The Tax Justice Network said trillions could be raised with a ‘featherlight’ tax on the 0.5% of richest households, copying a current Spanish tax

Governments around the world copying Spain’s wealth tax on the super-rich could raise more than $2tn (£1.5tn), according to campaigners calling for the money to help finance the climate transition.

As a growing numbers of countries consider raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy, the Tax Justice Network campaign group said in a report that evidence from a “featherlight” tax on the 0.5% richest households in Spain could help raise trillions of dollars globally each year.

The Spanish government, under the socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, introduced a temporary “solidarity” wealth tax in late 2022, which is collected in 2023 and 2024, on the net wealth of individuals exceeding €3m (£2.6m). It is estimated to apply to the richest 0.5% of households.

  • AshMan85@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    the rich are ruining every country, every economy except for their own, and the environment. let’s make the rich extinct before they make all of us extinct.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      It would be a good start but then new rich would emerge to take their place. Maybe we should just put “re-enact French revolution” on a 100 year calendar reminder.

      • AshMan85@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, that is what regulations are for. Monopolies used to be regulated more after they caused the great depression. Been done before can be done again.

  • Vinny_93@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I also read they started doing this in some American state and it raised 1.8 billion dollars. If this idea appeals to you, try to find out if there are any petitions in your country that suggest something like this. If you’re from the Netherlands, the SP has a petition like this.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s HORRIBLE! We should INSTEAD be Taxing Homeless Mothers to raise that Money INSTEAD!

  • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    The rich are going to get to the “find out” stage one way or the other. Do I generally like a wealth tax? No. Do I think it’s needed now because Republicans fucked up our country with repeated tax cuts for the rich over 60 years that we would never otherwise recover from? Yes.

  • sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Because this is a tax on assets and not income it seems to me that there could be some unfair situations, for example you inherit a property that is not so easy to sell and are now taxed on it, or you have shares/stocks in your startup company and are now taxed on it even though you haven’t sold them (and quite possibly can’t sell them).

    I believe it would be better to tax income while closing some of the loopholes like allowing borrowing money against stocks and properties.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why, just tax based on value at a given date. In the Netherlands they tax bank value based on december 31st amounts over a specific value. And your house. They can also do that with portfolios of shares, bonds and other things people can use as collateral.

      If you can borrow against a portfolio of shares, we can tax it too.

      • samokosik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Make taxes too high and instead of people paying it, they will just move to another country where they don’t have to.

  • johny@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Here is an idea, how about the US uses its military to enforce a minimum wealth tax worldwide to end tax competition, instead of to enable its proxies to commit war crimes.

      • johny@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not in favor of gunboat diplomacy, but if the US is doing it anyway (to enable genocide) I would rather have them do something useful with it.

        And using a military to enforce policy does not equal conquering the world, it’s at the end of the escalation ladder, diplomatic pressure then sanctions, embargoes, support regime change, militarily blockades, limiting military operations, and finally full on invasion. These are all things the US is already doing but then for nefarious reasons.

    • Shialac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The US used its Military for the past 80 years to prevent anything like this from happening and to “protect” the assets of rich white people

  • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    55
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wealth taxes are rarely efficient and create all sorts of weird and counter productive effects. Better to properly tax income and capital gains.

      • baru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        The rich usually ensure that there are enough gigantic exceptions. And these exceptions often aren’t reported upon.

        And maybe he believes the trickle down economy bs.

        • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Trickle down is complete BS and the many ways to avoid wealth taxes are part of the problem with them. You need to properly tax income and capital gains and close as many of the loopholes around each as possible. Then add a proper estate tax as well to reduce inter generational wealth

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

            Also require greater transparency around money movement and proper auditing. Governments need to spend more on auditing.

      • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        Of the counter-productive effects? I have a bunch of shares in a private company that I was given for good performance and retention. At the latest share price from the latest funding round they’re worth more than enough to put me in the 0.5%. However, they’re not liquid - I can’t sell them unless the company floats or is bought. Under a simple wealth tax I’d have to pay many thousands of pounds of tax on them every year despite them having no realisable value. Just because something is an asset with a nominal value doesn’t mean it’s liquid or generating income. Obviously when (if) I sell the shares I’ll pay capital gains, or if they generate a dividend, income tax.

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m sure you’ll understand if the rest of us are skeptical of a guy worth $20M arguing against a wealth tax.

          I mean, you’re right that restricted shares are a special problem in assessing “wealth,” but that’s why tax laws are complicated and full of loopholes.

          • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m in favour of tax and rich folk paying more, but a naive imagining that a simple wealth tax is the answer just isn’t helpful. I’m against wealth taxes because they’re crap taxes - they’re easy to avoid, easy to get caught in by accident if you’re not employing an expensive accountant, and therefore a rubbish way of raising money

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the shares can be owned by you, they can be owned by someone who is not you. You don’t have to worry about liquidating them. We’ll go ahead and do that for you.

          If your “private” company wants to stay “private”, they won’t secure funding from the ultra wealthy, or they will be ready to buy back your tax-shares at auction.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That seems painfully simple to make an exception for: assets you are not legally allowed to sell, transfer, convert, use as collateral would be excluded.

          • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            And that creates a loophole that is trivially easy to exploit, which is the problem. I simply wrap up any asset I want to hold onto into a fund or trust that stops me doing the above…

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If the asset was ever legally liquid while in your possession, it qualifies for the tax.

              • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Something can be legally liquid, but not practically liquid. Like a house. For example the Board of the company could give me permission to sell, but why would they?

                • tburkhol@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You know that people pay taxes on the wealth embodied in their house, every year, right? Not even their equity in the house, but the full value - both the piece they own and the piece the bank still owns. Their primary residence is most of the wealth for most of the middle class, so we already have a wealth tax for everyone but the ultra-wealthy.

                • Nougat@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m sure you’re also aware of tax brackets? The same concept can be applied to wealth tax: legally liquid assets above a certain threshold would be taxable. Owner-occupied homes would be exempt.

                  This is a lot easier than you think.