The combined $16.1 trillion could run the US government for almost three years!
snypher · 9h ago
Am I right in thinking how much better my life could be for not having to pay taxes for 3 years?
jaian · 8h ago
What makes you think the government would give up on collecting taxes from you?
Precisely the problem with systems like the government is that their hunger never ends.
j-bos · 13h ago
3,028 known billionaires*
There's no legal or often practical requirement to publicly disclose the 9-figure status.
the_real_cher · 13h ago
If every billionaire gave away every cent of their wealth it would fund the federal government for 1 year.
do a web search!!
America has a massive overspending problem which is inflating the currency which is hurting the middle class more than than anything billionaires could do.
America is almost 40 trillion dollars in debt and spends almost 7 trillion a year and tax revenue is only 5 trillion per year.
(rough numbers)
Currency is devaluing at a rate of 'reported' 3% per year but everyone on the ground knows it's more than that.
This is not a party specific problem this is both Democrats and Republicans responsible for this.
So sure you could tax the rich more and they could give away their wealth but it's just a drop in the bucket compared to government spending.
kashunstva · 12h ago
> America has a massive overspending problem
What is the right amount of spending? And if the answer is “less than current tax/other revenue” then how should the budget cuts be allocated with goals and implementation plans that are sustained enough to produce real effect? You mention that government spending is not a party-specific issue; and this is certainly true. But I don’t see how forward progress can be made in a winner-take-all environment that shifts polarity every 4-8 years. And when the utilitarian value of compromise and shared long-term goals is treated as nil. And it definitely doesn’t seem to be improving…
In any case, possibly taxing the incomprehensibly wealthy in our midst wouldn’t produce a significant effect relative to other measures; but we do all sorts of things in civic life that are valueless in an economic sense, but serve something else. People stand at attention, remove their caps and lay their right hand on their precordium when the national anthem is played. It symbolizes respect for some (supposedly) shared ideals. Similarly, fairly taxing all citizens symbolizes something ethically important even if it results in just as much economic value as doffing your cap at a ballgame.
nickfromseattle · 3h ago
>What is the right amount of spending?
I am 'dumb money', but my understanding is the 'smart money' thinks the sustainable target deficit is 3% of GDP, and we're currently running at 6%. [0]
Compared to other countries as a % of GDP, US spending is very low for 300M people and very low when it comes to investing in the health and well-being of individuals and absurdly high when it comes to funding death, militarism, and invasive gestapo bureaucracies.
It would save money and misery to have a functional, single-payer healthcare system (not M4A because traditional Medicare isn't complete healthcare and Medicare Advantage is a joke).
the_real_cher · 7h ago
Cant agree with you more.
We dont privatize our water supply but we privatize health care.
Very strange.
trod1234 · 6h ago
If you look at the economics that are connected with a wealthy nation, and not fake wealth (debt), then you wouldn't have to ask the question because both Adam Smith, and Mises cover these things, and more specifically how the promoted approach fails (every time, given sufficient time).
the_real_cher · 11h ago
I cant answer your questions as I dont have the 7 trillion dollar federal balance sheets handy.
However I am pointing out that the government inflates our currency which disproportionally hurts the poor and middle class way worse than any billionaire.
zamadatix · 11h ago
> If every billionaire gave away every cent of their wealth it would fund the federal government for 1 year. do a web search!!
I think you and I see "less than 1,000 people have enough wealth to run the common good for a very rich country of 340,000,000 people for a full year" as having vastly different meaning in terms of what's reasonable. Why should the yearly common good spending of 340,000,000 people inherently be a lot less than the amount the top 1000 are worth?
the_real_cher · 7h ago
Focusing on billionaires and ignoring govt inflating the currency is like focusing on a paper cut when theres a gunshot wound.
LoganDark · 12h ago
The thing is the government doesn't need that money as much as the people do. The government can just manufacture as much money as it needs to do whatever it wants. So if you're a billionaire and you decide to give all your money to the government thinking that'll do any good, that's a huge skill issue. You could've done a lot more good with that money than to just throw it in the money hole Onion-style.
the_real_cher · 11h ago
The government manufacturing money inflates existing money which is essentially a tax on people who rely on currency more than assets which is the poor and middle class.
I completely agree with you about billionaires being able to do more good with their money than the government.
saulpw · 8h ago
Being able to? Perhaps. Actually doing more good with their money? I have yet to see it writ large. (10 out of thousands is a pathetic proportion to use as evidence for this.)
the_real_cher · 7h ago
I agree. I know every one loves to hate Elon on here and arguably for good reasons BUT hes one of the few rich people actually doing things to advance humanity and lord it over the peasants.
It feels like most of the other rich people just sit on their money.
trod1234 · 6h ago
Many of those billionaires became so through their government contacts/contracts.
The Fed has a massive problem, and that probleem snowballs down to us, and the reason we have a massive overspending problem is because the Fed has chosen winners and losers to create captive government.
Currency for the past 5 years has been devalued on average across all 5 years, about 25% in aggregate according to government numbers. If you revert to more accurate calculation numbers (ShadowStats), then its almost 40%.
Taxing the rich won't fix this, it comes down to a selection process that only selects for candidates that will make this problem worse through mathematical capture of first-passed-the-post voting. If you have two groups that each exceed 33% of the vote in aggregate, no other group can win.
burnt-resistor · 13h ago
Color me totally shocked. Not really.
The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) with $10B in assets isn't really a benign "community foundation", but a way for billionaires to promise wealth/asset giveaways later and get tax breaks now.[0]
Every billionaire is a policy failure and likely a deeply greedy, malevolent, and out-of-touch (and bordering on crazy) individual with far too much power and influence over other people and the fate of the species and planet Earth.
Fade_Dance · 7h ago
According to the audit you linked, the foundation had 1.5b in revenue and made 1.3b in contributions, with management under 1%.
This looks like a well run, standard charitable organization. Of course charitable giving has tax breaks. As a society we decided to align our taxation system to incentivize charitable giving.
Tax breaks are not given for a promise, they are given for a hard transfer of assets to a charity. If one makes 100 million and gives away 100 million to charity, they net out to a zero tax bill. That doesn't magically enrich the donor by way of some conspiracy which you seem to be insinuating - the donor is still out 100 million plus the opportunity cost of the compounding (say, 5-10 million per year, growing over time via compounding), which the tax breaks don't come close to competing with on a net financial basis.
I don't disagree with your view on wealth accumulation in the least, but the vilification of charities giving, literally over a billion to charity over a year in this case, and then hand-waving "the tax breaks make them net beneficial financially for the donors and just another evil for society" I have never understood.
aaron695 · 13h ago
If rather than celebrating those who did it's berating, fuck them all, the NPCs are not worth giving to.
They seriously didn't list the 9 that did?
The billionaires should pull out of the Giving Pledge, they are the better people both in morals and choosing what to do.
https://ips-dc.org/report-giving-pledge-at-15/
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
Precisely the problem with systems like the government is that their hunger never ends.
do a web search!!
America has a massive overspending problem which is inflating the currency which is hurting the middle class more than than anything billionaires could do.
America is almost 40 trillion dollars in debt and spends almost 7 trillion a year and tax revenue is only 5 trillion per year.
(rough numbers)
Currency is devaluing at a rate of 'reported' 3% per year but everyone on the ground knows it's more than that.
This is not a party specific problem this is both Democrats and Republicans responsible for this.
So sure you could tax the rich more and they could give away their wealth but it's just a drop in the bucket compared to government spending.
What is the right amount of spending? And if the answer is “less than current tax/other revenue” then how should the budget cuts be allocated with goals and implementation plans that are sustained enough to produce real effect? You mention that government spending is not a party-specific issue; and this is certainly true. But I don’t see how forward progress can be made in a winner-take-all environment that shifts polarity every 4-8 years. And when the utilitarian value of compromise and shared long-term goals is treated as nil. And it definitely doesn’t seem to be improving…
In any case, possibly taxing the incomprehensibly wealthy in our midst wouldn’t produce a significant effect relative to other measures; but we do all sorts of things in civic life that are valueless in an economic sense, but serve something else. People stand at attention, remove their caps and lay their right hand on their precordium when the national anthem is played. It symbolizes respect for some (supposedly) shared ideals. Similarly, fairly taxing all citizens symbolizes something ethically important even if it results in just as much economic value as doffing your cap at a ballgame.
I am 'dumb money', but my understanding is the 'smart money' thinks the sustainable target deficit is 3% of GDP, and we're currently running at 6%. [0]
[0] https://time.com/7221862/ray-dalio-cut-the-budget-deficit/
It would save money and misery to have a functional, single-payer healthcare system (not M4A because traditional Medicare isn't complete healthcare and Medicare Advantage is a joke).
We dont privatize our water supply but we privatize health care.
Very strange.
However I am pointing out that the government inflates our currency which disproportionally hurts the poor and middle class way worse than any billionaire.
I think you and I see "less than 1,000 people have enough wealth to run the common good for a very rich country of 340,000,000 people for a full year" as having vastly different meaning in terms of what's reasonable. Why should the yearly common good spending of 340,000,000 people inherently be a lot less than the amount the top 1000 are worth?
I completely agree with you about billionaires being able to do more good with their money than the government.
It feels like most of the other rich people just sit on their money.
The Fed has a massive problem, and that probleem snowballs down to us, and the reason we have a massive overspending problem is because the Fed has chosen winners and losers to create captive government.
Currency for the past 5 years has been devalued on average across all 5 years, about 25% in aggregate according to government numbers. If you revert to more accurate calculation numbers (ShadowStats), then its almost 40%.
Taxing the rich won't fix this, it comes down to a selection process that only selects for candidates that will make this problem worse through mathematical capture of first-passed-the-post voting. If you have two groups that each exceed 33% of the vote in aggregate, no other group can win.
The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) with $10B in assets isn't really a benign "community foundation", but a way for billionaires to promise wealth/asset giveaways later and get tax breaks now.[0]
0. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/205...
Every billionaire is a policy failure and likely a deeply greedy, malevolent, and out-of-touch (and bordering on crazy) individual with far too much power and influence over other people and the fate of the species and planet Earth.
This looks like a well run, standard charitable organization. Of course charitable giving has tax breaks. As a society we decided to align our taxation system to incentivize charitable giving.
Tax breaks are not given for a promise, they are given for a hard transfer of assets to a charity. If one makes 100 million and gives away 100 million to charity, they net out to a zero tax bill. That doesn't magically enrich the donor by way of some conspiracy which you seem to be insinuating - the donor is still out 100 million plus the opportunity cost of the compounding (say, 5-10 million per year, growing over time via compounding), which the tax breaks don't come close to competing with on a net financial basis.
I don't disagree with your view on wealth accumulation in the least, but the vilification of charities giving, literally over a billion to charity over a year in this case, and then hand-waving "the tax breaks make them net beneficial financially for the donors and just another evil for society" I have never understood.
They seriously didn't list the 9 that did?
The billionaires should pull out of the Giving Pledge, they are the better people both in morals and choosing what to do.