If I receive shares I pay income tax on them. And then if I hold them, and their value goes up, when I sell them I will pay CGT too.
Billionaires pay "0% - 0.5% tax" report finds - Suggests 2% minimum tax.
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Ok.
I'm just trying to add a bit of extra flavour and balance to the standard "I don't understand how billionaires are billionares", "they're all greedy", "tax them 50%" etc.
I think there's a distinction. The ones who take their money and re-invest it, whether via charity or via creating further enterprise which generates jobs, vs the ones who buy massive yachts and are dripping in rolexs etc. The former are good and capitalist economies should want these people, the latter, well, I won't say much and I understand peoples ire towards them.
Last edited:
The problem with playing "Devil's Advocate" is that you're still representing The Devil.
Don't mistake an ought from an is.The problem with playing "Devil's Advocate" is that you're still representing The Devil.
I'm sure Musk was talking about this a while ago. Most billionaires are only so due to the shares they hold, which is unrealised gain. Musk then sold some shares, to pay some tax that people were whinging he wasn't paying.
I mean if you earn enough money to the point you don't need an income, is it right that you stop paying yourself a wage to stop paying income tax ?
I mean if you earn enough money to the point you don't need an income, is it right that you stop paying yourself a wage to stop paying income tax ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
The difficulty is they mainly collect their wealth outside income, and we are fixated in using income to be the main source of taxing individuals.
In regards profit on sales, assume you mean businesses it needs a fundamental tax revision. Else you just get management fees, overpriced internal sales etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Oddly I would say you got that the wrong way round.
The ones "reinvesting" often do so by reducing competition, ie buying out new upcoming competitors. The ones going big often drive those industries and the jobs they create. Eg skilled yacht building jobs.
Its far more complicated than many people understand.
Looking at it from another perspective:
They are only billionaires because the society which is paid for by taxation allows them to be so. The very fact they are billionaires shows they are clearly benefitting from that society more than most.
More importantly, there's also the relative impact of how much the absolute amount of tax (rather than %) impacts quality of life when you look at necessary income vs disposable income.
Obviously living costs vary dramatically, but nobody needs above a certain amount to get by. It doesn't need to cost Bezos any more than Dave down the road to pay for a home, food, bills etc. and once you get above that point you aren't going to miss the extra as much.
Someone earning £30k PA is going to miss that ~£465/month in tax and NI a lot more than someone on £300k PA is going to miss that ~£10.8k/month. Yes the higher earner pay more in absolute terms, but after the guy on £30k has paid £1k for his mortgage, £400 for groceries, £100 for his car, £100 for fuel etc., he's only left with a few £ spare. With the same costs, the higher earner still has £10k+ to play with.
Based on the above, it seems clear to me that we should focus on those who can afford to pay a lot more with no real effect on their quality of life, rather than going after lower earners whose tax burden has a significant impact on their every day life whilst not really contributing much to the pot.
(note the last sentence is not meant to be taken seriously
)
Last edited:
If billionaires we taxed less and the ordinary person was taxed more.. They'd be less people as people would just die or have less to spend. Hence the billionaire's wouldnt be able to make as much from people
Same as the amazon example.
Without amazon they'd probably be a lot more small, Independent offerings. Amazon doesn't really create jobs. It moves jobs.
Just look at how the stock market is falling. Because the ordinary person is now getting a hard time, they have less to spend and billionaires wealth plummets.
Last edited:
Think the daily mail just cheered for glory hearing someone propose they sit on the left.Bit leftie for ol' plasma's tastes that.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
I have to say I agree.
I have no interest in being that wealthy, it seems pointless.
I just don't like that they're not paying into the system as much as others. Sure, they probably have contributed a large amount in a compounded way, but still, I believe that things should be a bit more equitable and that they should certainly contribute more towards taxes. It would make a bit of a difference I think if you combine just the top 20 alone - probably millions of extra income for the government to
I bet you the majority of the billionaires voted for the B word too - but they don't care as they literally get anything they want and within minutes can buy a home and a permit in another country at the drop of a hat.
I'm all for people becoming wealthy and well off, but this level of wealth is on another level!
As Keyboard Warrior mentions above, we are too fixated on a persons wealth, i.e. value of company shares, and expect that it must somehow equate to enormous amounts of regular taxation.
It doesn't work like that.
Bezos for the foreseable future has no reason, and there should be none forced on him, to sell his stake in HIS own company that HE built up from scratch. The fact that his shares is worth $145bn is irrelevant to taxation purposes.
When he sells those shares, he will pay whatever tax is due on them, which will still be more than most people pay in their lifetime.
For those that can't understand the point in continuing when you are that rich, what else would you expect them to do ?
Musk, Bezos don't want to just lounge by the pool until they die, they get their kicks from business, that's what makes them soo successful in the 1st place.
I don't think for them they thinking "Oh I must make more billions, what I have isn't enough", it's just about driving their businesses forward. The value of the companies isn't that relevant to them.
It doesn't work like that.
Bezos for the foreseable future has no reason, and there should be none forced on him, to sell his stake in HIS own company that HE built up from scratch. The fact that his shares is worth $145bn is irrelevant to taxation purposes.
When he sells those shares, he will pay whatever tax is due on them, which will still be more than most people pay in their lifetime.
For those that can't understand the point in continuing when you are that rich, what else would you expect them to do ?
Musk, Bezos don't want to just lounge by the pool until they die, they get their kicks from business, that's what makes them soo successful in the 1st place.
I don't think for them they thinking "Oh I must make more billions, what I have isn't enough", it's just about driving their businesses forward. The value of the companies isn't that relevant to them.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Yes but he's also applied a huge amount of tax dodging to get there. And with big wealth it becomes easier to sway and influence leadership/governments etc... A min wage person is less likely to have the ability to fight back against a legal mandate than a billionaire.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I said we are fixated on using income, not fixated on peoples wealth.
The main reason the government likes income taxes is that they are far easier to collect, and nice and timely. Or were.
I am very serious in my long thought out argument in regards transitioning 50% of what we collect from income tax to wealth tax.
I don't think I can ever really understand the mentality of someone like that. I can't understand how you wouldn't want to do some good?
What can you do with it? I genuinely don't see how you can use billions? The environmental damage per person of billionaires must be off the charts too. I mean trips to space is a huge example that's obvious.
Not really sure how you can argue against a global tax on billionaires.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
It's about power in my opinion. The more of the world's wealth is owned by a smaller cohort it means that you have more sway on the political landscape.
I also don't understand the need for this sort of megalomania.
Any tax dodging that was illegal should be clamped down on by the government in the country it happened. Clever accounting is done by all businesses.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
They have tried - Amazon is not the only one guilty of tax avoidance. I think multibn companies shouldn't be able to do that and help to contribute back to the the country where they are based.
