imagine a big box of toys that belong to a lot of children. They all had to agree that everyone, no matter how many toys they have, would have to put a certain number of their toys back in the box every year so that everyone else can play with them too. This would make sure that everyone had enough toys to play with and nobody had too many toys and got bored. The idea is similar with the super rich people - they are asked to pay a certain amount of their money in taxes every year to help with things like schools, hospitals and roads, so that everyone can benefit. Read from source...

It seems that the article's main purpose is to criticize and discredit any argument that is against the proposal of a 2% minimum tax on billionaires. The author uses loaded words like "fair share," "global wealth concentration," and "aggressive tax avoidance" to create an emotional response in the reader. However, the author fails to present any logical arguments or evidence to support their claims. For example, when discussing the results from an Ipsos poll, the author merely states that 70% of people support the principle that wealthy people should pay higher income-tax rates without providing any context or explanation. Furthermore, the author's argument that the ultra-rich should pay their fair share of taxes because governments would be handicapped to guarantee adequate services without sufficient tax revenues is flawed. This argument assumes that the only source of funding for government services is taxes paid by the ultra-rich, which is not necessarily true. In conclusion, the article lacks logical arguments and evidence to support its claims and relies heavily on emotional manipulation to persuade its readers.

This article's sentiment is neutral to slightly negative as it discusses the potential implementation of a 2% minimum billionaires' tax, which has met opposition from some of the richest individuals. While the G20 has acknowledged the need for ultra- high-net-worth individuals to pay their fair share in taxes, there is no political consensus on the 2% minimum tax on billionaires, and it was not part of the final text. However, an economist believes that "there is no going back," and looking at the history of international tax negotiations, there are concrete reasons to be optimistic about the proposal's future.

our team provides thorough and carefully considered recommendations to help clients achieve their investment goals while considering potential risks.