Abigail Disney, Brian Cox and Valerie Rockefeller among signatories of open letter condemning inequality

More than 250 billionaires and millionaires are demanding that the political elite meeting for the World Economic Forum in Davos introduce wealth taxes to help pay for better public services around the world.

“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society,” the wealthy people said in an open letter to world leaders. “This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”

The rich signatories from 17 countries include Disney heir Abigail Disney; Brian Cox who played fictional billionaire Logan Roy in Succession; actor and screenwriter Simon Pegg; and Valerie Rockefeller , an heir to the US dynasty.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Republicans idolize the 1950s. They conveniently forget about the part where the top tax bracket was taxed at 90%.

    And now they claim if we have a wealth tax, they’ll just move. Massachusetts passed a wealth tax recently. Astoundingly, all the wealthy people didn’t move. Turns out they’re fine paying a premium to have a house in Martha’s Vineyard and a condo in Boston because, and I know this is a shock to Republicans, they can afford to pay a premium to live somewhere desirable.

    • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Massachusetts passed a wealth tax recently.

      Not to be pedantic, but it’s an income tax.

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

              Just because some people call it a wealth tax does not mean we should perpetuate the micsonception

              It’s an income tax on high earners, and objectively not a wealth tax no matter how many people call it that

              • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Agreed. Having lived through the ad campaigns and voted for this tax myself, I can confirm that I, at least, never heard anyone call it a wealth tax. A millionaire’s tax, sure, but that’s just a catchy shorthand. If you do the google search Mr. Flying Squid suggested, you’ll find a lot of sources calling it a millionaire’s tax, and maybe a couple calling it a wealth tax. The ones calling it a wealth tax are just plain wrong.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        There is no legal definition or concept for a “wealth tax”. You usually tax income or you tax property.

        And while taxing property is the more obvious one, both can be a wealth tax depending on who is paying majorily by its design (for example a progressive income tax where low incomes barely pay anything reaching 90%+ over a certain limit -see 1950- is definitely a wealth tax).

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think they idolize 1950s mainly for sociopolitical reasons. The 1800s are more like the government-minimalist ideal.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah and if you look at tax rates since then you can see lowering them generally makes things worse and the few times they were raised even a little was followed by better times. Thing is we are so far in a tax deficit that it will take having high rates for awhile to get back to a decent level. EDITED per comment as the first one was supposed to be lowering.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s not enough to just say it.

    Because other billionaires give millions to ensure it doesn’t happen. And I think it would be naive to not expect some overlap in these groups.

    If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Exactly, this is just a game of “our billionaires are better than your billionaires” and considering their billionaires are paying them off, that’s not surprising.

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

      If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.

      How do you know they don’t?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Stuff like this…

        https://www.newsweek.com/disney-gave-least-250k-senators-that-voted-dont-say-gay-bill-1686128

        Rather than ask me for a source of all of them not donating…

        Wouldn’t it be easier to find a single one about them doing it?

        You’re asking me to do something incredibly time consuming, and frankly close to impossible with just public knowledge, but to prove your side, you just need to find a single source to prove me wrong

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

            I can’t see where she’s donating to progressive candidates…

            I know she says stuff, and donates to charity.

            I said:

            If they mean it, they should literally put their money where their mouths are and donate to progressive Dems during primaries and the general.

            And I haven’t seen any evidence any of them do. Maybe some gave a couple thousand, but that won’t beat what billionaires spend on PACs.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You made a claim, implicitly, that they aren’t doing so. You were asked how you knew this claim was true. Your response should have just been that you don’t know whether it’s true, only that it’s what you think they should do, instead of trying to blame the other poster.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Oh cool, another person who can’t link a source for any of these “super rich” donating substantial money to progressives in primaries.

                There’s a lot of y’all, you don’t have to keep telling me you couldn’t find anything

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 months ago

    I want to believe them… but it takes more than just words. I feel like if they REALLY wanted this, it would have been done by now.

    • noneya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      It looks like they really want this; however, even they understand that people will circumvent the laws and move money to more “favorable” countries, if the world doesn’t take a coordinated approach.

      The politicians have been setting up the game to appease the rich for generations. It won’t be undone that easily.

      • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        And when action happens, I will be behind 100%. Need to read the article, is there even a plan? Other than “hey politicians, do this”?

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        its really not that hard. Even one country can start it. If a company does business in a country it must pay the corporate rate but it can deduct any corporate tax it pays in other countries. So if it pays the same or more already it pays no additional but if it pays little it has to pay the difference. So they can move the money whereever they want but the only way to avoid it is to not do business in the country and thus open it up for local opportunities.

  • FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 months ago

    Also billionaires: Let me put my money in offshore accounts and buy a ton of museums and art and shit and then let me get a tax write off against it.

    Nothing short of an avalanche of left leaning policies will actually get billionaires to pay more in tax. And that won’t happen, because billionaires have already heavily invested in conservative and ‘progressive’ politicians who won’t dare bite hand that feeds them.

    I hope I’m wrong, but I have a feeling I’m not.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      Abigail Disney absolutely does mean it. She gives away a ton of money and is highly critical of Disney. Sure, she could give it all away or she could use her money to influence politicians to actually help while also donating a ton.

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m still on the fence about her. It’s been proven charity from millionaires and billionaires is a drop in the ocean compared to what fair taxation of their wealth could do for better organized government programs with farther reach. Not to mention charitable donations can be used for tax write-offs.

        Part of me applauds her work but on the other hand I often wonder if there’s some kind of savior complex with these ppl.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        We should absolutely not be encouraging ANYONE to use the US’ legal corruption, regardless of what it’s for.

        Lobbying, ALL LOBBYING, should be banned. It is corruption. P E R I O D.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s no way of knowing how many actually mean it. I’ll sure some of them do and others don’t.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Some of them do mean it. They know that places with less wealth inequality are better places to live, even for the rich.

        The problem is that even if they were willing to donate their entire wealth to the government, they’re only one of hundreds of billionaires, so their personal sacrifice isn’t going to change much. They’d just be one of the non-rich in a place with huge wealth inequality. So, before they do that, they want assurances that everyone else will do it too.

        So, it comes down to whether politicians will do it. Many politicians won’t either because they’re rich themselves, or they’re “owned” by ultra-rich people who don’t want their hoards touched. But, even if the politicians were interested, it’s a tough issue because of offshore tax shelters and places like Monaco. When France tried to tax wealth, many of the wealthy just moved to Monaco, or to another place where their wealth was secure. And, as much as it sucks having the ultra-wealthy in the country not paying enough in taxes, it’s worse for them to take all their wealth and leave the country entirely.

        The only thing that would really work is for the rich countries of the world to band together and agree on a minimum wealth tax, and then to deny entry to anybody who fled to a tax-shelter country. But, that would never happen both because it’s too ambitious and too many politicians are owned by the rich. And, because it’s a prisoner’s dilemma situation where there’s a huge incentive to be the country that defects from the deal and welcomes all the billionaires.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Even if it were to happen, taxation is a game. And like ANY game, if you throw enough effort at it, it can be beaten. The 1% can afford to throw that effort at any tax rules you can devise. They are quite confident they can beat the game no matter what you do.

  • WashedOver@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Warren Buffet was one of the first I heard a few years ago say he’s not being taxed enough and they should be taxing companies like his more. I think this was related to him signing up to the Gates fund which will see most of his wealth donated to charity.

    There were others that were not happy with Buffet’s comments about taxing billionaires more. It’s nowhere near as high as Britain which spurred on the Taxman song by the Beatles. At that point 90 percent was going to the tax man then. Britain still had an enormous debt from WW2 and left over from WW1 they were still trying to pay off.

    For the US I did hear a argument being made for a return to corporate taxes levels pre Reagan as that was a time when corporations and industry in America contributed a lot to society. The tax rate was like 58 percent if I recall correctly from the interview and the companies paid their staff well and they invested into a great deal of research like Bell Labs as preferred ways to earn write offs to not give the taxes to the government.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      Back in the day, corporate taxes were like 25% of federal revenues. After Trump’s tax cuts, it’s down to 10%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1edSi

      High corporate tax rates encourages companies not to have profits - pay their revenues out as wages, research new technologies, build infrastructure. Do useful shit with their gains rather than just sit on big bags of cash.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      90% wasn’t going to the Taxman, only 90% of the top tax bracket. The effective rate was likely significantly lower.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Buffet avoided and skirted taxes (legally). Him saying he “should be taxed more” is just moral fronting. He could easily pay more taxes if he wants. He just has to stop using all the extremely expensive tax lawyers that move his money around dozens of companies in tax havens….

  • pensivepangolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is basically trying to save face. They may as well say “no really, all you plebs shouldn’t hate us! It’s not our fault we’re rich and don’t pay taces!” Because they can feel now how bad things are getting and how much worse they’re likely going to get as the decade unfurls

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They aren’t saying it because they really want to pay more taxes

      They’re saying a system should be put in place where the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes

      It’s a subtle but important distinction

    • Rednax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      You are asking them for their fish. This request seems to be an attempt to teach your politicians how to fish.

      I’d much rather see them use it to lobby in favour of taxes on the wealthy, than seeing a handful of them give part of their money away.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Okay my dudes, perhaps the joke of unending accumulation and exponential exploitation of natural resources until we don’t know where to park the unused private jets has gone a little too far, maybe?”

  • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can they not just surrender the money of their own volition? You could even cut out the middleman.

    • skulblaka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think there’s a mechanism in place for transfer of money to the government like that beyond, say, buying bonds or something, which the government is required to repay. They aren’t really set up to take large donations of that nature, taxes are already intended to handle that. And an individual isn’t going to be able to legally build a highway, or a school district of their own accord without governmental assistance.

      And I think it’s good that this is the case. It prevents America from devolving into a hundred nations led by individual warlords, we would very easily slip into something resembling Japan’s Sengoku period.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is a common statement type of thing. Especially for conservatives when responding to someone wealthy saying taxes should be raised. You see they are in relative competition with each other. If they give up their money they will lower their relative status but if money is removed equally across their level then the playing field is still level.

    • crazyCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I would presume these folks are already pretty charitable, it must be how they were known as potential signatories to join.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s a very nice open letter you signed. Now turn and face the wall.