Brazil, Germany, Spain and South Africa sign motion for fairer tax system to deliver £250bn a year extra to fight poverty and climate crisis

The world’s 3,000 billionaires should pay a minimum 2% tax on their fast-growing wealth to raise £250bn a year for the global fight against poverty, inequality and global heating, ministers from four leading economies have suggested.

In a sign of growing international support for a levy on the super-rich, Brazil, Germany, South Africa and Spain say a 2% tax would reduce inequality and raise much-needed public funds after the economic shocks of the pandemic, the climate crisis and military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

They are calling for more countries to join their campaign, saying the annual sum raised would be enough to cover the estimated cost of damage caused by all of last year’s extreme weather events.

“It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods,” the ministers say in a Guardian comment piece.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Alternative proposal. Billionaires should pay an annual 75% tax on any income and any wealth in excess of 1 billion.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        100% on all wealth above, say, a quarter of a billion dollars and all income that would bring you above that threshold.

        • Glide@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nah dude. If they hit a billion dollars, you take all their wealth, reset them back to level one, put a star next to their name and tell them to do it again. They’ll appreciate the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes with a second run.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      All registered securities (stocks, bonds,etc.) should be taxed at 75% per year. Natural persons are exempted from the tax on their first $16.7 million, with a progressive schedule up to the full tax rate at $1 billion in value.

      Securities are not sold to pay the tax. A percentage of each security held by the ultra-wealthy taxpayer is transferred to the IRS. IRS liquidators sell off the shares in small lots over time, so that liquidated shares comprise no more than 1% of total traded volume.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That isn’t how it works though. Nobody is collecting billions in wages. They receive stock which isn’t counted as taxable income until sold.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          But 75 percent wealth tax can’t work, because that would require more liquidity to happen than exists. The attempt would utterly destroy most retirement funds in the process. Wealth tax sure, but need to be realistic about the scale of “money” actually possibly in play.

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’d probably deflate a bunch of overvalued stocks in the process of liquidation which would be healthy for the economy overall but, you’re correct, it would cause short term shocks to retirement and other managed funds.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              No, long term there would be no economy. Wealth cannot be taxed. Humans tried that since ancient Roman times, never worked.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Can we be specific and say “2% of their purported assets valuation must be paid in liquid cash annually” so they can stop loopholing taxes to oblivion?

    Oh look, all of the sudden corporate entities are paying taxes instead of saying “oops yeah we broke even before bonuses.”

  • SteefLem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    2% what the…. My income above 50k is taxed 48% i think. Wtf 2%

    Edit: yes i know the difference, but still…

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wealth tax is different from income tax. Once you’ve received your income it becomes wealth, and it is not taxed unless you use it. Wealth tax would mean that your money in the bank is taxed periodically.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s your income not your net worth, 2% of your net worth would be taking the value of all your cash + stocks/investments/businesses + assets like cars/homes/land/collectibles/jewelry/etc and taxing 2% of that value.

      Your income shouldn’t be your net worth unless you’re honestly spending every dime of every check

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      ah, but imagine if you have 128Billion dollars, more than the GDP of many countries

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s weird to think I can be given stocks and have to pay real taxes for the value of those taxes. But somebody who starts a business and owns a large number of shares never has to pay taxes on those shares even though they got them when they were worth $0 and now are worth possibly billions.

    Often times those shares can be used as leverage for a loan providing the shareholder with the quality of life of a billionaire without ever paying the taxes on earning the billions.

    This feature of taxes ONLY benefits the super wealthy and everybody else just has to pay taxes for every dollar of wealth earned.

  • Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    If taxation were done properly there would be no billionaires. They are a symptom of a broken tax system.

    • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      So, I’m assuming you are in support of a 2% wealth tax?

      Sorry if I sound paranoid, just checking. Tone is hard to convey in text.

  • d00phy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I would add that if you are securing loans above a certain total amount or used for certain purchase types to make a purchase, that purchase is subject to a sales tax that must come out of the purchaser’s pocket. The trouble with wealth taxes is that most of the “wealth” isn’t liquid, but it is often used, for example, as collateral to purchase Twitter. In this instance, the wealth used should be treated as liquid taxable assets. I think those taxes should come either from the purchaser divesting from some amount of assets or a straight cash, not from another loan, payment.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Doesn’t matter if their wealth is illiquid, they can still pay a cash tax on it. Us mere mortals, whose major wealth is a house, pay a wealth tax on it every year. (in fact, considering that most homeowners still have a mortgage, they’re paying wealth tax on more than their actual equity) Most billionaire wealth is stocks, bonds, and real estate which are easily valued

      What you’re describing, paying taxes when a purchaser divests assets, is exactly what we do now: a capital gains tax

  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    So I understand the ultra-rich’s way of doing business now is to never realize gains but rather take loans against a percentage of their unrealized gains (backed of course, by the unrealized gains themselves) and spend that money rather than ever make any income. Does anybody know of any good ideas to handle that type of scenario?

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      sure, force them to realize gains by taxing unrealized gains that have gone unrealized for a certain amount of time

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Absolutely 100% this. We need a global effort so they can’t just move to some tax shelter.
    2% is also cheap IMO, nobody needs to have that much money.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If the developed world set this up, even if they moved money to a tax heaven, they’d have nothing to spend it on.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    On top of a wealth tax, there should be a fraction of a percent financial transaction tax. It would have no effect on the average consumer, but a lot of effect on the investor class.

  • dan42O@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    As a person from a diff cultural background, people and relatives who have more money always help and pave the way for a smoother future for the folks who don’t. As example, my maternal family had distant family member help out in the house. And know we have strong relationships and continued support both emotionally and financially and gateway to other aspects for a smoother life.

  • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Each respective country should just appropriate the billionaires assets as no single person should have a net value higher than any single country

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    In a sign of growing international support for a levy on the super-rich, Brazil, Germany, South Africa and Spain say a 2% tax would reduce inequality and raise much-needed public funds after the economic shocks of the pandemic, the climate crisis and military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

    They are calling for more countries to join their campaign, saying the annual sum raised would be enough to cover the estimated cost of damage caused by all of last year’s extreme weather events.

    “It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods,” the ministers say in a Guardian comment piece.

    Research from Oxfam published this year found that the boom in asset prices during and after the Covid pandemic meant billionaires were $3.3tn – or 34% – wealthier at the end of 2023 than they were in 2020.

    It is crucial to ensure that our tax systems provide certainty, sufficient revenues, and treat all of our citizens fairly.”

    The levy would be designed to prevent billionaires who choose to live in Monaco or Jersey, for example, but make their money in larger economies such as the UK or France, from reducing their tax bills below a global agreed minimum.


    The original article contains 767 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!