According to a summary of the bill released by the Patriotic Millionaires—an advocacy group that helped craft the measure—the wealth tax would have four brackets:

  • 2% for all wealth between 1,000 and 10,000 times median household wealth;
  • 4% for all wealth between 10,000 and 100,000 times median household wealth;
  • 6% for all wealth between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times median household wealth; and
  • 8% for all wealth over 1,000,000 times median household wealth;

"In the unlikely event median household wealth fell below $50,000 from its current level of about $120,000, the thresholds would be fixed at $50 million, $500 million, $5 billion, and $50 billion respectively.”

The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax.

  • MisterCreamyShits
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    $100k aint that much and those people already have a heafty tax burden. Plus luxury taxes are easily avoided when yachts and planes are purchased in the Bahamas. What we need are 50% taxes on the money they borrow against their assets. Want to buy another mansion? Cool 50% tax on the money Goldman Sachs lends you against your Amazon stock. If I have to pay a tax to borrow against my 401k so should these assholes.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      $100k is 150% of median household income, and I’m talking about individual income. It is the boundary between 3rd and 4th quintiles of household income.

      People are not overtaxed. They are dramatically undertaxed. I say this as a person earning over $100k - it’s not some weird snub. It’s just correct

      https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/

      Rich people do pay taxes on money removed early from 401(k)s, which is why they don’t do that.

      I do strongly support raising taxes on money borrowed against assets over $150k or so

      • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Warren Buffett doesn’t pay income tax because he doesn’t earn income.

        The billionaires don’t have a billion in cash, they don’t earn a billion dollars a year. They hold assets worth that much.

        Taxing wealth is the only way to combat the wealth gap.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          First off you’ll need to define “combat the wealth gap.” Difference between high and low isn’t really a relevant thing.

      • MisterCreamyShits
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        $100k is a bad metric because somebody making $100k in the Bay Are or New York is basically in poverty. I make over $100k and I’m not well off at all. Not even close. And I’m not bad with money, have zero debt, save 15% in the 401k no kids and still things are tight.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah federal taxation doesn’t work based on “I should be able to put 15% into my 401(k) and live where I want.”

          $100k is not basically poverty in LA/NY or everyone making under $100k would be below poverty and that’s considerably more than half the population (median household income - that is, generally 2 working adults - of 68k in NYC, and NYC is more expensive than LA).