow methods are anything but tools to justify hoarding wealth. Billionaires don’t just “mainly have stock”—they weaponize it, leveraging loopholes and tax havens while the rest of us debate theoretical equity.
This isn’t about complexity; it’s about complicity. The system isn’t broken—it’s working exactly as designed: to protect capital at all costs. Meanwhile, the average person is drowning in bureaucracy just trying to keep their head above water.
And borrowing from your own company? Sure, if you’re part of the elite club that can afford to play that game. For everyone else, it’s crumbs and austerity. Let’s stop normalizing this absurd disparity.
Look, the bilionaires will always have ways to get out to pay the least amount of tax possible. There is almost no way to combat that because they have the money to setup a company in another country and setup structures to pay less.
You can however get more income tax from the companies below that. The medium to large sized companies with millions of profit. But it is not feasible to do a taxation for every company every year, it is impossible. There aren’t enough people working in the fields who would be responsible for those reports. (evaluators, accountants, etc.). Evaluating a company generally costs 10-20k minimum.
Idk how it is in other countries, but yeah it’s more like bureaucrazy than bureaucracy here in NL. So you want to add even more bureaucracy into the entire structure? There are other ways of stopping businesses from abusing the system and governments are working to help fix the issue. But evaluating companies is just not gonna be a good structure for it. It’s way to subjective and in general wealth tax has been shut down by legal systems. Like here in NL, the legal system shut down the previous box 3 wealth system because it was against human rights. And the government and legal system are more separated here in NL than in say something like the US.
Also a lot of small business owners do take loans from their own companies (if it is something like a BV/Ltd). Sometimes we talk over a couple thousand, sometimes it’s a couple 100k and sometime’s it;s one or more millions and I mainly work with small to medium-sized companies.
Removed by mod
How about we halve the billionaires while we are at it?
Or just seize anything above a billion, the number of billionaires are now zero.
Redistribute seized assets and poverty is eliminated.
Stop, you’re being too sensible.
The French have invented a marvelous tool for that. It leaves the wealthy a bit lightheaded.
Removed by mod
Depends… Do the two halves grow back into two billionaires. Is that how they multiply?
Some bootlicker mod removed my comment :(
I don’t know what you said, but I’m pretty sure I was going to make the same joke.
Removed by mod
That’s fine by me. Just leave me a piece 👍 preferably the bit that contains all the hard work they did to become a billionaire.
If they halve the billionaires wealth then there will be zero billionaires
The biggest challenge with an “owned wealth” tax is how do you actually measure it? It’s easy if it’s held in cash in a bank, but most billionaire’s wealth is is land, property, and how do you measure the value of a Picasso stored in a vault if they can slip the valuator a grand to say it’s worthless?
Closing offshore money transfer loopholes, heightened tax on luxury spending (100% VAT on private jets and yachts?), making fines income-based, and treating capital gains the same way as income, are all more achievable.
I’m totally on board with the sentiment though.
Make every time it’s used as collateral a taxable event. Prosecute for fraud any valuations that try to dodge tax. Its a very fixable problem.
For those with wealth or income above a certain amount, require that their wealth is assessed annually, not on sale only and capital gains tax is paid each year.
They want
- the creation of a wealth register
- implementation of high wealth tax + inheritance tax
- penalize wealth hiding/capital flight via exit tax and binding taxation to citizenship
Forbes and the rich themselves have no issue assigning net worth.
It’s not hard to setup objective parameters that measure wealth in all the forms it can be held.
The idea that it isn’t is propaganda
Tax = Purchase Cost × Minimum Wage(Moment of Purchase) ÷ Minimum Wage(Moment Tax is Charged)
You can multiply that all by a magnitude term, depending on the taxation frequency, or to charge more/less.
This is a totally arbitrary formula intended to discourage holding non-cash assets that provide no intrinsic utility, and it incentivises owners to raise the minimum wage.
It isn’t hard to come up with these sorts of measures, in fact I bet you the reader have some ideas about how my suggestion can be improved. A team of experts could come up with something much better, and they CAN be enforced (don’t believe their lies). You just need to disentangle yourself from notions of rules-based “fairness” that exist to justify & preserve our presently lawless economy, where might makes right.
Why do you think art is used all the time for money laundering? It’s almost impossible to determine how much it’s worth. Well until someone buys it.
Wow is this a bad article, full of half-true side tangents and „they’re not gonna make it anyway.“
It is quite likely that we will not make be part of a government, but the plans are there and every person we convince, that this is the way to go is good.
Better than no coverage at all imho. 🤷
Sounds good to me
It’s not fair… It should be way more than that.
Yeah, but it not unlikely that “Die Linke” wont get into Parliament because of the “5% Barrier”(A Mechanism that prevents parties from entering the German Parliament, if they are below 5% total votes. There are some complicated exceptions, but basicly this is it). Furthermore many Parties dont want to form a coalation with them and this could be against german constitution … So this is very unlikely to happen.
They are almost certain to enter because they’ll get three or more direct seats. Which isn’t complicated at all. Heck there’s plenty of CDU voters who’d vote for Gysi. It also doesn’t look too bad when it comes to taking the 5% hurdle directly.
Of course, getting into parliament is not the same as getting into government, that would require a miracle.
Yeah, Well see :X
You can’t say it’d be against the constituion. That is debatable (and debated, see e.g. Wolfgang Abendroth).
The interpretation of the constitution is subject to powerdynamics as well. And it’s the only smart way to design a constitution if it’s meant to be the everstanding stable foundation of a society. … cause you know, those tend to change
No I say a law thats works as promised would be (imho) against the constitution
Treating the symptom and not the problem IMO.
Invest in worker co-ops that are equally owned by the workers instead.
The US left party too
The USA has a left party? What is it called?
The mythical left leaning USA political party. I heard a long time ago it comes out once every thousands years before quickly crawling back under the rock for whence it came.
