I appreciate this is STB, but this is the single most ridiculous proposal I have ever read on AAM.
500 Richest gain additional $1.2trn in 2019
- Thread starter WolfeTone
- Start date
I appreciate this is STB, but this is the single most ridiculous proposal I have ever read on AAM.
Thats interesting, would you care to elaborate?
The 500 top figure is simply arbitrary, following from the article in the OP. But fundamental to the point is that there is a massive store of wealth that could be procured without any or minimal negative impact pertaining to productivity levels, price levels, social unrest, tax evasion, in my opinion.
I would be interested in hearing why you think such an acquired store of wealth taxed at 100% on the 500 wealthiest people would be, ridiculous.
elacsaplau
Registered User
- Messages
- 892
My dear WolfeTone,
I see that the normally measured Firefly has not held back his punches on this occasion!
You seem to favour living in a better world. Such cill e nigh eve a tay. This will probably go over your head (cf the normally measured Duke!!) but the way to achieve this is greater, not lesser, wealth inequality. As has been correctly pointed out, the wealth of the few has actually helped the plight of the many. It follows that it should be relatively simply to raise all boats if only my solution, to follow, gained greater traction. Rather than attempting to redistribute wealth to billions - simply facilitate even greater wealth accumulation into the chosen 500. The beauty of this approach is that ni h-e amhain should this approach be administratively very straight-forward but also it creates a virtuous spiral - the more the wealth is concentrated, the more all boats are raised and the happier we all shall be. So simply rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Ultimately, my solution envisages a scenario where all wealth is concentrated in the top 500. Alas, I'm not sure if I'll see this in my lifetime. There is simply not sufficient urgency afforded to the issue.
Dems da facts - but probably over your little head!
I see that the normally measured Firefly has not held back his punches on this occasion!
You seem to favour living in a better world. Such cill e nigh eve a tay. This will probably go over your head (cf the normally measured Duke!!) but the way to achieve this is greater, not lesser, wealth inequality. As has been correctly pointed out, the wealth of the few has actually helped the plight of the many. It follows that it should be relatively simply to raise all boats if only my solution, to follow, gained greater traction. Rather than attempting to redistribute wealth to billions - simply facilitate even greater wealth accumulation into the chosen 500. The beauty of this approach is that ni h-e amhain should this approach be administratively very straight-forward but also it creates a virtuous spiral - the more the wealth is concentrated, the more all boats are raised and the happier we all shall be. So simply rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Ultimately, my solution envisages a scenario where all wealth is concentrated in the top 500. Alas, I'm not sure if I'll see this in my lifetime. There is simply not sufficient urgency afforded to the issue.
Dems da facts - but probably over your little head!
Dear elacsaplau
I've been a fool, how could I have not seen what is directly in front of my eyes!
It is patently clear now, I owe it all to the 500 who have contributed at least a little, if not entirely to my well being.
Where would we all be if it were not for the 500?
I've been a fool, how could I have not seen what is directly in front of my eyes!
It is patently clear now, I owe it all to the 500 who have contributed at least a little, if not entirely to my well being.
Where would we all be if it were not for the 500?
elacsaplau
Registered User
- Messages
- 892
Sorry WolfeTone,
There's one thing that I didn't make absolutely clear. I used 500 as this was the number used throughout the thread and I didn't want to get overly technical and distract from my central message. However, just for completion, my research shows that 472 is actually the right number but I went with 500 as it's in the right ballpark and with much humility, I recognise that my models could be slightly off. [By the way, I have read peer reviewed and supposedly well researched papers which posit that right number is actually in the thousands - which I think we can all agree is a bit of a stretch if not outright silly.]
There's one thing that I didn't make absolutely clear. I used 500 as this was the number used throughout the thread and I didn't want to get overly technical and distract from my central message. However, just for completion, my research shows that 472 is actually the right number but I went with 500 as it's in the right ballpark and with much humility, I recognise that my models could be slightly off. [By the way, I have read peer reviewed and supposedly well researched papers which posit that right number is actually in the thousands - which I think we can all agree is a bit of a stretch if not outright silly.]
Yes we are just shooting the breeze, sometimes we get attached to our opinions I include myself in that. I think with regard to wealth distribution it must be at least targeted at workers and the workers that do the toughest jobs especially. Therefore if someone is to get more money they must still earn it so that it is still tied to producing goods especially goods that are in short supply. We have seen the issues that crop up when it is just general welfare payments especially in Ireland.
How would you assess & prove the growth in wealth in the inevitable court cases around the world?
Which country would get the spoils?
What do you think the 501st richest person would do?
Would someone very asset rich like Mark Zuckerberg have to sell shares every year as the company he runs is doing well?
I could go on, but the only "experiment" that comes close to this was tried before and failed as you correctly agree:
How?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,427
The withering sarcasm and backslapping "likes" whiffs a tad more like wind than breeze to me
Last edited:
elacsaplau
Registered User
- Messages
- 892
Well, you should know that all breezes are winds whereas not all winds are breezes. But, hey, as I said, let's not get too technical. Anyways, I enjoyed the irony of the "likes" piece - no need to reference I suspect.
@Firefly There is a lot to pack in there in those questions so forgive me if I cannot provide the intricate administrative and legal detail of how such an operation would work on the pages of AAM, save one way to prevent impending court cases is to make whatever system that is imposed, eh, legal.
We do it here all the time already, one year Im pay 40% the next year im paying 41% and USC too!
As for which country gets the spoils, lets be flexible here for the moment and apply a principle of whichever country the individual resides in etc.
I have no idea what 501st wealthiest person would do, save, as s/he is not in the 500 s/he will be entirely unaffected, as will the remaining 6,999,999,499 (give or take a couple of hundred mill) population.
I don't understand the point made about Zuckerberg. If I have €100m in assets and cash those assests in, I have €100m in cash.
Because I am only talking about 500 people. Who, after having the ignominy of having $1.2trn taxed, will have to endure coping with their remaining $4.8trn in wealth.
For the life of me, I cannot envisage the 500 out on the streets with placards protesting. Most likely they would pay others to do it for them.
Is that you?
We do it here all the time already, one year Im pay 40% the next year im paying 41% and USC too!
As for which country gets the spoils, lets be flexible here for the moment and apply a principle of whichever country the individual resides in etc.
I have no idea what 501st wealthiest person would do, save, as s/he is not in the 500 s/he will be entirely unaffected, as will the remaining 6,999,999,499 (give or take a couple of hundred mill) population.
I don't understand the point made about Zuckerberg. If I have €100m in assets and cash those assests in, I have €100m in cash.
Because I am only talking about 500 people. Who, after having the ignominy of having $1.2trn taxed, will have to endure coping with their remaining $4.8trn in wealth.
For the life of me, I cannot envisage the 500 out on the streets with placards protesting. Most likely they would pay others to do it for them.
Is that you?
Last edited:
How would you go about proving that the 500th richest person in the world, is actually the 500th richest person and not the 501st richest?
It would be beyond my limited capabilities for sure. But these people seem to have a grasp on how to do it
What a wonderful world
Cool. We can use Bloomberg to decide tax policy around the world. I am going to guess that Mr Bloomberg and his billions will never appear.
Why would we do that?
I think we should build a bridge from Galway to New York. Don't ask me how though.....
That's income tax not wealth tax
Ok, I wont.
But engineers and architects, might be able to assist in determining if its possible or not.
I was inferring using the legislature to avoid legal cases, by making such a tax legal - like how my income tax is legal.
Do you think its possible to implement a wealth tax?
On a global scale, very difficult. How about you?
It would be no mean feat for sure, but far more complex international treaties, affecting hundreds of millions of people, even billions of people, have been implemented. International aviation laws for example.
So a wealth tax, applicable to 500 identifiable individuals, should be a picnic by comparison.
But that aside, and assuming it could be achieved, what would be the problem with it?
Take a few minutes and scroll though the list below.
Looking at the photos, imagine trying to impose a wealth tax on them with their armies of lawyers, tax accountants and shell companies.
Unless you had the vast majority of countries around the world signing up to the same treaties ( look how difficult the EU is finding it to trying to get us to increase or corporation tax), you will have tax havens popping up all over the place, gladly willing to take the cash for secrecy.
Have a read of the trials and tribulations the Irish government went through chasing the Quinns and imagine that on a global scale.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/QUH4BXAAC3AAU5HTGGPZNPNNUM.jpg)
IBRC unravels web around Seán Quinn family’s assets in India
Property values fall and legal costs spiral as State investigates potential hiding of assets
Last edited: