991

A one-time 5% wealth tax would bring Silicon Valley’s billionaires’ wealth back to where it was just 31 days ago, on September 7.

When it was "just" 178% higher than on January 1, 2023.

They’d rather let 3 million people lose their health insurance than let that happen.

Graph here: https://cabillionairetracker.org/

Rather than paying their fair share of taxes, Sergey Brin, Pether Thiel, and Patrick Collison prefer to spend tens of millions to manipulate the vote.

Stupefying levels of greed and lack of civil-mindedness.

$45 million in a week: California’s wealthy aren’t holding back to try to stop ‘billionaire tax’

All credits to Gabriel Zucman

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 115 points 4 days ago

They freak out about this because their wealth is in holdings and isn’t liquid. They leverage debt and play these games to avoid paying their share the freeloading welfare queens that they are

This is probably more painful than “it’s just 5%.” And I love that for them

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 62 points 4 days ago

It also sets a precedent - why not an annual 5% tax? why not 50%?

That's why they're afraid of it. It's not just the liquidity, because 5% they can easily liquidate without affecting any of their hedged-leveraged debt coverage.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

yeah, I think it’s more about power than money

[-] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 22 points 4 days ago

Money is more about power than money once you're over ten mil

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago
[-] chocrates@piefed.world 7 points 4 days ago

Yeah we should tax billionaires until they become "only" millonaires

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 3 days ago

They freak out about this because their wealth is in holdings and isn’t liquid.

This is a legitimate problem. Forcing a primary shareholder to sell their shares devalues the shares of workers holding them in retirement accounts. Forcing them to liquidate their shares is not at all feasible.

Which is why this tax should never be payable in dollars. It should be paid directly in shares. It doesn't have to be converted to cash first; the shares themselves go straight to the IRS.

The confiscated shares can be liquidated slowly over time. Every time 1000 shares are traded on the free market, the IRS gets to offer one of its taxed shares. The influence on the market price of the shares is minimized. If the shares become worthless, they just sit on the IRS books, collecting dust forever.

I'd only tax securities - investment holdings. Stocks, bonds, other fungible, intangible, financial assets. I want them spending their money on tangible products and personal services (as opposed to financial services) that are ultimately produced by workers. I want them pushing their money back into rotation, not setting up dollar farms to collect it from everything that moves.

But, if we want to go after general wealth, we can also do the same thing for deeded property or titled property. They don't have to sell the land or the car/boat/plane; we just put a tax lien on it now, and collect later.

[-] MBech@feddit.dk 1 points 3 days ago

I like it, but I would prefer if the government kept the share of the companies, transitioning the companies into government run entities over time, thereby having the production be owned by the people.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

Absolutely not: Trump, Trump, Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Nixon.

We've seen what these bastards did to the postal service and everything else they've touched. We're not putting every major industry in the country under the direct control of men like these. The idea of government-run commercial entities is simply a non-starter. That's one of the few qualms I have about the IRS holding these shares for any length of time. I would strip control and voting rights from these taxed shares, restoring them only once they have been transferred to a market buyer.

I agree that ownership of production needs to be in the hands of the people, but that ownership needs to be directly in the hands of the people, not through a stake in a government that is, more often than not, overtly hostile and malicious to the interests of the people.

The tax would apply to ALL stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. Natural US persons can exempt up to $10 million worth from their portfolio, but they will owe an equal proportion of every issue in their portfolio: They don't get to pick and choose what issues they will keep and what they transfer to the IRS: The IRS gets the same percentage of everything.

The artificial persons owe the full tax: no exemptions. If you own $100 million in stocks, you can't split it up among 10 companies. You can split it up among friends and family to avoid the tax, but they each control their own shares.

To the working class, securities remain a valuable asset. To the ultra-rich, a sufficiently-high tax converts these same securities into an expensive liability. With these conditions, an ownership stake in a worker's company will become a significant component of their compensation. Ownership of production will be driven away from the ultra-wealthy and to the people.

[-] Snazz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Its way cheaper for them to buy the politicians, and these people will never miss an opportunity to optimize the number in their bank account. The system won’t change without some serious turbulence.

[-] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 76 points 4 days ago

I posted this comment on another topic but it's relevant here too:

The sick part is that what is being asked is actually so inconsequential to the billionaires that not only will their line still go up, if we change nothing else but this, even wealth inequality itself will still keep going up, it will just go up at a slightly less supersonic speed. They don’t even care about the amount of money we’re asking for, they care about the precedent that if we can take this from them, what’s stopping us from taking everything from them.

That’s what they’re actually scared of. That’s why they resist this so hard. That’s why they don’t bend. They think that once the people slip out of their stranglehold they will get a taste of billionaire blood and they will like it.

And they might be right.

[-] bashibazouk@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

It's not the money, it's control of their companies. To pay the tax they have to sell stock which reduces control. They, rightly I think, also believe it's a one time tax until the next time the tax gets passed. Maybe this a good thing but it should also be addressed by those pushing the wealth tax...

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 10 points 4 days ago

Would much rather make their worst nightmares come true. Anything less feels like leaving money on the table, ya know?

[-] bashibazouk@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

I noticed that in 2024, when Bernie was pushing the wealth tax, billionaires funneled a lot of money toward Trump. "Worst nightmares" is a double edged sword...

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 10 points 4 days ago

They're gonna destroy our world, and we're just going to tut-tut each other while they do it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fisch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Even a 2% ANNUAL wealth tax would not take anything away from them, it would just make their wealth grow SLIGHTLY SLOWER.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago

In our next lives we should all strive to make sure THAT NO ONE HUMAN HOLDS THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 23 points 4 days ago

Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 31 points 4 days ago

I would rather have 1000 millionaires than 1 billionaire

[-] shittydwarf@piefed.ca 28 points 4 days ago

So we can hit them with 5% every month

[-] BillyClark@piefed.social 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Just hit all billionaires, worldwide, with 100% tax of all wealth over a billion dollars every year. A billion dollars is really an inconceivable amount of money for one person to have. Far more than one person could ever legitimately earn in a lifetime.

Letting them retain one billion dollars is probably far more charity than they deserve, but what can I say? I'm just a softie.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago

$30 million is generous and plenty to live on. Everything above that is capital that is only to be used to get even more.

Moreover even at $30 million, it's difficult not to fall upwards. You can make really bad decisions, whether cruel, ignorant, reckless, or offensive to the public, and still turn a profit. It's actually an argument against hiring upper management who are already well-to-do.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Like your card's not getting declined for anything, ever. Why keep running up a high score when it makes many others suffer? It's entirely unrelatable to me that anyone could be so fortunate and yet so callous.

[-] NEZ27@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 days ago

Spreading that out would likely create more businesses, art, shows, and everything for them to try. They could spend a life time and not run out of new experiences as is, but they like staring at a chart that looks like it says they are winning.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 29 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They remember (or have schools that teach) the 90+% wealth tax back when accountants hadn't hidden it all. You know, in the 1950s and before 'boomer golden age', which, along with strong unions, made the middle class happen. and what shall never again happen if the parasite class can help it.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 4 days ago

That wasn't a wealth tax though? That was an income tax and only on the top bracket. Very, very different things.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

There's a pretty straightforward solution to that, as well: tax unrealized capital gains as income the moment they're used as collateral. If you can spend it, it's income, you fucking cheaters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] architect@thelemmy.club 18 points 4 days ago

It’s literally impossible to allow this to continue. Something will give.

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

We are far, far beyond the wealth inequality that spurned the French Revolution and yet, here we sit.

[-] whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I’d attribute this to two main factors:

  1. The wealth inequality we’re dealing with has a higher ceiling (and higher floor) than the wealth inequality in pre-revolution France. We’re poor and hurting financially, but most of us are still able survive day-to-day without viscerally feeling the effects of our poverty.

  2. The internet keeps us apart. Pre-internet, people built communities, coalitions, and armies much more effectively because they weren’t so isolated in their homes, and so paralyzed by screens.

EDIT: the advent of suburbanism & carcentric infrastructure is another factor that keeps us more isolated than past populations have been. People used to live right alongside each other and their communities used to be walkable. The most disadvantaged among us (and therefore the most personally motivated to mobilize) are also the most limited by carcentric infrastructure.

[-] Surp@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

They also had the advantage of surprise which you can't really have with everything being tracked

[-] whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

True, it is much harder than it used to be to catch the oppressor class off guard.

But given how hard they work to discourage us from even nonviolently protesting, I suspect that they understand that once we truly collectively achieve class consciousness, it’s over for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

Two people in my extended social network have died of curable health issues in the last 30 days.

[-] whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I’m very sorry for your losses. I suspect that my own quality of life has been severely affected by undiagnosed curable health issues, and I’ll be genuinely surprised if I make it into old age.

Capitalism has murdered and continues to murder countless human lives.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

The French Revolution was not a peasant revolt, it was a movement of the upper-middle class. Nobody with money is interested in changing the government right now.

[-] nullspace@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Newsom's prepared to give his life defending the billionaires.

[-] joecitizen@piefed.ca 22 points 4 days ago

Billionaires should be illegal. That's wages stolen from the workers.

[-] Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

Shareholder primacy is fundementally broken. We must tie ownership back to the direct stakeholder of each firm. Shareholders dont care about goods, services, or utilies; they only care about line go up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jdr@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago

People who are cool with not having the maximum amount of money possible don't end up billionaires

[-] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 10 points 4 days ago

I misread it as 31 years ago. But when I saw 31 days I was like... And of course they are opposed to it!

[-] sepi@piefed.social 12 points 4 days ago
[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

5% off the top!

[-] jaybone@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago

Sadly I predict this won’t pass. The traditional media like tv commercials is flooded with propaganda to vote no on this. Newsom, Becerra and Hilton are all saying to vote no (that should be the biggest clue that you should vote yes) The commercials offer different and conflicting narratives as to why you should vote no (another clue you should vote yes) And there are NO commercials telling you to vote yes. (That should be another clue, those who control the media do not want this.) The only news available telling you to vote yes is Bernie Sanders visiting California for some sort of rally. But those supporters also tied in props 41 and 42, pushing for a “no” vote on those, which I think might have been a mistake and hurts their message.

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 days ago

The math is a bit counter intuitive, but increasing by 5% then decreasing by 5% of the new value does not get you back to the start exactly.

You take a value v, increase it by 5% to 105% of the previous you now have 105% * v. Now you take that new values as the basis for the next calculation, and decrease by 5% to 95% of the previous, you now have 95% * 105% * v which is actually 99.75% * v.

You need to find the day from which their wealth increased by 5.263% so that a 5% tax would bring them back.

But yeah, whatever it doesn't make a material difference to the argument. A one time tax sounds a bit weird to me, but I don't live there, Californians should do whatever they can. Maybe a one time tax is a good first domino stone.

[-] lagg_mine@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Great message, but that graph is horrible...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CodingCarpenter@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

I like an echo chamber dogpile as much as the next guy. But doesn’t prop40 also use language that can be taken advantage of? Like to expand this tax to other areas?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
991 points (99.2% liked)

Work Reform

17815 readers
1799 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS