A better way to tax the rich 

Your wealth tax will discourage people from being wealthy meaning that they will be laws likely to make new companies and current companies will get worse to save money hurting everyone.

Yeah. It's a good idea. It's just that socialists who don't know how money works that make things worse for its implementation. They bring their hate and lack of understanding of money everywhere.

Vox Id support a wealth tax because you can use it to help fund these social programs like Medicare for all and college free tuition. The people effected by the tax probably won’t even notice a damn difference. What’s of little significance to them can be life changing for millions of others

No! It's so nice in theory, and I wish it could be possible, but in practice, it causes capital evasion, people take their money to other countries with less tax regulation, like Singapore or Taiwan. It have already been tried in France, and lead to this very situation, capital evasion leading to job loss. 👌

Austin me It is staggeringly hard to get remotely close to that much wealth. You can see that almost everyone even successful and entrepreneurial owns less than that. It's affecting a couple thousand Americans at most at 50 million, and even if the tax was everything above say 10 million, you can find a million people or so who earn between that and the already high income people of larger companies and celebrities. Wouldn't you be interested in owning 49.99 million dollars?

Thore Yep 😂

lmao

Yep the constant FOXtardation of the masses will continue to seduce Americans to vote against their interests.

@Ren Lee You cannot possibly say that the country is being ran on maximum efficiency right now. You have no evidence for what you are saying. And if you are worried about the government misjudging the proportion of the tax, we could always give ways for the wealthy to dispute their tax amount.

@Ren Lee Anecdote central. You have no real proof. We are in an age of automation and a non zero sum game, we have every ability to make a capitalist/socialist system work.

Is there a moral justification aside from "it's not that much"? People who have 2 billion in assets (which does not mean that they have a single physical penny, by the way) do not use any of the entitlement programs, so it's pure theft. They have no interest in it, it does not provide any public goods (roads, army, etc.) since everything is already provided by the current system. Thus, there can be no moral argument in favour of that arrangement, that is, if we disregard "it's not that much" as an argument.

well, no, it's like if you had 2 Billion USD in property, and the government decides that everything you own is worth about 2 Billion USD, so the government can take $60 million USD of your money, which is property, by the way, thus violating property rights and taking $60 million of your money, which has already been taxed several times over by the time it's yours.

$60 every year...

@@ramzanninety-five3639 I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm only putting the figures discussed into sums that regular people can relate to.

Having 2000 in assets and being taxed 60 in cash, every year, is very huge actually...

But what about Switzerland? They have had a wealth tax for the longest time and they are famously known as a tax haven for the rich.

Any evidence of this? Any stats or figures?

@@keifer7813. It’s well known, so just Google it and I’m sure you’ll find something.

That wasn't on the mega rich only that was a taxing of people who were slightly wealthy upwards. This is different.

Exactly what i was thinking

If it were me I would continue living in California, but my money lives in Switzerland now

@@gonzotime7224 yeah this whole system seems very easy to bypass

Dodging taxes is one those things rich people do that people hate, even though 100% of those haters would do it too.

@@SeanKH19 ding ding ding. My same thought. Oh vox and your near sightedness

I would be really interested in how they do it in flatter societies like Sweden or Switzerland or wierder systems like Singapore.

The problem with that is each country’s taxation system is so complicated that comparing it to other countries would be quite difficult.

@@mathiasgaming4586 This is really important. Most countries tax codes are huge. That's why it can be difficult to compare tax rates between countries because while you have, say, an income tax rate the multitude of various deductions and breaks and whatnot can mean the rate actually paid can be quite different from what you'd initially expect.

To add to this^ for example in Luxembourg we have an above average income tax rate, but in the end we pay less than most other rich European countries, due to deductions. It’s complicated.

Vincent Min I can get on board with that

Lol i didn't think about that

That's exactly why it won't pass. That and donor money

How many politicians are billionaires?

@@cob571 you mean multimillionaires

Chris Anderson politicians became politicians in the first place because of billionaires

Ah America

Sigh. You’re right. It’s the sad truth

Not exactly true, really depends on the President and majority party in the Senate. A Republican President might place the money into helping the funding of Colleges or Federal Agencies such as NASA. Democrats might place the money into the Discretionary System, for Healthcare , though that might be varied as some Democrats are either supportive of Bernie's Medicaid for All or Obamacare.

@@defaultlogos2976 how is nasa a cororation?

@@anemu3819 My fault, should have said "federal agency" instead of corporation.

I believe Switzerland already has a wealth tax.

@@liamm32 the banks

Yeah, Switzerland has a wealth tax. They would love that

Until he meets the National Guard

And if you keep going to the left, far off the screen, you will see the the US government.

probably student loans

Squidward owns a 3 story loft space. He's doing fine

@@dorkmax7073 are you sure he owns it

I get the feeling it's probably Spongebob :(

Because we need to sanction countries that do not allow wealth transparence, fiscal paradises such us UK, NL, USA, Italy, etc

Not to mention that anyone who follows the news knows that Dem and Rep are both branches of the same tree (one plays good cop, the other plays bad cop) playing the same scam game. You can't trust democrats to propose this kind of bill and expect them to go through with it.

we still should try

You can't move assets, such as land and homes out of the country. If they want to redistribute their own wealth in order to avoid the government doing it for them, that accomplishes the same thing.

@@DriFitMonkthat is too simplistic. land or property could be held by foreign entity that are then leased back to the original owner. On paper, the person doesn’t own it at all.

Freedom toons?

Thats only the federal, the combined municipal+state+federal level government spends 7.5 trillion.

But how do you know that. That money has to be divided up into so many different places.

@@conradferris8049 The CA govt underfunds the things we want, then tries to convince us to raise taxes. Schools, National Parks, fire depts, etc... are underfunded. Their pet projects get the money first. Every election, the dems get on TV and say, "We need more money for the brave firefighters, the dedicated nurses, and of course, THE CHILDREN!" They also beg for the environment. CA has the highest taxes because morons keep voting for tax increases. This is a tactic that they use to keep the revenue streams flowing.

They raise taxes in places that ignore immigration laws, just last year, the US wasted 150 billion dollars on illegals while the people living in the said city was suffering in a tax increase

And you know if your kingdom is doing good/bad if you open your gates and see which way the peasents go (in or out). And guess whatt, the demoRats are leaving the ship only to infect other states with the same crap policy ideas that ruined CA.

Did you say prison? Uhh.. You're A Bigot!!

Don’t forget most businesses are moving away due to high regulations and taxes.

@@josephmoore8245 give Kansas City or Dallas silicon valley

@@nooneyouknow4312 Yep... they are heavily targeting my state from Cali, Texas.

What's much more likely to happen is that Social Security and Medicare would eat it up, which add up to more than 50% of what the Feds spend each year.

Truth. When did government ever spend wisely. Even in this video, they were going to use the money for new programs. Even while we waste money on protecting the world and run massive deficits. You can't tax your way out of debt, nor can you tax your way out of stupid administration of the government.

Tobías Chaparro it’s sad but they Problaby would.

For Israel

Yay! More military spending for me! I feel special lol. Go Navy!

Yes.

I'd expect more companies to pay dividends above that 2 or 3 per cent so that their major shareholders would be able to pay off the wealth tax simply through dividends.

They can try to sell the assets, but good luck finding a buyer for that 50 million dollar painting at your asking price of 50 million. Assessing something high value might actually reduce its value because the higher it is assessed the more it costs to keep.

Yes but then you have capital gains tax and such.

Exactly. Not only that, but it would divert money that is being used for research and development, paying salaries, acting as capital to start new businesses or support existing businesses, and so on and so on. And it would encourage capital flight out of this country and the wealthy would frantically begin restructuring their assets which just creates more inefficiencies in an economy. It would be catastrophic to the economy.

if this top 1% leaves the us.... look france

The US har worldwide tax authority, they cant get away

@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 They can revoke their citizenship

Pav B It is not easy to revoke it

Noah Remnek they can still do it

it's depressing.

Depends on the markets, and this is "assets" not just stocks and property. Many assets degrade in value naturally, like cars. This just taxes them on top of that.

They won't be able to out pace inflation. This is a dumb idea.

@@jgelliot One of the nice benefits of inflation is the equalizing pressure (reducing debts, shrinking wealth), but yeah I think this law and especially with these rates is overkill.

Actually they would lose money as real wealth growth is measured by net net net of fees inflation and taxes. Assume 6% gain minus 2% for income tax (33% of taxable gain), minus 2% for Warren's plan, minus 2% for inflation and minus 1% for fees. That leaves with negative 1%. I would rather have a 95% top income tax as it taxes my growth rather than my savings. Btw, this is why people need to hire investment advisors who invest in low fee investments and the advisory fee is low. In net net net, the only thing you can control is fees.

DK1213 Nonsense, the top 3 largest expenditures are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

​@@Grajor Here's a link for you with a graph of the US government spending www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Go to the one labeled discretionary spending. That shows what the US chose to spend money on that was not mandatory. Can you guess what the largest portion is?

DK1213 no the US already set the army budget to $600b. It’s not like they need to up it to 800b unless full on ww3 breaks out. That money will go to the causes mentioned in the video among other things. Granted I think those are dumb causes. Things like infrastructure and jobs are more important.

CW MD Yes, and this just goes to show the level of asininity that we deem 65% of spending as “mandatory.” The fact still stands that the majority of spending is comprised of entitlements. By the way, we do need to cut military spending, but also welfare spending.

​@@ninja1inblack105 By not having one global superpower with a high spending military budget to support the peace the ww3 will happen, countries are afraid to go to war cause they have the usa eyeballing them.

Medical debt for something uncommon gets that high.

probably the donald before his presidency ;-)

His name is donald trump

@@lilisommerfeld I don't get it. I said on the low end of the spectrum

@@nigelwest5776 yep, I know. That self proclaimed stable genius businessman was mostly in debt for much of his life.

heard you can directly give the government the asset if you dont have cash

This is 10 times more complicated than in the video and it has a negative outcome. You need to get money from those Billionaires but Wealth Tax is not the answer, we need to find another way.

Invest your wealth in something that gives enough return to pay the tax (which is actually a great incentive to not just buy mansions and yachts), or liquidate assets.

@@TheCulturedThug buying mansions and yachts creates jobs.

@@pingukutepro what is the way?

I'm glad you finally say it

I'm sub you just now too.

Super, j'attendais justement ton avis sur le sujet.

I see your videos are mostly in French.. You have different market man.. 😅

@@armanke13 I define myself as a citizen of the world 😅

It's always hard to enforce taxes, but we enforce property tax on realty, and also on store inventories and such like. I'd set the penalty for taking assets overseas to the confiscation of all the overseas assets, and the non hidden stuff is still subject to tax if you have any of it when you get out of prison

Why would it be that hard? Insurance companies determine value of assets all the time. If you own a $100,000,000 home, you're going to have insurance and you're going to know how much it's worth.

I'm sure clever people could figure it out. And with a large book with enough clauses most loopholes should be stamped out. Obviously we should give the wealthy tools to dispute unfair taxes as well.

That’s why we need to close loopholes for assets stored overseas. If you make your money in America/from the American people, you should have to pay taxes on it. Period. I don’t understand why that’s a hard concept for people. (Though I do understand that that kind of reform would be hard to pass with the senate the way it is :/)

You're telling me they can't find a couple million dollars for the tax when they regular spend more than that on fancy cars, homes, private jets, etc?

How bout we rather plug the loop holes, implement VAT AND still employ a wealth tax!!! (^o^)

The problem with this is we can't really compare EU countries to America, our economies are so vastly different based on size. Just the fact that america is a federal state and most EU countries are unitary makes it hard to compare, although it isn't the worst idea there is

@@ellatobin6967 If unitary high-tax states failed at it, why would typically dysfunctional anti-tax America succeed?

VAT is really regressive though, it hits people who need to spend money to live the most in proportion. If you want to reap an extra buck without having to impinge on workers' incomes I'd advocate for a Land Value Tax instead.

@@Blaze6108. A land value tax would be just another case for the unintended consequences play book.

Exactly. There's a lot of people who don't even understand how assets work.

Obviously you would get an inspector to measure out and cut off 2-3% of that private jet every year

@@timothyn4699 Big bran power

@Joey The Conservative Assets that are easily sold for cash

I was thinking that. To tax an asset, it needs to have value, to give it value, it needs to be sold. I can't just chop off 5% of my house while I own it.

Jean Bonnefoy thank you for sharing!

Yes and look at how France is doing. Not exactly a model country

@@Steve-si5nq Well their birth death rate isn't as bad as the USA. The amount of people bankrupted by medical bills doesn't exist unilke America. They don't have the grinding poverty of many Americans and they also don't have many other human stats that read like a developing country, unlike America.

Captain Win and they have violent riots in the streets and a fear of a change in government. Delightful.

@@davidhochstetler4068 isn't it what Americans dream about since Trump was elected?

ajuicejemas Well, historically nations with great inequality (very high Gini coefficients) have experienced revolutions that led to the death of the most wealthy. Namely, the French and Bolshevik revolutions, although they are many more examples throughout history. As the saying goes “heads will roll.” Thus, if you assume that great inequality will lead to the destruction of a given society, then as a society it is our job to reduce it. If, and only if, it is at the point to which it becomes dangerous to our society. After the 2008 financial crisis, there has been growing discontent among the middle class that inequality is reaching its breaking point. As the brunt of Wall Street’s poor management was paid for by the American middle class; however, that middle class did not receive much of the benefit. This is also no fault of any particular person or politician, but rather a result of the structure of our financial and political system. Therefore, it is within our best interest to reduce the growing discontent by changing said system. If that is a wealth tax then so be it, but to deny the fact that the problem exists is not going to solve anything.

How is money supposed to flow in the economy if it’s just sitting in bank accounts

I think you fail to understand the fact that billionaires DO NOT have billions in their bank accounts. They cannot be taxed 200 million dollars every year because they do not have this much cash. Yes, they have assets worth this amount, but do you seriously expect them to sell their assets every year to pay for taxes? That is ridiculous.

Uh, it's called being a republican? And I'd be grateful if you respected that position. Also, if we taxed Trump's 100B IQ, we'd all be geniuses. And just like in communism, no one would be a genius. Destroyed with facts and logic.

Republicans believe that the millions could be used to create jobs instead of simply giving everyone hand outs. At least try to look at the other sides view.

Because they're still sitting praying they'll by some miracle join them, then they won't want to be taxed like that

Im super poor. Yet i dont want to see this happen. The rich already get taxed so much. You all act like this money will go towards you. The government just wants more power. Stop giving it so much.

Macaroon Cat Anytime the government makes the claim that they’ll tax the rich they only end up taxing the middle class and poor. This is literally how the government was able to establish annual taxes with the 16th amendment, before the amendment was established nobody was taxed, the only way you were taxed was due to sales tax.

Name one poor person that created a job

NO MORE TAXES. Every time these morons talk about increasing the tax on the wealthy, it's the middle class that gets the shaft. Screw the entire idea of taxation. It has caused the middle class to suffer because the morons who promise higher taxes on the rich don't get it. The rich increase the prices of their goods and we the little guy end up paying for it. SCREW YOUR TAXES. IT IS THEFT.

"hey Vox why don't you guys move to venezuela lololol"

whERE is tHe incenTive TO BECoME A mULTi-BILLioNaIre if 3 perCenT is TAkeN fROM YoU? -person who made less than 60k last year.

The Nixon and Reagan era made sure that Americans would rather die of starvation than let the wealthy pay their fare share.

@@Fals3Agent 70% of Venezuela's economy is privately owned, the other 30% is state owned. State capitalism is not socialism. And the government's corruption and decision to not diversify their nationalized oil industry (1) has absolutely nothing to do with the criticisms of socialism.

@@CoryMck I know that, i'm making fun of the people who get socialism wrong

Debt doesn't exist.

@@Albanez39 ?

Why does this talking point come up when it's about helping working and middle-class Americans, but when we want to build a wall, start a trade war, or start an actual war just because it's not a factor.

No one holds the government accou table for being in a 20 trill debt, thats why they'll never attempt to pay it back

@@rosegold-beats Foreign nations hold a non-trivial portion of this debt. Private entities hold a lot of it too. Private entities are mostly US citizens, so if the gov't won't honor its bonds to its own citizens then we are going to have societal collapse. As for foreign nations, if the US stops paying off the debt then the foreign nations will stop trading with us. Otherwise they'd just be giving us free things, which is senesless.

Not really because assests would still often increase in value faster than the tax. It would a waste to cut your wealth to avoid the tax.

Nah if people tax the rich they move to different country

​@@axel665 nah, then they're traitors and we'll just have the government seize their properties and assets.

@@dylanc9145 bro wake up you shat yourself

@@burn_out um sorry, how much more wealth does the middle class have now than they did in the 60s? You got an extra chromosome bud? Need help finding your helmet?

I'm tentatively in favor. I'd wanna see how the numbers play out when compared with growth from investments and things

How do you pay the tax if the 60 million is in real estate, business investments, bonds, and the stock market? Sell a house every year and divest from businesses? How about we just tax them on their gains when they sell and any dividend payments.... oh wait, we do that already.

MJ Lyco if you have $60 million in estates and stocks it’s not making money than you have different problems.

Hartsikasvo Ok. Then by that logic, whatever you have more than what I have, I’m allowed to take. Balance it out. Regardless if you deserved it or not or if I deserve it or not.

Since the average capital return is something like 7%, lets say 5% to be safe. If you have 2 billion, you make 100 million every year without doing anything and have to give away 50 million (2:42). Now if you try to come up with a way to actually spend the 50 million per year, you will realize that this is plenty. And that is without working at all.

Republicans don't like it when you challenge their gods.

Yes

At this point you should really think in the possibility of doing both. But If we are talking about cutting costs, those missiles and aircraft carriers are starting to look too Gucci with that 700billion dollars a year for my taste

@@dinamosflams We should also try to pay back our dept.

@@newt9908 the money can be for as a priority

@@dinamosflams Yeah but we should save it instead. It could be extremely useful.

Buy 10 B2 would be more reasonable for the US.

There would probably have to have a very strict rule, that the money could only be used to help citizens on the lower levels (the people, not the government) so that it can’t just be given back to the wealthy.

US: extra $200 B. What should I spend it on Boeing: new jet fighter and bomber coming up soon US: take my money !!!

Nuclear bombs is unlikely as the US is signed of a treaty limiting the number of nuclear weapons

@@Nick-ky8pd There is more than a trillion spent on military... we could easily waste $200 billion more or even trillions more depending on how delusional government is.

Vox: let's tad people for literally buying expensive things. *"Expensive things are less bought"* *Workers who make expensive things lose their job* Pikachu face:

So the goverment spends too much iresponsibly? Give them more money! Obviously... Increase the national debt even more!

They get around 3 trillion dollars a year if they where going to give us free whatever they could find a way

@@user-jv3mm6vt6e That’s literally just trickle down economics. If the objective is to benefit the workers who produce the luxury products that are disproportionately more likely to be bought by the wealthy than the general populace, then why not tax just tax the rich and then redistribute that money to the workers? Would you rather overprice your customer to make $10, or give your customer $10 so they can buy a product that cost $8 to manufacture so that you can make $2 profit?

Tax comes in yearly m80 ;)

She wasn’t sure, but now she is sure it doesn’t and had to change it to take a LOT more. It’s somehow ok for the government to steal but not the rest of us, taxing is one thing but taking what isn’t theirs after tax this is just stealing.

How is this any different than property taxes? If insurance companies can calculate the value of property, then so can the government. I don't think people will leave but you will see a lot of public companies go private especially the ones that are not overvalued on the public markets.

A flat two percent will run into several problems as you described, but you can get a committee of wealthy lobbyists, economists, and policy makers to address these issues. For example, certain property could be exempt such as startup companies and one personal home. You could have sizable deductions if your assets are concentrated in a handful of non-liquid properties. You could have a grace period if your wealth explodes in a short period. Also, I highly doubt anybody would not invest in profitable assets because of the tax because it only applies to marginal wealth above 50m, not your entire net worth.

If you have more than $50 million, that's not an issue. A company that is worth more than $50 million that is a private single owner company is ran by a successful or lucky idiot in the first place.

I don’t that a man worth $135 billion is entitled to see that wealth continue to grow, Jeff Bezos loosing more money to tax than he earns is not a problem, it’s not like if he drops down to $120 billion he’s going to be out on the street.

Zach Gravatt Who's to say what he is and isn't entitled to have? If you create something, own part or all of it, and it's financial value increase - great job! The issue is the unintended consequences of the inevitable asset sales and the effect that could have.

Nobody, but you need to pay your fair share. Its our nation, our people. We need Healthcare, education (desperately), adorable housing, food and water. All of which are essential human needs in the modern ear. Not a luxury. USA shouldn't be a ponzi scheme for the privileged.

​@@bloodcards3084 And you think that paying taxes will even this out? How is that "fair"?

@@bloodcards3084 Shouldn’t that be the governments job and not the rich?

The rich should be taxed just like us. It’s their money.

@@BenYourDealsFinder its not fair because they pay less than us lol.

They still worked for the money despite it being so much..this is going to make the wealthy unmotivated to work knowing they are getting taxed so much.

@@sabrinatatalias4277 most of them didn't and none of them need it

@@sabrinatatalias4277 they already don't work

amoral combat that’s true in a lot of instances, but still a generalization

I think they are just praying on the rich to fix all of our problems and even if they do put this horrible idea into motion; all of the ultra rich will just leave the country and that’s even worse for the economy

Bro , I was thinking the same while watching this video 💀

@@abhikkumarbhunia5878 Exactly, I am glad I wasn't the only thinking this :)

🤓

@@sosopwsi829Jjw9 '🤓' -🤓

@@abhikkumarbhunia5878 Ok Abhik Kumar

Most countries don't lol

P1ranh4 property tax is a wealth tax

@@user-qo7ul3wm1g Not really.

I entirely agree... the wealthy have money because they worked for what they have. Very immoral and honestly this is socialism.

You need to be a special kind of idiot to claim that people who worked hard for their money are immoral because they were able to do it and earn more than what the average person working for(say) them could.

May be work more and smarter. Your graph too will increase.

@@sabrinatatalias4277 So Jeff Bezos making a very successful company even though he has employees running his business warrants 70-150 billion? He cant give 49 MILLION?

@@harshgautam97 problem is the vast majority of those people inherited the wealth and are only getting wealthier not from work, but from the 7-10% annual stock market return. If they actually earned the wealth from working hard, then it shouldn't be taxed

If they don’t leave they will avoid tax legally and illegally. They will get better accountants.

Where will they go? Our taxes are significantly lower than taxes in Europe

@@stevenlovejoy6838 Singapore. Cyprus. Other places with virtually no taxes. There’s plenty of choices.

@@jasonmonica6290 lol yes because Jeff bezos is going to pack all his belongings and move to Cyprus thanks for clarifying!

@@stevenlovejoy6838 He can easily use tax law to move exclusively his business dealings there. Do some research

Its not about being a billionaire, it's about believing people have a right to what the make and earn.

steve huber they were able to make that money in America, they couldn't have done it anywhere else, therefore they owe America for that opportunity

Actually the statistics are that they didn't make or earn that money, rather there is a huge percentage that has an initial inheritance, and then the bulk of the remainder is them skimming money off of some one elses work. For example, a company makes a record profit of in the billions, and so they fire a huge chunk of the workers, and give their executives hundreds of millions in bonuses. (That just happened by the way.) Another example, a company's workers increase production and profits 18%, and they get hit with a 3% overall decrease in pay. So where did all that additional money go as well as the money taken away from the workers? It went to buy back stocks to inflate the wealth of the super wealthy that had the premium stocks. (Numbers will vary, but this has happened many times in the past couple of decades, though the frequency of it has gone way up in recent years.) Basically the workers are making the wealth, and the rich are forcing the workers to pay for it. That's not earning at all...

Luke Downey the people who founded america hated taxes. They could owe it in generosity or actions, but never in taxes. Taxes not going to bare minimal services are inherently immoral.

Are you talking about the dislikes?

Yourself included

No one here has a clue what they’re talking about for the most part.

Lol u must be an idiot to not even know this basic rule of tax and how it work. I learn that in college. Its very basic and simple.

@@javiermendez9880 no. More like u have no clue about what they are talking about becuz u never learn it urself. The poor always want money for free

Real deal I have a degree in finance and think this is stupid. You can’t even spell because right... I think I’m gonna trust myself on this one.

Depreciation and revaluation of assets are calculated already using certain methods. If we implement a percentage tax considering those values then there would be no issues caused by the changing worth of assets.

A. Not an argument. B. Not an argument. C. Also not an argument.

@@ThePi314Man Care to give actual counter arguments?

Yes, exactly!

It is actually a regressive tax (it places a heavier burden on poor people than rich people). Everyone needs certain basic things to live (food, drink, shelter). Billionaires might buy food thats more than twice as expensive as that what poor people buy, but they are millions of times richer so proportionally they pay less of their income (less than a millionth of their wealth) than poor people (who might spend more than half their monthly income on necessary consumables).

A value added tax makes it so that the poorer people pay a larger % of their money for goods while for ultra rich people that difference in price is infinitesimally small comparew to their wealth. This is why rich people havens like Monaco have low to no income/wealth taxes but extremely high value added tax

@@Xob_Driesestig Old comment but you can easily compensate for this with transfer tax.

​@@pretendcampus5410 Transfer taxes generally generate less government revenue than VAT, but even if they didn't you could just have progressive taxes (like transfer tax) without regressive taxes (like vat)

Dude you seriously Sponsored the Vox !!!!

300°?! Dude, it's going to burn, that's HOT AS HELL (no pun intended)

VOX SUPPORTER !!!

🍴😋

mangez les riches ?

@FZ Channel eat the rich

You know she doesn't have to wait for law she can just write a check every year

@@thatcoolkidjoey Exactly. The government even has an account set-up: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Funds Management Branch P.O. Box 1328 Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

The government sends me any tax I have over paid EVEN when my CPA didn't catch it. So I don't know what you mean that they can elect to pay more taxes than they should. It's most likely impossible.

As much as I agree, her taxes are small crumbs compared to the 0.05%

Finally someone with some common sense. The wealth tax has been tried and it failed. Wealth and cash are not the same.

So, there are people with $60 million net worth who can't afford $200,000 tax? That's 0.03% of their worth. That's like 30 cents to someone with $100 I think not, Boomer.

Yusuf Jinadu They’d have to liquidate their assets, by selling them. That means that basically someone else is paying for it, but the greedy government needs a way to get their hands on that extra bit of money.

@@yusufjinadu wealth does not equal cash. Even though they have massive amounts of wealth it does not mean they have cash availability after taxes and other payments they have to make.

finally a sensible comment

Alex 1. the government makes laws. Rich people influence them. But money related bribes are illegal. 2. All wealthy people pay taxes. I say that because I don’t consider people in jail for tax evasion wealthy people. Now of course you can funnel money or assets into offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it. But what’s the point? You might as well not have gone to the effort of making the money if you never see the benefits of doing so. That money is nothing but an unofficial statistic.

Or u learn criticle thinking skill then rethink about it. U only create unfair ground

No

Warren's plan would include assets overseas, so the wealthy would need to move to foreign countries en renounce their US citizenship to avoid paying this tax.

@@realdeal5712 first you learn spelling and then we have a conversation

A lot of assumptions in this comment my friend.

@@atticusjones Wealth taxes are a joke. Almost all of rich people’s wealth is held in stocks and corporations. If you tax their wealth, you would just force them to sell parts of their companies…. Whereby crashing the market.

@@LegalAutomation socialism my friend

Simply have more than someone is morally wrong, comrade. You shall be sent to re-education camp.

How on earth could it be my fault if I didn't won or inherited so much wealth?

@Cristopher Montoya that's a big oof on your part

@Cristopher Montoya Or they practice delayed gratification and not mindlessly buy stuff? Marxism, not even once....

@Cristopher Montoya yeaaaaah I think not pal (in the example). You clearly see a difference, but not a big one, between his and his friend, so no millionaire. Sure more millionaires are made by inheriting their fortune than by making it, but this is clearly not that case. As I said, big oof on your part

Private property is human right

indeed my fellow intellectual

That's almost as bad as the people that say 'respect is a basic human right' its not.

The yacht gives jobs to hundreds of people. It's not shameful to buy expensive stuff.

indeed

it'll make no sens. rich people will find a million loopholes to avoid it

Because robbery is wrong People have a right to personal property

@@josevelazquez7818 how is this robbery?

​@@druscus If taxing the wealth which was already taxed (and declared tax free) again is not robbery , then i don't know what robbery is, moreover if the money is in the shares , and the business guy have to sell his shares to pay his taxes , where do you think money is better off ? 1) A business guy who is gonna multiply it 2-3 times in next ten years ? or 2) A govt that knows nothing but to spend the money ? which is beneficial for the economy ? in my opinion , business persons should be treated like a hen who gives golden eggs , if you have the patience to wait for the recurring golden egg , you will be good , but in the greed of getting all the golden eggs at once you will just end up killing the hen.

Some billionaires would have to sell their stocks to pay the tax which would lead to less control over their companies.

True!! Same thing applies to debt, poor dad saves enough for her daughter, in return he sees an alcoholic get debt waiver!!

Travels are taxed with sales tax, so it would be at a higher rate than a wealth tax. Buying a yacht would get off easy. Btw, do you have more than $50M?

Well one stimulate the economy and the other is a waste of assets so yes. Also those that spend it on experiences pay up to a 10% sales tax while you don't so once more yes

@@for_light_and_life Except "travels" are taxed only once, whereas the "yacht", according to this plan, would be taxed EVERY YEAR IN PERPETUITY. And before you say it, "yacht" in this context refers to wealth over the imaginary line that this plan intends to tax. Just to head off your likely "nOt iF tH3 YAcHt iS l3sS tHAn 50 MiLliOn d0lLar$!!!!1111" response.

@@NadeemAhmed-nv2br Totally clueless. Who builds the yachts? Not those who buy them, obviously. Luxury goods stimulate the economy just as much, arguably more so since they are more expensive, than travels. And I guess you forgot about sales tax and property tax for luxury goods, as well? Yep, you're clueless.

O R also have to add the massive loopholes this has. A couple who has 100 million net worth could just divorce and split it 50/50 and avoid the tax, or give money to their children or charity, or just spend so much money they only have a net worth of 50 million. Or just leave the Country like what Rich French and German citizens did until they repealed the Wealth Tax in their nations.

Not to mention what those assets actually are ... stocks. Are we going force people to sell stock to pay these taxes?!

@@adamlynch462 Nah, when I finally pay off my mortgage they'll just have me redirect the payments to uncle sam. It's outlawing ownership.

Also would that mean selling off property and businesses, of you ask me it's a huge infringement on the constitution. Also said note at around 2:00, if you have the same income but way lower net wealth, maybe it's a personal problem and not a social problem.

@@Christ5306 nowhere in the constitution does it say you cant tax people. How is it infringement to the constitution???

The CCP would be proud of you Lmao

Bc it is common sense to be against it. Ask any country with socialism how they like it

y'all sound like income tax and goods and service tax isn't a thing ...

@@joshuajohn8870 nor is it "common sense" to be against anything related to tax or socialism ... but oh well

Because "taxing the rich" is a nice way of saying "taking other's money". They have a lot? It's doesn't matter, it's not yours. As an example, a regular middle class person is like a millionaire for a poor person, according to the video's logic it would be ok to take the money from middle class and give it to the poor. They "don't need it" anyway.

@@Dont_care_4_U "without a reason", how about the reason that the government needs money to function and that money has to come from somewhere so it just makes sense to tax the ultra rich instead of people who are already struggling to survive

Interesting idea yeah, but I mean...how would that even be realistically possible?

This better be sarcasm

Infromative on what not to do.

Lol. Must be, but it’s likely the people that don’t understand the assets that the billionaires have. A lot of it is in stocks, so there’s no ‘relocation’ of the ultra rich. They already use every loophole in the book to hide their income.

It's cuz of the Debunkers.

That is statistically very improbable

Rich people aren’t embarrassed for literally holding up american society by employing people, and paying more taxes than everyone else already.

@@haydenlamb6309 It's a joke that makes fun of lower/middle class people that are against taxing the rich because they imagine that one day they will be rich.

@@nullnull7089 Or just those that actually have morals.

@@nullnull7089 or those that realize this is theft... what's next? We get to slowly just take over their assets to even out the income inequality? Give their companies to the poor that can't manage their own spending? It's pathetic, everyone just envies everyone elses success

same

I know right. I consider myself responsible with my income. So, I don't want it to go to reckless spenders. What are they gonna learn, that Uncle Sam is a magical ATM?

@@ninjaartist1235 It doesn't go to Reckless Spenders,it goes to things like paying for Free College Tuition,and Medicare for All.Obviously you didn't even care to watch the video.

I thought you were asking genuine questions instead of trying to get into a heated argument, so I thought I could throw in my knowledge about this. Hope it helps. :) First answer: I think you have a great point, why should we distribute wealth if everyone meets basic needs? As I'll explain in the second answer, there's quite a few Americans who do not live under basic circumstances. Also, the idea that people need wealth inequality as an incentive has been scientifically debunked several times. Such incentive couldn't exist in countries where wealth and income are a taboo. Plus, several experiments that gave people the same amount of income generally showed that people were more concerned on WHAT their neighbours spent their money on rather than HOW MUCH money their neighbours spent. Second answer: If jealousy was the only reason to implement a wealth tax, then it'd be a terrible idea. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case. About 14% of all Americans live below the poverty line, and almost half the American population is one medical bill away from getting there. These are living standards that are very difficult, and living paycheck to paycheck is generally not considered a "normal" life. We're talking about living standards where people can't focus on raising their children because they need to work all day. Third answer: Don't worry about wealth being "difficult" to define, the government will find a way to define it clearly enough that loopholes (like putting money into other countries) cannot be abused on a large scale. During the 1950s, under president Eisenhower, a similar tax rate of over 90% had been had on the richest Americans, and this was also the time where the USA experienced the highest economical growth. So don't worry about some practical difficulties, this wealth tax had been successfully executed before in the USA, and it's quite doable to repeat. DISCLAIMER: I'm not really a fan of the wealth tax and would personally prefer (slightly) different ways to solve the increasing inequality in wealth, but I hope this answers your questions. :)

@@bramvdnheuvel "I think you have a great point, why should we distribute wealth if everyone meets basic needs? As I'll explain in the second answer, there's quite a few Americans who do not live under basic circumstances." I will grant this. And I see reach the point where everyone's basic needs are met to be a worthwhile goal. I am somewhat suspicious of "make everyone's income the same" as a goal. "Also, the idea that people need wealth inequality as an incentive has been scientifically debunked several times." This seems to be a bit of a redirection from what I am trying to get at. Improving one's own life, or the lives of one's immediate family, is the actual goal of most people. In the society we live in, more money is very conducive to that end. In the process, some people make a lot of money for themselves by doing something that benefits a lot of people. And very few of them would take the same action if the only payoff was knowing they benefited millions of total strangers while they, themselves are in the same situation they would have been anyway. It isn't so much that I think people need wealth inequality as an incentive. People need _some_ incentive. And making significantly more money than they otherwise would have (I don't even consider the relation to other people important) is a very useful incentive. As for the scientific debunking, I would have to review it myself. I have never heard of a country where income was taboo. The second question is very specific to the author in the video. He talks about his friend having the same income as he does, but more overall wealth. And he seems to be saying that he doesn't think it fair that his friend pay the same amount in taxes. (It is possible that I am misunderstanding this. so an answer from the actual video maker would be useful here.) "Don't worry about wealth being 'difficult' to define, the government will find a way to define it clearly enough that loopholes (like putting money into other countries) cannot be abused on a large scale." My question has nothing to do with wealth being difficult to define. The selling point on this idea includes the claim that this will only affect a very few people, who have enough money to sustain themselves for several lifetimes. I am very mistrustful of this selling point and think that if the tax were implemented, regular wage-earners would find themselves taxed at, say, 5% of their accumulated assets each year within 10 years. That affects people trying to save money for a home. When politicians say a particular tax (like the income tax) is "only for the very rich," I tend not to trust them. I do not understand why people live paycheck to paycheck. And I should clarify here. People who make significantly more money than I do (and I have found this for quite some time) live paycheck to paycheck, or even beyond their means. It's not because they have fixed expenses (like food, rent, utilities) that eat all the money. I could understand that. But there seems to be something in them that, as soon as they get money, they spend it -- and often on things they don't even want later. "Plus, several experiments that gave people the same amount of income generally showed that people were more concerned on WHAT their neighbours spent their money on rather than HOW MUCH money their neighbours spent." That is something else I don't understand. Unless it's a cannon to be pointed at me or something of that nature, I really don't care what my neighbor wants. I care about what affects me and people close to me (in a psychological sense.) But that's the sort of thing that got to me about this video. The author doesn't seem to care so much that people are going hungry. He seems to care that people like Beyonce and Bill Gates "have too much." I am all for the goal of lifting people out of poverty. I am not so much for the goal of knocking people down because they are "too successful."

I’m so tired of the left . Like these people work so hard and honestly don’t get sleep and they don’t have a family life I’m not being Mr defense or anything but it’s getting to the point of theft what there suggesting why would you reward lazy people? Shouldn’t the goal be to work harder ?

Y= aB^x 😂😂💯

I mean it's just a dumb thicc lorenz curve

@@washyourhands pretty poor Gini coefficient

It is....

@@samverebes4564 you mean pretty high

So what will happen if I inherit my parents 700k SoCal home? I work as a high-school teacher so my pay is ok but will I be taxed to death for getting a house that is already payed off because it raises my net worth considerably?

@@ABUBBA22 only if you had another 49.3m in other assests, and belonged to the top 5% of the 1%

Lol you probably do not have to worry, or do you have more than 50 *10^6 $.

arre property tax is a wealth tax... we should just not tax the first 50k

arre Vi har fortfarande en utjämningsskatt vi har ju haft en sosseregering i 5 år.

@@svantecarlson6191 Hur menar du att utjämningssystemet är jämförbart med en förmögenhetsskatt? Ja en sosseregering som inte rullat tillbaka några skattesänkningar. Jag håller inte sossarna i försvar, de är nästan lika dåliga på omfördelning som högern nu för tiden.

Hellou naighbor! I am from Finnland maybe the reason your inequality is rising is because all of swedens industry left and you are bringing in poor people on mass from the 3rd world? Thats at leats what is going on here.

Honest question: Why was it removed? Was it not working? Or did it work 'too well'? Something else?

We didn't get a reference of scale. The top was pointed out but without seeing where the bottom is and the size of it, it's misleading.

That’s not the 1%. Those guys are the top .05%.

just draw a vertical line 😂

That’s why graphs are used. You can spin how a graph looks to side with what you’re reporting. You should have learned this in school.

@@kyle_medina Just look at these graphs then, they contain labeled and numerically-consistent scales that are *not* manipulated in any way to sway viewers' opinion to fit an agenda, they are objective and factual: www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-years-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs EDIT: Added other objective, factual sources of income inequality analysis in the US: 1. www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/america-income-inequality-wealth-net-worth-charts/ 2. www.epi.org/publication/the-new-gilded-age-income-inequality-in-the-u-s-by-state-metropolitan-area-and-county/ 3. www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

That implies America currently have the world's lowest taxes

I honestly doubt that. If someone is living comfortably and lavishly with more money than there next six generations could possibly spend, they don't need more of a reason to keep making money, even if 2% of it gets taxed. Their incentive is the extremely comfortable lifestyle they get to live with their children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

@Chuck Gladfelter Wealth hoarding is a mostly an upper-middle or middle-class thing. The richest are constantly reinvesting their money into their businesses or economy.

@@zac5572 Check the effective rate rather than the statitory rate which was formerly %25-20 base, and is now half that.

@@timtimtimmaah with all due respect, that actually isn't true. Our middle class is actually disappearing. The reason there is so much wealth inequality is because of hoarding, tax loopholes (that's how Jeff Bezos paid zero taxes.) and trumps tax break for the wealthy. The wealthy was suppose to invest in their companies but instead they gave themselves pay raise a participated in stock buy backs.

They do that already so what difference does it make?

Every country must tax their rich. So the rich have escape in no country

@@JuanLopez-zo8os so every country is not interested in your jealous nature My country need investments, it need money High western taxation is chance for my country to raise economy I'm surprised that China now is more capitalistic than USA is China have really low taxation for everything

We chase the parasites.

​@@liawatson5789 "Chase the parasites"? What, do you imagine that they spend nothing in the nation they live in? That they make yachts and mansions magically appear out of nothing, no construction company required? That a nation which took them in would not see a massive inflow of wealth as a result?

@@JuanLopez-zo8os What if the capitalists just go to their own country? There's so much cheap land, they could literally buy it out. Then the rest of the world will collapse and they'll continue to be extremely wealthy.

Make em sell it lol

@@zutaca2825 but they already pay property tax on the house and they would have had to pay sales tax on the yacht

The same way every other tax works. Give them a bill and let them figure out how to pay it themselves. If they have to sell some things to make the payment then so be it. That's actually kind of the point, to be honest. To keep the majority of the wealth in the country from stagnating in the assets of the uber-wealthy, dead to the economy.

Property is obviously part of your net worth.

@@leosheldon9725 yeah great idea

Keyword “if”

A federal property tax? Unconstitutional.

@@stanislausklim7794 nope

I wouldn't miss them

@@hubert4646 Enjoy your country with no companies and everyone unemployed

@@lordecircojeca2039 look at switzerland, norway and denmark. they all tax wealth. seems to work just fine for them. google even has their europe HQ in switzerland with thousands of employees (just as an example) companys are coming to these places. not move away from them

@@ramonkeller4016 1. Look at Sweden's GDP graph. It was growing steadily until around the 70s, when they began raising the taxes. Since then it began stagnating. It does not prove my point, but it's a nice indicator. 2. Just because A happens in the presence of B doesn't mean A causes B. Michael Jordan drinks water, therefore does drinking water make me great at Basketball? Probably not. 3. Taxation only destroys wealth. This can be demonstrated aprioristically, without the need for examples or experiments. 4. Taking someone's money without their consent is theft.

@@lordecircojeca2039 fair enough. so 1. would you call an increase in gdp from 37.5 billion in 1970 to 538 billion in 2017 stagnation? 2. absolutely true. i gave you 3 countries in europe where it worked. do you have 1 in western europe or north america where it didnt work? 3. This isnt true. look at the gdp of high taxing countries. most of them outperform gdp growth of low taxing countries 4. if you think taxation is theft you should move to a country with no taxation. nobody says you cant. i think there is a reason why most people decide to stay and pay there taxes

@Sam Yes, I do, that's my point.

King DeeDeeDee You don’t have the same opportunities jeff bezos’ kids have.You just want to believe you do

@@otinanai5439 Why don't I? Cause I don't have as much money? Nothing is stopping me from running my business, getting an education, or making money. To be upset that other people are successful, and you aren't is nothing more than jealousy.

@@kingdeedeedee1450 Actually yes many large companies are actively stopping competing companies who might offer a better service from becoming big. This is very common so you are not competing on the same terms as everyone else.

King DeeDeeDee being rich undoubtedly gives you advantages that the poor don’t have though. Eg: tutoring, paying the way into college, better job opportunities / not having to worry about money, etc

I would become rich in flavor not in dollars

they full of nasty diseases.

Bingo. It’s nothing but greed and envy on the part of voters and politicians trying to secure the next election for themselves.

As property tax consultant, I assure you that your assessment is correct.

Given how much suffering the ultra-wealthy are responsible for in everyday America, I don't think any amount of suffering is enough for the billionaires that would be targeted by such a tax. I just don't think it could realistically be achieved.