- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- world@lemmy.world
Abigail Disney, Brian Cox and Valerie Rockefeller among signatories of open letter condemning inequality
More than 250 billionaires and millionaires are demanding that the political elite meeting for the World Economic Forum in Davos introduce wealth taxes to help pay for better public services around the world.
“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” the wealthy people said in an open letter to world leaders. “This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”
The rich signatories from 17 countries include Disney heir Abigail Disney; Brian Cox who played fictional billionaire Logan Roy in Succession; actor and screenwriter Simon Pegg; and Valerie Rockefeller , an heir to the US dynasty.
You must log in or # to comment.
Republicans idolize the 1950s. They conveniently forget about the part where the top tax bracket was taxed at 90%.
And now they claim if we have a wealth tax, they’ll just move. Massachusetts passed a wealth tax recently. Astoundingly, all the wealthy people didn’t move. Turns out they’re fine paying a premium to have a house in Martha’s Vineyard and a condo in Boston because, and I know this is a shock to Republicans, they can afford to pay a premium to live somewhere desirable.
Massachusetts passed a wealth tax recently.
Not to be pedantic, but it’s an income tax.
It’s generally being called a wealth tax.
There’s a major difference between the two
Maybe, but it’s being called a ‘wealth tax’ or a ‘millionaire’s tax.’ You don’t have to take my word for it- https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=massachusetts+wealth+tax#ip=1
Just because some people call it a wealth tax does not mean we should perpetuate the micsonception
It’s an income tax on high earners, and objectively not a wealth tax no matter how many people call it that
Agreed. Having lived through the ad campaigns and voted for this tax myself, I can confirm that I, at least, never heard anyone call it a wealth tax. A millionaire’s tax, sure, but that’s just a catchy shorthand. If you do the google search Mr. Flying Squid suggested, you’ll find a lot of sources calling it a millionaire’s tax, and maybe a couple calling it a wealth tax. The ones calling it a wealth tax are just plain wrong.
There is no legal definition or concept for a “wealth tax”. You usually tax income or you tax property.
And while taxing property is the more obvious one, both can be a wealth tax depending on who is paying majorily by its design (for example a progressive income tax where low incomes barely pay anything reaching 90%+ over a certain limit -see 1950- is definitely a wealth tax).
deleted by creator
Yeah and if you look at tax rates since then you can see lowering them generally makes things worse and the few times they were raised even a little was followed by better times. Thing is we are so far in a tax deficit that it will take having high rates for awhile to get back to a decent level. EDITED per comment as the first one was supposed to be lowering.
Let me guess… keep lowering taxes on the rich and the wealth will trickle down.
Raising them makes things worse but raising them a little was followed by better times…
I think you might need to reread your messages before hitting send…
yeah. fixed it. thanks.
You suddenly sound much more connected to reality!
It’s not enough to just say it.
Because other billionaires give millions to ensure it doesn’t happen. And I think it would be naive to not expect some overlap in these groups.
If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.
Exactly, this is just a game of “our billionaires are better than your billionaires” and considering their billionaires are paying them off, that’s not surprising.
I slightly disagree on one point: They should be lobbying the people directly, not the politicians.
The issue isn’t voters…
The issue is anyone that wants to tax the rich can’t make it out of a primary, because the rich (individuals and corporations) give an insane amount of money to candidates who won’t tax them.
Bernie almost managed to do it off voter donations, but then the DNC had a lawyer tell a judge that they can influence a primary as much as they want, even to the point of ignoring results.
Right now our political system cares more about money than votes.
But like Bernie has been saying for decades:
To fix the system, we need to win thru the system. Then change it.
We can only do that with huge donations, because that’s the only thing the people running both major parties care about right now.
Our entire political structure is based on getting as much donations as possible.
So if these people want to help, their money matters a lot more than their words or even votes.
citizens united will prove out to be the nail in our coffin of democracy.
Our entire political structure is based on getting as much donations as possible.
Yes. True. Why?
When you answer that question, you’ll understand my argument.
Those donations are spent trying to influence public opinion toward a particular candidate. The candidates need that to happen, so they can get elected.
We don’t need particular candidates to be elected. We need public sentiment to broadly support taxing the rich.
We don’t need Bernie preaching to the choir of progressive Democrats. We need American voters asking candidates of every party, of every ideology, and at every level, for higher taxes on the rich.
We need a series of ads where a billionaire just looks in the camera and says “Hi, I’m Warren Buffett. I spent more on this ad than I paid in taxes last year.”
That’s it. Simple, concise, inarguable. The rich are so rich they can take out ads for the sole purpose of explaining how rich they are and how little they pay in taxes.
We need every candidate either supporting extensive taxes on the rich, or being forced to explain why all these billionaires are on TV bragging about how little they pay in taxes.
It costs more to convince people to vote for a bad candidate than a good one.
And after the first term it’ll cost even less.
That’s pretty basic advertisement stuff, the worse your product, the more you need to spend on advertising and marketing.
So why don’t we try supplying a good product people want without spending 100s of millions convincing them to want it?
It costs more to convince people to vote for a bad candidate than a good one.
After 2016 and 2020, I reject that premise.
So why don’t we try supplying a good product people want
Your analogy is rather confusing.
Are “products” the candidates? Or are they issues? Are they the voters? Are you saying the issue “tax the rich” is a bad issue?
I can’t seem to glean any meaning from your arcane language. Can you restate it directly, without resorting to analogy?
What I think is that my idiot Republican neighbors are never going to vote for a progressive Democrat. I think my idiot neighbors will support Warren Buffett’s “Tax the Rich” plan, but they will wildly oppose that same plan if it comes from Bernie Sanders.
I think my idiot Republican neighbors would generally reject a candidate who argues Buffett needs the tax breaks that Buffett says he doesn’t need.
I think a rural Republican candidate would do well in their district to take tax breaks from rich, city-dwelling billionaires, and give them to farmers and ranchers.
I think that if the only way to get a “tax the rich” plan is by electing progressive Democrats, we will never have a tax the rich plan.
But, if the issue is put to the people directly, Americans across the spectrum will easily support it.
What results did the DNC ignore? I’m a big Bernie fan, and I voted for him in the primary, but he lost.
That’s not what I said.
To phrase it another way:
The DNC said it’s not a problem to put their finger on the scales, because if it came down to it, the primary isnt binding.
The party can just say “nah, we’re running someone else” and the judge agreed that would be 100% legal because political parties are private institutions and can nominate anyone they want to.
They haven’t explicitly done that. Yet.
But it should be concerning and no one has been calling to change it.
deleted by creator
If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.
How do you know they don’t?
Stuff like this…
https://www.newsweek.com/disney-gave-least-250k-senators-that-voted-dont-say-gay-bill-1686128
Rather than ask me for a source of all of them not donating…
Wouldn’t it be easier to find a single one about them doing it?
You’re asking me to do something incredibly time consuming, and frankly close to impossible with just public knowledge, but to prove your side, you just need to find a single source to prove me wrong
I think you need to read Abigail Disney’s Wikipedia page to learn the difference between her and the Disney corporation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Disney
I mean, she’s literally cited/quoted in the article that YOU just linked yourself, as the active opposition.
I can’t see where she’s donating to progressive candidates…
I know she says stuff, and donates to charity.
I said:
If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.
And I haven’t seen any evidence any of them do. Maybe some gave a couple thousand, but that won’t beat what billionaires spend on PACs.
You made a claim, implicitly, that they aren’t doing so. You were asked how you knew this claim was true. Your response should have just been that you don’t know whether it’s true, only that it’s what you think they should do, instead of trying to blame the other poster.
Oh cool, another person who can’t link a source for any of these “super rich” donating substantial money to progressives in primaries.
There’s a lot of y’all, you don’t have to keep telling me you couldn’t find anything
And now you’re trying to blame me. Lol classic.
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/abigail-disney/
Done
Also the link you posted is for Disney Corporation, not Abigail Disney the person mentioned
Done
Those are good causes…
But I don’t see anything about her making political donations at all, especially not in democratic primaries to progressives
So the only good philanthropy is the one you personally approve?
Nope, just not what I asked for.
Like, if I asked to borrow a pen and you gave me a cupcake…
Cool, thanks for the cupcake, but I was asking for a pen buddy.
I want to believe them… but it takes more than just words. I feel like if they REALLY wanted this, it would have been done by now.
It looks like they really want this; however, even they understand that people will circumvent the laws and move money to more “favorable” countries, if the world doesn’t take a coordinated approach.
The politicians have been setting up the game to appease the rich for generations. It won’t be undone that easily.
Need something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_minimum_corporate_tax_rate
But for individual wealth/billionaires
And when action happens, I will be behind 100%. Need to read the article, is there even a plan? Other than “hey politicians, do this”?
its really not that hard. Even one country can start it. If a company does business in a country it must pay the corporate rate but it can deduct any corporate tax it pays in other countries. So if it pays the same or more already it pays no additional but if it pays little it has to pay the difference. So they can move the money whereever they want but the only way to avoid it is to not do business in the country and thus open it up for local opportunities.
Also billionaires: Let me put my money in offshore accounts and buy a ton of museums and art and shit and then let me get a tax write off against it.
Nothing short of an avalanche of left leaning policies will actually get billionaires to pay more in tax. And that won’t happen, because billionaires have already heavily invested in conservative and ‘progressive’ politicians who won’t dare bite hand that feeds them.
I hope I’m wrong, but I have a feeling I’m not.
You know that the world is fucked when even some of the rich demand more taxes on the rich.
I guess they should bribe the system to get more taxes like everyone else does.
-
They don’t mean it.
-
Their owned politicians won’t do it.
Abigail Disney absolutely does mean it. She gives away a ton of money and is highly critical of Disney. Sure, she could give it all away or she could use her money to influence politicians to actually help while also donating a ton.
I’m still on the fence about her. It’s been proven charity from millionaires and billionaires is a drop in the ocean compared to what fair taxation of their wealth could do for better organized government programs with farther reach. Not to mention charitable donations can be used for tax write-offs.
Part of me applauds her work but on the other hand I often wonder if there’s some kind of savior complex with these ppl.
We should absolutely not be encouraging ANYONE to use the US’ legal corruption, regardless of what it’s for.
Lobbying, ALL LOBBYING, should be banned. It is corruption. P E R I O D.
Why do you think they are saying it then? Why not say nothing like the rest of them?
There’s no way of knowing how many actually mean it. I’ll sure some of them do and others don’t.
Some of them realize, that the masses are getting angry. We’re getting out our pitchforks, torches, and guillotines. Angry people will start to fuck up shit. January 6, BLM protests, etc, are all prime example of what people are willing to do when they get angry.
If everyone’s option is either continued to get screwed or fuck shit up for a possibility of a better future. People will generally pick the fuck shit up option.
Some of them do mean it. They know that places with less wealth inequality are better places to live, even for the rich.
The problem is that even if they were willing to donate their entire wealth to the government, they’re only one of hundreds of billionaires, so their personal sacrifice isn’t going to change much. They’d just be one of the non-rich in a place with huge wealth inequality. So, before they do that, they want assurances that everyone else will do it too.
So, it comes down to whether politicians will do it. Many politicians won’t either because they’re rich themselves, or they’re “owned” by ultra-rich people who don’t want their hoards touched. But, even if the politicians were interested, it’s a tough issue because of offshore tax shelters and places like Monaco. When France tried to tax wealth, many of the wealthy just moved to Monaco, or to another place where their wealth was secure. And, as much as it sucks having the ultra-wealthy in the country not paying enough in taxes, it’s worse for them to take all their wealth and leave the country entirely.
The only thing that would really work is for the rich countries of the world to band together and agree on a minimum wealth tax, and then to deny entry to anybody who fled to a tax-shelter country. But, that would never happen both because it’s too ambitious and too many politicians are owned by the rich. And, because it’s a prisoner’s dilemma situation where there’s a huge incentive to be the country that defects from the deal and welcomes all the billionaires.
Even if it were to happen, taxation is a game. And like ANY game, if you throw enough effort at it, it can be beaten. The 1% can afford to throw that effort at any tax rules you can devise. They are quite confident they can beat the game no matter what you do.
-
Warren Buffet was one of the first I heard a few years ago say he’s not being taxed enough and they should be taxing companies like his more. I think this was related to him signing up to the Gates fund which will see most of his wealth donated to charity.
There were others that were not happy with Buffet’s comments about taxing billionaires more. It’s nowhere near as high as Britain which spurred on the Taxman song by the Beatles. At that point 90 percent was going to the tax man then. Britain still had an enormous debt from WW2 and left over from WW1 they were still trying to pay off.
For the US I did hear a argument being made for a return to corporate taxes levels pre Reagan as that was a time when corporations and industry in America contributed a lot to society. The tax rate was like 58 percent if I recall correctly from the interview and the companies paid their staff well and they invested into a great deal of research like Bell Labs as preferred ways to earn write offs to not give the taxes to the government.
Back in the day, corporate taxes were like 25% of federal revenues. After Trump’s tax cuts, it’s down to 10%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1edSi
High corporate tax rates encourages companies not to have profits - pay their revenues out as wages, research new technologies, build infrastructure. Do useful shit with their gains rather than just sit on big bags of cash.
just sit on big bags of cash.
Looking at you Apple
That would be $99 for iSee!
90% wasn’t going to the Taxman, only 90% of the top tax bracket. The effective rate was likely significantly lower.
Buffet avoided and skirted taxes (legally). Him saying he “should be taxed more” is just moral fronting. He could easily pay more taxes if he wants. He just has to stop using all the extremely expensive tax lawyers that move his money around dozens of companies in tax havens….
This is basically trying to save face. They may as well say “no really, all you plebs shouldn’t hate us! It’s not our fault we’re rich and don’t pay taces!” Because they can feel now how bad things are getting and how much worse they’re likely going to get as the decade unfurls
Fact: you can pay more taxes voluntarily without being told you have to.
They aren’t saying it because they really want to pay more taxes
They’re saying a system should be put in place where the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes
It’s a subtle but important distinction
You are asking them for their fish. This request seems to be an attempt to teach your politicians how to fish.
I’d much rather see them use it to lobby in favour of taxes on the wealthy, than seeing a handful of them give part of their money away.
How? Just pay the taxes and NOT file for a refund? Is that’s tax evasion?
Austrian heiress Marlene Engelhorn announces plan for €25m giveaway
Nice to see more rich people not agree to the system :)
Propaganda.
“Okay my dudes, perhaps the joke of unending accumulation and exponential exploitation of natural resources until we don’t know where to park the unused private jets has gone a little too far, maybe?”
Can they not just surrender the money of their own volition? You could even cut out the middleman.
I don’t think there’s a mechanism in place for transfer of money to the government like that beyond, say, buying bonds or something, which the government is required to repay. They aren’t really set up to take large donations of that nature, taxes are already intended to handle that. And an individual isn’t going to be able to legally build a highway, or a school district of their own accord without governmental assistance.
And I think it’s good that this is the case. It prevents America from devolving into a hundred nations led by individual warlords, we would very easily slip into something resembling Japan’s Sengoku period.
This is a common statement type of thing. Especially for conservatives when responding to someone wealthy saying taxes should be raised. You see they are in relative competition with each other. If they give up their money they will lower their relative status but if money is removed equally across their level then the playing field is still level.
I would presume these folks are already pretty charitable, it must be how they were known as potential signatories to join.
That’s a very nice open letter you signed. Now turn and face the wall.
