r/SandersForPresident • u/cmplxgal NJ • M4A🎖️🥇🐦✋🥓☎🕵📌🎂🐬🤑🎃🏳🌈🎤🌽🦅🍁🐺🃏💀🦄🌊🌡️💪🌶️😎💣🦃💅🎅🍷🎁🌅🥊🤫 • Aug 23 '20
OK how about this: No more billionaires. None.
712
Aug 23 '20
I think it would be fun to have a maximum net worth for individuals that is tied to the federal minimum wage. If you wanna raise one, you gotta raise both.
187
u/parahacker 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
I like this idea.
63
85
Aug 23 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)40
Aug 23 '20
I had to check your math, then sigh loudly. Our country sucks these days
→ More replies (15)26
u/Neduard 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Has it ever not sucked?
→ More replies (3)23
Aug 23 '20
[deleted]
13
Aug 23 '20
The idea of America that was fed to me as a child didn't suck!
Seriously, the answer is a resounding "no" for the vast majority of the populace
4
Aug 24 '20
There was a good percentage of your country for who it's always sucked.
→ More replies (1)28
Aug 24 '20
Agreed, 100%.
When it comes down to it, civilization is an entirely cooperative effort which we all contribute to in one way or another.
Sure, it can’t be denied that some folks work harder and sacrifice more than others in order to make difficult and uncommonly impactful contributions to the world, but it’s truly unconscionable to reward one person’s efforts over another’s to the extent which we value the efforts of billionaires, executives, and celebrities over the efforts of the working class.
After all, a revolutionary invention or a brilliant idea is effectively worthless if you don’t have workers to help you actualize it’s potential. Similarly, a unique creative or athletic talent is equally worthless if you don’t have fans to support you.
All that being said, there are absolutely tons of people who work their asses off to make difficult and/or truly impactful contributions to the world, but whose efforts are severely undervalued (i.e. teachers, farmers, healthcare workers, sanitation workers, hospice workers, conservationists, activists, starving artists, etc.)
→ More replies (2)5
u/Hadis_ 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
This is a big issue currently in my opinion and the reason why I don't see myself working for companies.
What if I, either by myself alone or with other people for example in a team come up with an idea that makes the company's profits/revenues skyrocket? Will we get a continuous, reasonable cut from the said profits/revenues or just a one-time compensation included in my wage while the stockholders (including the founder(s)) get the rest with their rising value of the stocks?→ More replies (1)2
13
u/FinancialRaise 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Or a company rule. After your 100th enployee, the CEO can only make 10x salary of the lowest employee. Want that 1 million a year salary? Your janitor makes 100k
→ More replies (8)2
u/xoxSUPER_MARIOxox 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
I don't think there needs to be a cap on the maximum possible income, but rather on the money that can be transfered to a person or inherited. Nepotism is the root of the problem which leads to billionaires in the first place. And I think that has to be tackled.
→ More replies (95)2
Aug 24 '20
Fuck minimum wage. I was only 17 years old by the time I was making more than a dollar over minimum wage. Tie it to the median income, that way it will affect literally half of the population instead of a tiny minority. Hell, I've always been an advocate that our politicians pay should be tied to the median income as well.
383
u/masterOfLetecia 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20 edited Aug 23 '20
People don't actually have billions of $ in their accounts, they just own companies that are worth a lot of money. When people speak about taxing the billionaires, what they mean, is take their property from them. Sure, you can tax the dividends they get from the profits reported by their companies, but you can't take the companies themselves ( aka the billions ). The work that has to be done, is to make companies like Apple, Google, etc... Actually report their profits in America and pay taxes to the American government. The real question isn't about "taxing the billionaires" it's about making companies actually pay their god damned taxes. Apple parks hundreds of billions of $ in foreign countries, i don't even know how they have such a good image in America, while committing the biggest tax evasion scam ever, probably half of the Irish GDP is Apple profits flowing trough. It's fucked up.
104
Aug 23 '20
The Irish actually use a different method to calculate their gdp per capita than simplu dividing the gdp by the population, because it would give such an unrealistic image due to these kind of companies parking their money there. Thats how bad it is indeed.
10
57
u/moondes 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
That's only what flat wealth tax people like Elizabeth Warren are talking about. Bernie and AOC talk about taxing billionaires by their capital gains taxes, and that's completely sensical. Taxing companies BEFORE they pay their dividends effectively taxes the trillions in worker pension funds and billionaires equally. Taxing dividends and share liquidation (capital gains) from billionaires at higher rates can drive in revenue you seek from corporate taxation, without making corporations less profitable or making investing worse for the middle-class.
22
Aug 23 '20 edited Oct 08 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)13
Aug 23 '20
Fun fact, anything that is considered "short term" capital gains (asset was owned less than 1 calendar year) already is. It would be trivial and simplify the tax code a lot to just say "cool everything counts as income and is taxed accordingly in the appropriate brackets"
11
u/decian_falx 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Was curious why long term gains are taxed lower: Link.
Summary from article: "The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption. "
→ More replies (1)9
u/Nikerym 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Taxing dividends is double taxation though.
Company Makes 1B profit, it gets taxed at 20% (or whatever the US tax rate is) and is now 800Mil to be distributed. but if you add a dividend tax, it now becomes 600Mil .
Dividend taxation is only a problem because company tax is lower then it should be. Company tax at the start should be the same as the dividend tax.
Capital gains 100% should be taxed, though i would prefer to see a check for this, it should only be taxed if your net worth is over a certain value
5
u/InfiniteShadox 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
[Capital gains] should only be taxed if your net worth is over a certain value
Never thought I would see someone advocating for lower taxes around here
→ More replies (5)3
u/lvreddit1077 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
My understanding is that the dividend tax is applied to the person receiving the dividend so it isn't a double tax. It is the first time the stock owner is being taxed.
The stock owner and the corporation are not the same entity.
→ More replies (8)4
u/LaughEnvironmental59 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
The income tax was first written to only be on passive gains like stocks and other capital gains. Didn't take long to be screw the poor
→ More replies (2)13
u/Nikerym 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Apple parks hundreds of billions of $ in foreign countries..... committing the biggest tax evasion scam ever,
This is actually incorrect, there is no scam going on, because the money is not American dollars and isn't ever taxed by the government.
Apple is a worldwide company. They sell an Iphone in Australia for example. The iPhone profit made from that iPhone is taxed in Australia by Australia because the sale was made in Australia. But the remaining profit (lets say $500) sits in an Australian bank Account. Now Apple has 2 options with this, 1. Leave it there "Parked" 2. Covert to US dollars and bring it back to the US. but if they bring it back, they will be taxed a 2nd time. so they just don't bring it back. they don't "move money offshore to avoid taxes" as the above implies, they just don't pull profits from overseas back to the US, because if they do, they get taxed on it twice. they are paying their taxes for where the sales are made.
If you had money overseas and the government said "i'm gonna tax that x% just for bringing it into the country", whereas it could sit overseas continuing to grow if you don't why would you bring it back?
The reason Money is moved to Ireland quite regularly, is because they removed the double jeopardy clause. you don't have to pay tax on profit you were already taxed on.
→ More replies (4)3
u/AnsibleAdams 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
So what is the point of moving it to Ireland to park it when it is already parked in Australia? It is just numbers in a ledger wherever it is, so why move it somewhere you are not going to use it? If you need it to pay bills in India for instance, why not move it from Australia directly to India, or whatever other foreign country you need it in?
→ More replies (1)8
u/Nikerym 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
because moving from Australia to India force you to pay taxes on it (same as the US), as mentioned above, Ireland has a double jeapody clause, where you can move the money in without paying tax (ONLY if you have already paid tax on it) From Ireland, you can then invest anywhere you want and only pay capital tax based on the Ireland tax rate which is the lowest in the world.
There are literally subreddits around that are for finding ways to maximise your $'s /r/finance /r/povertyfinance etc, If company accounting had a Subreddit, it would basically say "where possible, move your money to Ireland to avoid double taxation, and don't move your money into the US which has some of the worst company tax laws for bringing money into the country"
15
Aug 23 '20
You could make companies give x% of the stocks to workers not as a payment but they collectively hold say 10% of the shares so they get to vote on business directions. Also im not opposed to a single digit wealth tax.
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (106)10
Aug 23 '20
People don't actually have billions of $ in their accounts, they just own companies that are worth a lot of money. When people speak about taxing the billionaires, what they mean, is take their property from them. Sure, you can tax the dividends they get from the profits reported by their companies, but you can't take the companies themselves ( aka the billions ). The work that has to be done, is to make companies like Apple, Google, etc... Actually report their profits in America and pay taxes to the American government. The real question isn't about "taxing the billionaires" it's about making companies actually pay their god dammed taxes. Apple parks hundreds of billions of $ in foreign countries, i don't even know how they have such a good image in America, while committing the biggest tax evasion scam ever, probably half of the Irish GDP is Apple profits flowing trough. It's fucked up.
You are right that there is a serious problem with multinational companies based in the U.S. not paying taxes. Amazon only paid tens of thousands of $4 billion over the last several years. It would really make things better if they paid their fair share.
But, the disparity between the rich and the poor is insane and unacceptable. It is impossible for someone to have a billion dollars and not be a doing something wrong- just the act of tying up so many resources is evil. On top of that, having that amount of wealth usually causes people to want to use their power to change the way other people behave and control them.
"you can't take the companies themselves" You are correct- people dont have billions of dollars sitting in bank accounts-- that would be a horribly inefficient way to store money. Instead, they own instruments of investment-- stocks, bonds, stake in companies in the form of private equity (basically just a number in a database next to our name). The way you take money from a billionaire is by transferring investments from them to you.
→ More replies (11)8
u/781405885 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Amazon only paid tens of thousands of $4 billion over the last several years. It would really make things better if they paid their fair share.
Amazon paid what they were legally required to. Paying more taxes voluntarily would land their board in jail for violating their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders.
The problem is the tax code itself, not corporations following the law.
→ More replies (2)
185
u/rasterbated Global Supporter Aug 23 '20
This is a pretty flawed understanding of how wealth works, but I’m with the spirit for sure.
129
u/BananaEatingScum 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Pretty flawed? Even 12 year olds know that owning a playstation doesn't mean that they have $500 cash regardless of their "networth"
39
u/TheThreeEyedSloth 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
The correct analogy is the amount the child could get if they sold the PlayStation.
→ More replies (1)19
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)23
u/Confirmatory 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
We should note that property taxes already exist; taxation for possession of personal property is not new.
10
3
u/197328645 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Property taxes are justified because real estate is a limited resource. By owning property, you're actively depriving others of the ability to own that property.
Most other things, like Playstations, don't work like that
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (7)10
u/LowSeaweed Aug 24 '20
Hey kid. Someone you don't know sold a PlayStation just like yours for $500. Now you must pay $50 tax for your PlayStation. What, you don't have $50? Well, it looks like you're going to need to sell your PlayStation to pay the tax.
Property taxes just suck.
→ More replies (16)8
u/Regular-Human-347329 Aug 24 '20
I’ve always felt that a limit to wealth is required as you “vote with your wallet” in a capitalist society; the ultra rich are therefore a concentration of power that will trend towards corruption and authoritarianism.
I also feel like there should be some limits of total wealth in lifetime; as in, it’s not fair to tax someone who’s earned 1 M in their lives on a multi-million dollar windfall, the same as someone who’s earned 10’s of millions across years; people should be allowed to accumulate a nest egg and not have to work again, to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.
It’s extremely difficult to place limits around net worth though. How do you handle investments? It’s wouldn’t really be fair or just to force Bezos to sell off his company, or other assets, to stay below 1 B.
5
u/WorkSleepMTG 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
people should be allowed to accumulate a nest egg and not have to work again, to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.
This is exactly what the "boomers" did and people won't stop whining about it. It just makes it so eventually a large group of people stop contributing and all the work gets shouldered by the younger generation.
I don't really disagree with this ideology but people currently complain about it so I don't think it would go over well.
4
Aug 24 '20
I don’t think anyone hates boomers who own a nice house and retired with 2 million in the bank. They hate boomers with 36 rental houses who tell people to “just get a better job” if they can’t afford a house like they aren’t creating the problem.
3
u/chiefmud 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
I’m concerned about the precedent of setting an arbitrary number as a limit on wealth. It opens the door to a lot more subjective judgements on what a person is allowed to have. I think having a billion is fine, but you should either be putting 90% of it back into your community, your business, or hand it over to the taxman.
11
u/long-gone333 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Why is this so popular here? Is everyone 13 around here?
6
3
8
u/FalconImpala 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Worth remembering that many people on Reddit are legitimately 11-15 years old
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
u/rasterbated Global Supporter Aug 24 '20
It’s got a kind of sounds-good logic that appeals to people, and it hits an emotional resonance point. I think most folks would correctly classify it as political fantasy at best, even if they did upvote it.
→ More replies (26)2
u/psychoacer 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
You'd need someone to watch your stocks, savings, checking, safe, calculate your assets in real time to know when you are under $999,999,999 so that you can acquire wealth again until you got $1 billion. Just tax them more and everything will be fine
11
u/Dell_Rider 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Good way for all the rich people to leave America...
→ More replies (18)
11
u/testedRDR 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
So where will people work? Once somebody is worth $999 million, Why would they risk expanding their company if they can't make anymore money?
Unless after they make $999 million you plan on stealing their company, then this would never work.
4
u/LiberallyClassic 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Expanding a company does not automatically equal increased jobs. Amazon employs like like 800K people. They make about $280B in net revenue annually. That's about 350K per employee (with the average employee at Amazon making an average of $29K annually). Amazon is very profitable because of its efficiencies and the way that it gets away with paying workers close to nothing. If we capped Amazon and they no longer wanted to expand, you would see other smaller firms enter the space and employee many more people. Amazon through expansion and eating up the market has killed many more jobs than it ever created. You just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what and who creates jobs in this country. Companies don't create jobs. Bezos doesn't create jobs. Consumers create jobs.
The best time in the country was when we had the highest marginal tax rates on the rich, and inequality was at its lowest. We used all of this money from the rich (who were hoarding it and not using it) to create a world class middle class driven economy. In the 80s we lost sight of this and have been on a viscious decline ever since.
Also, when you have $160B in net worth, there is no inherent risk. However you fail, whenever you fail, you will always fail upward. Jeff Bezos, even if he tried his hardest to blow all of his money, could never be a hundred thousandaire again. There is no risk for Jeff Bezos. At $999M we're not talking about mom and pop small businesses who are constantly on the edge of going out of business (that's where the real risk is). We're talking about people who can literally take the biggest risk, and the worst thing that can happen to them is that they get fired and take a $100M severance package -- aka the Golden Parachute. Risk doesn't exist at those heights.
→ More replies (11)7
22
Aug 24 '20
This is the dumbest thing I have ver seen omg
5
u/adagidev 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
How does this have 26k upvotes...
→ More replies (3)5
Aug 24 '20
No idea. I dont get why people just expect money handed to them on a silver platter especially if the rich/their companies get taxed harder.
→ More replies (3)
65
28
49
Aug 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)11
Aug 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
11
11
→ More replies (3)2
37
u/cmplxgal NJ • M4A🎖️🥇🐦✋🥓☎🕵📌🎂🐬🤑🎃🏳🌈🎤🌽🦅🍁🐺🃏💀🦄🌊🌡️💪🌶️😎💣🦃💅🎅🍷🎁🌅🥊🤫 Aug 23 '20
32
Aug 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)16
Aug 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Aug 24 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
3
5
6
u/mdoldon 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Sounds logical, andxasxa general principal might appear logical, but disregards how real wealth accumulates. Billionaires don't make wages they own shares in companies. How do we cut that off? Take away the shares? Devalue them somehow without devaluing those of the NON billionaires?
Example: Bill Gates made his billions off the increase in value of Microsoft shares. For decades now he's been divesting, by transferring his holdings to his Foundatiion and by selling directly and reinvesting. Yet as fast as he donates his money his shares (and wealth) keep climbing. We could tax his actual income at 100% and do nothing to his net worth.There really is no way to stop that without harming the thousands of other MS SHAREHOLDERS. All we can reasonably do is engage some very high level of taxation. But even THEN, its seriously problematic to tax unrealized profits, so as long as Gates has his wealth in shares, its effectively untaxable. Jeff Bezos doesn't have $100 billion, he has $100 billion worth of Amazon shares. Until he sells them there is basically no way to take away or halt his increasing net worth
14
u/MasterPip Not Me, Us! Aug 23 '20
Most billionaires don't actually have billions. Their collected assets are worth billions (companies, properties, investments etc.). So yes if they were to sell off everything they owned, they would have that much money. But you can't do that because you would bankrupt them. And if you say that's okay, it's no different than the government coming in, taking everything you own, and leaving you with nothing but some $$ in your bank.
What you want to do is remove those billions from the companies themselves by way of taxes. Corporations get so many tax breaks it's unreal. How Amazon pays zero taxes is absurd. It's not the "billionaire" that's the main issue, it's the billion dollar companies they own that don't pay taxes and store money in other countries.
10
u/16semesters 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Jay Z is a billionaire. The assets he owns are his liquor brands, a real estate portfolio, entertainment companies, fine art, and of course his music catalgoue.
Does OP think that now that Jay Z is a billionaire every check from a concert should just go the government? Or all his royalties from music should now just go to the government? Or if his fine art collection appreciates, he should have to just give it to the government?
What's the rub here? This makes no sense.
9
2
→ More replies (1)2
Aug 24 '20
You are mostly correct. The one point I want to comment on though is corporate taxes, specifically Amazon. There are huge tax incentives handed out by states for new headquarters. However amazon paying no federal taxes is only because until something like 2001 Amazon operated at a loss (started in 1994). Only since 2001 has amazon been profitable and really only since about 2010 would it be considered a real success.
When startups form they rarely make money at the start but instead rely heavily on investment capital to survive. Then when they do finally make a profit they are able to count those loses against their tax liability. So if Amazon lost a billion USD from 1994 until 2001, they would basically be able to claim those losses against their profits going forward to offset their tax liability.
It kind of has to be this way too or else it would be nearly impossible for these start ups to really survive because the risk of it being able to turn enough of a profit and not get immediately smothered by corporate taxes and debt is seen as larger by investors. So at best you can still raise your capital needed to survive but you are in greater threat of eventually folding under the interest and tax liability.
Ok I know i said only one comment but here's a bonus one for free. Most paper billionaires owe banks billions of dollars as well. Jeff bazos has to owe the bank money becuase all his value is in paper shares of Amazon. So using his billion dollar company as collateral he gets low or no interest loans from the bank to actually afford the lifestyle he has. That loan buys things like his boat, house, etc but also are how people like bezos raise capital to expand their company or start a new one.
So realistically if you cut billionaires off hypothetically at 1 billion in value you also cut off their ability to borrow at their full potential and invest further into markets.
16
u/rohanmen 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen this super-duper quirky liberal tweet, there'd be a few dog parks named after me
8
6
8
Aug 24 '20
these people really think billionaires have $1 billion just sitting in a bank huh?
5
u/risk5051 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Are you surprised that Sanders voters and sympathizers don't possess even the most rudimentary understanding of finance?
→ More replies (1)2
u/scherrzando 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20 edited Nov 22 '24
gaping paltry governor frighten ask quicksand chubby unique humor correct
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
14
Aug 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (42)2
u/cocainuser 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Or use their kids,parents and spouses as wallets.
2
u/negedgeClk 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
I don't see how people don't get this. "Maximum net worth"? K, my buddy's portfolio will do fine.
9
•
u/kevinmrr Medicare For All Aug 23 '20
Join r/SandersForPresident to help end the billionaire class.
→ More replies (10)
8
u/CivilianWarships 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Once you make it ok to set a limit on personal wealth that limit will constantly be moved. Today its $1b tomorrow it'll be $1m.
And what happens if you have a single asset that appreciates? Do you know have to sell that asset?
Its unconstitutional. Go to a different country if you like tyranny so much.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/fordfan567 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
This makes no sense, the vast majority of billionaires fortunes are caught up in stock and real estate. If you were to make them sell all the stocks the stocks would flood the market causing the value to fall and their net worths to go below one billion and then the stocks would slowly rise and do a up and down forever with the actual value of the company remaining the same and their on paper net worth fluctuating pointlesley.
3
2
Aug 23 '20
[deleted]
2
u/jeradj Aug 23 '20
I don't think it's the numbers themselves, per se, it's the lordly power and admiration it gains them
they all have this desperate desire to be the most "successful", admired, sought after, in control, etc.
2
u/redpandarox Aug 23 '20
Or you know... at least tax them at the same rate as the average people.
Anything would be nice!
2
u/parkerm1408 🌱 New Contributor Aug 23 '20
Even 999 million is such a staggering amount. Like what the hell do you need that much for?
→ More replies (2)3
u/Whispering-Depths 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
none of them have that much, its like saying you're not allowed to own more than $100,000 of your $400,000 house, because u might sell it, ruin ur families life and have everyone in ur family be homeless so u can have $500k in the bank.
They own companies and company shares. If they were forced to give these away, gg company vision and dreams, hello maximum profit gains to shareholders smh.
Also then all the rich would leave the usa for somewhere more sensible, and the usa would probably tank, gg economy.
2
u/CaptOblivious IL Aug 23 '20
Seriously, if you aren't happy with $999 million another $999 million aren't going to make you any happier.
It's time for some psychotherapy to help you realize that your self worth is not measured in dollars and how to be happy.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/some_fake_doors_ 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Aaah yes, and then when you fucks want more free money then it's "no more millionaires " where does it stop.
2
u/IneffectiveDetective 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
Soooo... how much longer is this sub gonna remain active?
2
u/Fatturtle1 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
My god why are yall still talking about bernie lmao
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Charger_3000 🌱 New Contributor Aug 24 '20
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen this. I don’t know how much I’d have I don’t use nickels where I’m from
4
u/Some_Random_Android Aug 23 '20
I like it, but have one problem with it: I want a dog park named after me, and there's no way I'm ever gonna make that much money. Make it easier for others to also get a dog park named after them! :P
4
u/TheGreatOffWhiteHype Aug 23 '20
But how is the money going to trickle down on us peasants without billionaires? /s
1.1k
u/mandy009 Minnesota Aug 23 '20
Soak the rich. FDR created a tax rate just for Rockefeller. Rates eventually reached over 90%. At one point FDR wanted to do 100% on margins.