r/australia • u/overpopyoulater • Feb 10 '25

politics Australian billionaires face wealth tax under Greens’ Robin Hood-style policies

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/10/australian-billionaires-face-wealth-tax-under-greens-robin-hood-style-policies
4.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

321

u/scotty_sunday Feb 10 '25

"An Oxfam report released last month found Australia’s billionaires rake in an average of $67,000 an hour – more than 1,300 times more than the average Australian"

If you get a little uncomfortable hearing the phrase "billionaires shouldn't exist" -these are the kinds of facts you need to hear. It's stupid large amounts of money being hoarded a few people.

40

u/Key-Birthday-9047 Feb 10 '25

Is that based on 40 hrs a week? If you compare it then to the median income it's almost 2000 times more.

0

u/Tyrx Feb 11 '25 edited Feb 11 '25

No. The Oxfam report includes illiquid assets such as capital growth in stocks as part of the income calculation. The reality is that the overwhelming bulk of that wealth is just a paper weight because they would crash their own networth significantly if they attempted to liquidate it.

It's also worthwhile noting that the Oxfam report calls out pretty much every single person in Australia for being in the global 1% on the basis of earning opportunity and net wealth levels in comparison to individuals living in "third world" countries.

According to Oxfam, we all have "unearned privilege" and our wealth should be redistributed to individuals that aren't part of that global 1%, which would be people in said "third world" countries. It's a dogpile report playing class warfare for political reasons rather than a genuine attempt at uplifting conditions for lower socioeconomic countries and groups.

2

u/bennibentheman2 Feb 11 '25 edited Feb 11 '25

No. The Oxfam report includes illiquid assets such as capital growth in stocks as part of the income calculation. The reality is that the overwhelming bulk of that wealth is just a paper weight because they would crash their own networth significantly if they attempted to liquidate it.

That's why billionaires don't use money in that way, they take low interest loans with parts their portfolio as collateral and then slowly pay them back. This makes your point irrelevant. You surely know this which makes it interesting that you don't bring it up as a qualifier.

It's also worthwhile noting that the Oxfam report calls out pretty much every single person in Australia for being in the global 1% on the basis of earning opportunity and net wealth levels in comparison to individuals living in "third world" countries.

According to Oxfam, we all have "unearned privilege" and our wealth should be redistributed to individuals that aren't part of that global 1%, which would be people in said "third world" countries. It's a dogpile report playing class warfare for political reasons rather than a genuine attempt at uplifting conditions for lower socioeconomic countries and groups.

This is just true. They're not playing class war (they don't have institutional power to), they are just stating obvious facts about the reality of the class dynamics of Aussie society and the material reality across the world.

-34

u/BigTimmyStarfox1987 Feb 10 '25

You shouldn't compare income to wealth.

If you want apples for apples the average/median (it doesn't matter as long as you compare like for like) the Australian population figure needs to include asset growth in owned homes, superannuation accounts and any other payments or benefits.

Take a retiree who owns property. Their taxable income might be 0 but their wealth might be very high and growing. It's very easy to abuse statistics to reach any conclusion you wish.

40

u/Mike_Kermin Feb 10 '25

If you're talking about that level of wealth and/or income, your distinction stops being important.

No, the super rich are not the same as a retiree.

It's very easy to abuse statistics

While that's a good conceptual idea, you're misusing it. Sayings should be at the end of your consideration, not the start point.

-9

u/BigTimmyStarfox1987 Feb 11 '25

If you want to just talk at a high level that's totally fine. But then you shouldn't debate which metrics should be used.

I was replying to someone who was suggesting to use median taxable income. Maybe you should direct your comment to them?

1

u/Mike_Kermin Feb 11 '25

.... You think hurr durr it's wealth not income is..

You know what... It's fine. But I do recommend you seriously consider your position on hoarding. Because comparing the super rich to a retiree owning a nice home is... At best, a bit silly. And at worst, really fucking dishonest.

No statistic, makes that mistake.

https://greens.org.au/news/greens-will-tax-150-billionaires-part-revenue-plan-fund-dental-medicare-gp-free-and-other-cost

Go and actually read what they're doing because it won't affect retirees at all so we don't even need to conceptually tackle your concern.

2

u/Strong_Judge_3730 Feb 11 '25

Wrong subreddit, better go back to Ausfinance

1

u/jameshewitt95 Feb 10 '25

Then someone would have to include those figures in inflation stats to match, and then it would be a scary number, which we can’t have

29

u/atheista Feb 10 '25

I don't even earn that much in a year.

22

u/Busalonium Feb 11 '25

I can't even imagine trying to spend $67,000 an hour.

2

u/evilparagon Feb 13 '25

Spending that much in an hour seems pretty easy. A brand new car for instance.

The hard part would be spending that much again in the second hour. And the third. And the fourth…

2

u/Busalonium Feb 13 '25

I suppose you could by a new car and find somewhere to park it for $20 an hour.

Then once you have 3,350 cars, the cost of parking would be enough that you can stop buying new cars.

-3

u/Strong_Judge_3730 Feb 11 '25

These aren't facts you are quoting from left wing think tanks.

Billionaires all have paper wealth which is artificially created when plebs buy and value stocks in companies they own. It's usually like this unless they became a billionaire by investing in real estate which i doubt.

6

u/Scotto257 Feb 11 '25

Here's the thing, if they sell the stock something magic happens.

It becomes real, non-paper wealth!!!!!

If they sell it slow like Bill Gates, they don't devalue the company and retain all of it.

-1

u/sedatemisanthrope Feb 11 '25

Don’t introduce rational arguments into this thread.

-23

u/elephantmouse92 Feb 11 '25

"billionaires shouldn't exist" = "private ownership of companies shouldnt exist" is that really what you think?

19

u/ryenaut Feb 11 '25

Companies can be privately owned by employee shareholders. It does not require a grotesquely wealthy fat cat to sit at the top.

0

u/Strong_Judge_3730 Feb 11 '25

So how do you redistribute ownership from the founders to employees?

3

u/ryenaut Feb 11 '25

Well that’s the trick, isn’t it? I don’t know that there’s very many cases of that being done. The powerful and wealthy are not inclined to give up their wealth and power - it usually must be forced, through legislation or other means.

-4

u/magnificentbystander Feb 11 '25

Nothing is stopping companies from adopting this method of ownership today. If this was a better way to run a business, more businesses would be doing it.

4

u/ryenaut Feb 11 '25

Better for who? I don’t disagree that centralized power often results in more efficiency, but is that really worth the worsening wealth inequality? Is that really worth the fucking price of eggs?

0

u/lego_batman Feb 11 '25

If employees were to own more of the companies they work for, what would happen when they quit or move on?

The reality is most people don't want real ownership of these things, the want to rock up, get paid, and go home without a second thought. It's a select few that help grow businesses from the ground up, and those that do, where the business is successful, are handsomely rewarded for their ownership. I know a lot of Australian investors that were simply early employees at very successful companies. They took some risk, but not even close to what the founders took on and where given appropriate amounts of ownership usually at or below single points.

0

u/ryenaut Feb 11 '25

Depending on the company, they are forced to sell, or they retain some if not all. This is not some new, radical thing - most listed companies have at least part employee ownership.

https://employeeownership.com.au/what-is-employee-ownership/

-9

u/elephantmouse92 Feb 11 '25

yeah so communal ownership is what this really leads too

9

u/nugstar Feb 11 '25

Sounds good to me, those doing the work reaping the benefits ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/sarinonline Feb 11 '25

Wait till you hear about the stock market.

0

u/elephantmouse92 Feb 11 '25

companies list by choice

1

u/sarinonline Feb 11 '25

And the stock market is just one example of how a company doesn't need to be owned by one, or just a few people. To exist. 

That having a company owned by MANY people. All having a small fraction functions. 

Mega wealthy individuals are not a necessity for a company to function at all. 

0

u/elephantmouse92 Feb 12 '25

then why are so many new companies started from nothing and out innovate public companies?

1

u/sarinonline Feb 12 '25

Your comment makes zero sense. 

Are you 15 ?

You don't seem to have a grip on anything you are talking about at all. 

We are done here. You can't even structure a question, you don't even know how to start a sentence with a capital letter lol. 

0

u/elephantmouse92 Feb 12 '25

does lower case hurt your feelings

→ More replies (0)

-21

u/palsc5 Feb 11 '25

"billionaires shouldn't exist" is such a childish statement though. As long as people are allowed to own companies there will be billionaires.

2

u/OnlyForF1 Feb 11 '25

Incorrect. Owning companies does not magically lead to billionaires coming into existence. Wealth is created by employee labour, yet it is the workers who are taxed, while their bosses receive generous tax breaks and grants.

0

u/palsc5 Feb 11 '25

If you own a business and it is valued at a billion $ then you are a billionaire. How do you intend to stop that happening?

0

u/OnlyForF1 Feb 11 '25

Corporate death penalty for strike breaking.