this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
564 points (92.7% liked)

Canada

7224 readers
376 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 120 points 9 months ago (4 children)

you dont need a max wage if you tax effectively. it would be 100% past a certain, massive amount.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 82 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly how the article suggests setting the maximum.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 36 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Wage" is rather poor wording then.

[–] overzeetop@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Wage is worthless wording. Most ultra rich don’t have wages - at least not relative to their change in worth. We need to change how taxes fundamentally work.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Anyone with two brain cells can understand that it's a wordplay on "minimum wage" and the implementation of this isn't really going to rely on the narrow definition of wages.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It seems unwise to rely on the uneducated masses to interpret things correctly. Perhaps clearer communication would be helpful.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's why there's a whole text with explanations right below the headline

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

There are more words????

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

As you can see, lots of people don't read those explanations.

Perhaps clearer communication would be beneficial.

[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 27 points 9 months ago (4 children)

How does that work when the super rich don’t pay any taxes to begin with? How do you tax wealth? How do you tax loans against shares?

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 46 points 9 months ago (1 children)

in the united states, there were all kinds of 'wealth' taxes that prevented the loop holes. all that was systematically deleted over the last 60 years as conservatives decided 'me want money, fuck society'

[–] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The top marginal tax rate in the US peaked in 1951 at 92% on income in excess of $400k (joint filing two income), the equivalent of about $4.7M in today's money. That should come back.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Easy, make capital gains tax match income tax marginal rates.

[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

But capital gains only execute when you sell.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

all stock market trades should be taxed at 100% value. dont like it? dont ~~gamble~~ 'invest'

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

...or just abolish the stock market (at least that's how I read this).

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

At this point, abolishing the stock market would require a restart on the United States as an entity. The stock market is quite closely linked to the banking system. Closing the stock market would crash the US economy into oblivion.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

And no doubt every other closely-tied economy, as well.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago

Do they get a tax refund when they take a loss as well?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right. So when they sell, they'll get taxed. You can't spend shares.

[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

The problem is that’s basically what billionaires do, though. They take out loans with their shares as collateral. So on paper they have huge debt, but it’s minuscule compared to their wealth.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

And watch the few remaining small businesses who are operating on a shoestring budget and are the only ones actually paying capital gains get eaten up by the large corporations who offshore their gains. Small businesses who have debt aren’t able to write off principal debt payments so on the books they make money that they pay tax on, but in reality they just gave that money back to the bank to pay off ‘business assets’ which aren’t worth shit when the business isn’t making money. So they make just enough money to pay the bank, then are hit with taxes for the money they paid the bank, and they float by in the red until the inevitable bankruptcy. If they are a franchise, corporate then comes in and sells the business to the next sucker who is willing to gamble on the false hope of the franchise model. Big corporate sells the business to a new ‘owner’ every 5 or 10 years, and the banks get another government backed SBA loan with no risk.

We are in the latter days of capitalism, increasing capital gains won’t work when the big guys already don't pay shit.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Make it illegal to use shares as collateral for a loan. If a person can pay back a loan, they can buy back the shares after they sell them because they need money. Now people are paying capital gains taxes.

[–] maxprime@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok but how are you supposed to do that when the most powerful and influential people in the world are the very people who rely on that method to maintain their power and influence?

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Execution? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

You tax holdings.

[–] slowbyrne@beehaw.org 10 points 9 months ago

Take a listen to the recent Grey Area podcast episode with Ingrid Robeyns. Her book is "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth." and they talk about this very subject.

[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That just sounds like a maximum wage but with more steps.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

its actually a max wage with fewer steps. no need to have a max wage definition at all, just extend current tax practices.

e. less to fewer, because details matter

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Plus it actually could be used to do something* crazy, like help people or the environment.

  • Autocorrect awesome sauce
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the U.S. managed to do it, they'd use it to build up the military.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago