[kadabra9]

Everyone loves deciding what their "fair share" of other people's net worth (not even income!) is.

Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.

It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.

[bhouston]

Your statement is ignoring the systematic growing inequality in the US between the ultra wealthy and everyone else. And the use of those funds to influence politics (because of Citizens United, etc) to create polices that benefit themselves - it is for the ultra wealthy a virtuous circle:

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

This is not a normal state of affairs.

[kadabra9]

This tax would do effectively nothing to address growing inequality between billionaires and everyone else.

[mjamesaustin]

I see, so you're suggesting 5% is not enough? I'm listening...

[kadabra9]

You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year. It is and always will be a government spending issue, the government can’t help itself but to just steal more from the taxpayers to support their bloat.

[airstrike]

You are conflating the tax revenue from a wealth tax with "funding the government for a year" which is precisely a balance vs cash flow mistake like you rightfully pointed out to someone else in the thread.

So given the government will still collect taxes for every foreseeable year, I ask you, what impact would it have if we used it not to fund the government but to pay down some of the debt?

[kadabra9]

The US debt is nearly 39 trillion dollars.

Confiscating all of the assets of the nation’s billionaires wealth would yield 6-8T, depending on what kind creative accounting is done in anticipation of a wealth tax.

So yeah it would help reduce the debt slightly but doesn’t address the bigger culprit - spending and government inefficiency and bloat

[johnnyanmac]

>You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year.

1. I see that being 14 trillion. That would in fact fund the government for a year. even for 2 years.

2. taxes aren't about achieving perfect equality. But it's in part to incentivize people to not hoard wealth and spend it in the company. Few of the busnesses in the 50's/60's paid close to the tax brackets they had back then (Which would give modern billionaires a heart attack, despite that being "the times to return to).

[kadabra9]

Except is not 14 trillion (in the US) It is closer to 8 trillion.

Even if it WAS 14 trillion, the fact that such an insane measure wouldn’t even fully fund the entire government for two years shows you can’t just confiscate your way out of things. It is spending.

[shimman]

I do agree it is a spending issue, for far too long corporate welfare has flourished in America. None of these rich people would exist with out the federal teat they suckle from, truly pathetic. Remove their bloat, take their money, and fund programs that will enable REAL economic value like medicare for all, universal childcare, free school lunches, public jobs programs, and universal education.

[kadabra9]

And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land in 8 months after the government runs out of money and we’ve already stolen all the billionaires assets?

Should we move on to anyone with a net worth over $1M and start stealing their assets too?

[johnnyanmac]

>but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness

why? The federal government is taking around 22% from me this year and I'm in a low bracket. If I had the money from my last full time job in tech it'd be 24%. You're saying billionaires shouldn't pay the state they reside in 5% more?

Tanentially, that's only one bracket despite it being triple the salary. gotta love that part time minimum wage work in CA still pushes me that close to my financial peaks.

[kadabra9]

The government is taking 22% of your INCOME. Not your entire net worth. This is vastly different.

HNW don’t have their net worth sitting in a pool of cash like Donald Duck as much as Reddit would like to believe. Its property, company stock, any unrealized gains in different equities, etc.

to have to go through the administrative burden of valuing all that, and then attempting to liquidate at some reasonable market value just to pay one time levy (allegedly lol) is insane, and will rightfully be challenged in court

[bdangubic]

> property, company stock, any unrealized gains in different equities, etc.

it is only “unrealized” when they have to pay taxes. but walk into a bank and ask for a loan (which is of course what they do) and all of a sudden that shit is all “realized” and here’s millions of dollars to ya…

[kadabra9]

That’s a separate discussion.

I think there should be some sort of tax penalty to borrowing against assets as a sort of infinite money glitch.

[bdangubic]

it is not separate, it is exactly the same discussion. if you currently can use “unrealized” shit to borrow against than it is perfectly fair for you to pay the taxes on that shit. it is absolutely not a “separate discussion”

[kadabra9]

I support some sort of disincentive to prevent HNW individuals from borrowing against assets for income.

I do not support wealth taxes or taxing unrealized gains (unless you get rebates for unrealized losses lol)

There SHOULD be some mechanism (idk what) to close the loophole of HNW individuals borrowing against an asset you have not sold to minimize actual income, but that doesn't mean its right, effective, or even legal to just mass tax all unrealized gains, just because this specific loophole exists currently.

So yeah, it is a separate discussion.

[johnnyanmac]

>to have to go through the administrative burden of valuing all that, and then attempting to liquidate at some reasonable market value just to pay one time levy (allegedly lol) is insane, and will rightfully be challenged in court

Cool, let's do it. We know the IRS, especially when auditing the rich tend to be one of the highest value employees of government they will sue no matter how cut and clear the tax code is anyway.

Its really weird we're on HN and we're using an excuse of "but it's hard, so let's not do it". I didn't choose tech because it was easy. Why should the government we fund be just as defeatist?

[kadabra9]

Of course its easy for you to say - its simple to just point the finger and claim you're entitled to your "fair share" of someone else's property simply because they have more than you. And my main point isn't even that "its hard" (which it is), its that governments cannot simply just tax and confiscate their way to a utopia.

Fortunately for sanity and common sense, this proposal, if it even passes, will surely be challenged on Federal and State constitutional grounds.

[johnnyanmac]

>its simple to just point the finger and claim you're entitled to your "fair share" of someone else's property simply because they have more than you.

Yes. Because they did not take their fair share. I'm all for proper audits (not whatever Elon Musk pretended was "fraud waste and abuse" last year).

If nothing truly comes out of it, cool. Maybe we need more laws for that. And apparently wealth taxes are popular.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/11/new-poll-shows...

>if it even passes, will surely be challenged on Federal and State constitutional grounds.

Will it be sanity if they lose and the tax is upheld?

I already said that they will file lawsuits no matter how they legislate, so nothing in my comment was actually addressed.

Insteas you're just trying to make me emphathize with a billionaire for some reason. Meanwhile, I'm almost 3 years out of my last W-2 job that I was laid off of because of these billionaires. My sympathy is gone. Tax the rich.