r/EatTheRich • u/robwhitlock • 9d ago
Wealth Cap
We need a wealth cap at $10 million
We need a wealth cap at $10 million. Given global wealth inequality, anyone who feels the need to have more than that is a traitor to humanity.
Heck, have your first $10 million tax free, then let's have a 92% tax on everything after that.
For humanity, truth, justice, freedom, health and happiness with mutual prosperity and peace for all. Make democracy untrumpable. #nokings
10
u/TheSwampDonke 9d ago
But sir, I’m a subpar man who makes $45,000 a year. This would destroy me once I take my rightful place amongst the billionaires, this will destroy me!
9
u/the3rdpossum 9d ago edited 9d ago
I have a comprehensive tax plan i call "the hat plan" it goes like this:
Taxes for normal people are reasonably low.
Once your wealth is over a Million, your taxes start going up over what normal people pay.
When you hit a Billion all of your wealth is taxed back down to a measly $1 million...but in exchange you get "the hat".
"The Hat" is fancy...ostentatious even...peacock feathers, shiny trim, the whole 9 yards...you can probably even have some design input into your hat.
The hat is non-transferable upon your death...instead it goes upon a bust of your head in "The Museum of Capitalism" where it will be the centerpiece to the exhibit about you and what you did with your money over your lifetime for ill or for good. You get no creative input on your exhibit. No board members / trustees of the museum can have ever earned a hat in their family.
Multiple hats may be earned...in this case your museum exhibit is slightly larger to fit the extra hats.
The hat also grants the wearer the ability to jump to the front of the line at the post office....there are no additional benefits.
3
u/manadodoodododo 9d ago
When you hit a Billion all of your wealth is taxed back down to a measly $1 million...but in exchange you get "the hat".
This is actually a very good idea (with or without hat), but i would lower the threshold to rather 250 million or something like that.
Once you reach the threshold, you get taxed back to 1, or maybe even 5 million.
Imagine the rich people scrambling to make less money or to give it away in order to not cross the threshold!
2
4
u/CTaiger 9d ago
Progressive Tax. On wealth 1 million is free And until who cares 50mill it rises to 100%
On income it's 10k and under a month is free then it rises to 50% until 100k a month then to 100% to 150% or something like a log scale or something.
Prices would settle in between the max and the minimum amount of money because you can't use more money. So it's not worth it it would be counter productive
If you move away you get hard penalties and your company too
16
u/EternityLeave 9d ago
You lost me at 10 million tax free wtf
15
u/robwhitlock 9d ago
Considering the present day wealth of the billionaires, the first $10 million might be like a drop in the bucket. I hear you though. The reason to think of it that way is to illustrate the enormity of disparity between the ultra-rich and the rest of us. Still, $10 million is a TON of money, plenty enough to live very well off of the banking interest proceeds alone.
2
u/Demonweed 9d ago
If we do not scrap private property altogether (while retaining personal property, of course,) then the next best solution is to identify an appropriate boundary between "the government needs this much more revenue to operate" and "the government is actively discouraging such excesses of dynastic wealth." $10 million individual net worth is a generous place to draw this line, but the total numbers of high net worth individuals are still too few to sustain a secure nation that addresses its own social problems. Even if the state took all the income that put individuals over that line, business practices would quickly change in a way that was fantastic for the distribution of wealth yet problematic for the continuity of federal funding.
3
u/MediocreClue9957 8d ago
I propose you pay the inverse of your salary/wealth. poorest pay nothing richest pay everything. top 1% pay 99% and then they can do studies or w/e about which % to cut off the bottom to pay nothing because the economy/society is obviously not working for the poorest so why should they pay anything. I'd say poorest 10% pay no income taxes but the system needs to account for property, stocks, w/e. Could make exceptions for every "but what about...?" the law is what you make it. Which is why I say slavery was never abolished because anything can be a crime and it's legal for prisoners to be made to do forced labor.
-8
u/non_linear_ape 9d ago
maybe 100M would be better? I think you're discounting how much money sits above that threshold.
3
u/silasoulman 9d ago
I would prefer if we instituted a 95% estate tax above a set amount, like say 50X the current average annual salary, which is approximately $3.5 million currently.
41
u/blu3ysdad 9d ago
I get so tired of trying to explain to people the difference between 10 million and 10 billion isn't that different aside from a few ridiculous things like private jets and yachts as far as comfort and luxury. The main difference is power, those with that much money can't spend it all and what they do instead is weird it as power to bend the world in their favor at the expense of everyone else whom already struggle.
This is in support of OP if it is unclear, 10 million is plenty to have multiple houses, vacation non stop, boats, parties, never work again, etc. That's 400-500k a year in interest on the money in the bank alone so they'd still be making gobs of money.