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.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      A two percent wealth tax is actually a better idea than a lot of people here seem to think.

      If you have $100B, you’d have to pay $2B every year that you hold that much wealth, and you’ll have to pay it in cash.

      This would produce a lot of annual recurring tax revenue, and it would incentivize billionaires to hoard less paper capital if they don’t want to constantly be forking over billions in taxes.

      The tax is beneficial, and so is the way around the tax.

      Though we also need to tax their income more too.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, if you did go and try to tax 75 to 90 % like so many say, that means trillions and trillions of liquid money would have to exist from nothing to cover the collective tax burden, which didn’t exist, thus all the stock value collapses, taking retirement funds with them.

        Have to be measures that recognize the partially fictional facet of some of these net worths while not letting them off the hook at the same time.

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

        They’ll have to sell of their stocks to get that 2% to cash, which has the added benefit of lowering the stock’s value. Next year, we’ll bump it to 3% to make up the difference. Rinse, repeat.

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

          2% of Wealth (not income) annually. I’m no expert but if that includes unrealized gains then that is SIGNIFICANT.