• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be a little more clear than this headline would suggest, it’s not a 4% tax on millionaires. It is a 4% tax on people making over $1M per year. That’s a pretty far cry from someone who simply owns a house, retirement fund, or a stock portfolio worth over $1M. And it’s going to education and infrastructure. I would fully support this tax if I lived in the state.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. I feel like calling it a millionaire tax is some right wing nonsense.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t strictly call it right wing nonsense. However, I’d definitely call it classist nonsense. Bezos owns stake in Business Insider, and is owned by Insider Inc. The CEO of Insider is Henry Blodget, who has a net worth of at least $50m and received over $300m in the sale of Insider to Axel Springer SE. The CEO of Axel Springer SE is Mathias Döpfner, with a net worth of $1.2B. The founder of Axel Springer SE is Axel Springer, who was compared to Rupert Murdoch when he was alive.

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

      Imagine if they expanded the tax to everyone making over median income!

      A man can dream.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that a 4% hit would be a lot for people making significantly less money.

        The utility of each dollar drops the more you have. $1000 would be a massive amount of money to someone making minimum wage. $10000 in a single check might seem like a life changing amount of money for some people. At higher levels of wealth and income, those values would be far less significant. If you were to raise or reduce the salary of a typical Bay Area software developer by $1000, for instance, they probably wouldn’t even notice. And they’re not making $1M per year, either.

        The reason we have things like a progressive income is that we can tax someone making $1M per year an extra $40k - as much or more than many individuals make - and it’s not going to seriously affect their spending or saving habits. If we tax someone making $50k an extra $2k, they would feel it.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Note that we already pay 5% tax on income. This is effectively a second bracket for higher income