Guess I'm the only one that thinks you should just keep your money if you earn it? The article begins by talking about Romney's character and how he didn't try to take every possible dollar, then tries to attribute this to progressive tax codes. Maybe the "problems" we have are due to the erosion of basic virtues, and trying to make an airtight "system" where no one trusts anyone and we assume total greed and power hunger by every citizen is doomed to failure. Also there's little evidence that charging higher taxes is helping anyone (note highest spending by government in history, wages and income stagnant) -- guess its a given in this forum that higher taxes are assumed to be good...
When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
121–130 of 229 posts
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#122I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…
That's like saying it will always be possible to murder someone so there is no point in trying to curb chemical weapons sales to children. Every loop closed makes tax evasion harder and riskier. There will always be people who do it, like there will always be people killing other people, but it is worth making it hard and risky enough that most people will consider other solutions before resorting to murder/tax evasi…
I don't think the parent poster is saying 'don't try,' as much as countering the very real propaganda from the rich about how "We're the new enlightened rich, are we're not greedy or dangerous, and we're not hurting the working people at all."
Claiming 'nothing has changed' in this regard is mostly true. There's some more red tape to get through but we're very clearly moving towards a Gilded-Age level of corruption and inequality in the US. Heck, we even put one of these 'enlightened' billionaires in as president!
Wish I had more to contribute to this conversation, but its pretty hopeless as the wealthy can simply propagandize people via their media sources to vote against their interests and can successfully lobby politicians to give them almost anything they want. Trust me, the Koch brothers aren't funding reason.com because they're academics, but because the libertarian philosophy it sells lines their pockets the most. I suspect this is the norm for later-stage capitalist economies that pride themselves on low regulations. High regulatory European economies seem to have a stronger firewall against this compared to the US. This isn't going away barring a massive economic change, perhaps when we can't continue to hide what automation and wealth hoarding are doing to working people. That could be anywhere between 10 and 100 years from now depending on how its handled.
I suspect deep automation will simply lend itself to a new economic and social reality. I just don't envy our kids and grandkids who will have this fight against the status quo. The 'enlightened' wealthy aren't going to concede on anything that affects wealth and status easily.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#123I wrote this a few years ago in response to a similar piece: The problem is that the rich have the ability to take their income in alot of different ways. Tax income more, they'll take it as dividends. Tax dividends more, they'll take it as capital gains. Tax capital gains, they won't realize their capital gains until they can offset them with realized losses or they'll just get bank loans again't their stock holding…
I've always thought that the central problem with a progressive tax code - though laudable - is that it takes the view that people don't deal with money in absolute terms.
For example: If I go hunting under my couch cushions I might find $1.50 in change. By that logic of a progressive tax code if I do the same activity on Bill Gate's couch I should find 3 or 4 million dollars.
Obviously that's insane. I would argue that it's insane because on some level everyone looks at a million dollars and thinks "That's a lot of money".
On top of that anyone encountering the sticky end of a progressive tax code is always confronted with the calculation of the cost of avoidance vs. the cost of the tax. And there's always a price you can pay to avoid a tax. It's generally based on the price of lawyers and the price of politicians.
Which isn't to say a progressive tax code isn't a good thing. Frankly I'm all for it. But to be equally frank how we raise the money for Government in this country is over thought. An unfair tax code that raises a reasonable amount of money is loads better then a fair one that raises an unreasonable amount of money.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax evasion is illegally not paying the taxes that are due. If you are taking advantages of legal loopholes, it is not tax evasion.
What if you make the rules so simple that there are NO loopholes and there is no/little possibility for tax avoidance?
Simpler isn't always better. The simplest rule would be "no violence" but then the court system would have to make a bunch of decisions. is it literal? so is everyone that harms an insect in criminal jeopardy? So, now that we've introduced complexity we need to argue about degree not absolutes.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reduction in housing and food prices would be a net gain for society, and would in turn reduce crime rates and healthcare costs
They are not saying those prices would reduce. There would be more people with more money competing for the same housing pool, landlords would raise their prices accordingly. I'm not sure if it would have the same effect on food, but it would likely increase housing prices.
If you could afford to eat more than just what you could find in the dented can buggy, would you?
I am pretty sure it will have an effect on food prices. Though, probably not as much as on housing.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#126Taxation is theft.
Counterpoint, taxation is the money you pay to the corporation called the USA for the ability to work and live in land they own. They then use that money to make the land more appealing attracting more occupants.
If that were true then we could sue this USA company for breach of contract (the Constitution) whereby the company was never authorized to own all the land or use its corporate power to attract more occupants.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax evasion is illegally not paying the taxes that are due. If you are taking advantages of legal loopholes, it is not tax evasion.
With principles based legislation you can introduce rules that make it illegal to find "creative" ways only to circumvent restrictions. These rules already exist for anti money laundering and terrorism financing. The problem is that changes also always affect some of the non-rich. You'll never manage to tailor laws so that everyone is hit exactly as desired.
With principles based legislation you can introduce rules that make it illegal to find "creative" ways only to circumvent restrictions.
Read: Arbitrary and capricious legislation what will be abused in creative ways. I'd prefer laws remain as objective as possible, and I'm a lot more concerned about bad legislation than 1%ers moving their money around.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern progressive income tax system is not even remotely a millennium old. We didn't even have income taxes in the US until 1861, and they weren't generally applied until 1913.
Because History started when the US began and there was no financial system before and nobody ever learned anything before.
First income tax in the UK was in 1842, first income tax in France was 1789 - could you find one that has been going since 1017 AD?
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because History started when the US began and there was no financial system before and nobody ever learned anything before.
First income tax in the UK was in 1842, first income tax in France was 1789 - could you find one that has been going since 1017 AD?
I'm talking about learning not "income tax"...
The first "bank" was also founded much earlier than 1000 years ago (and wasn't a bank), but we did know a bit about financial systems even before then.
Re: When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer
#130I'm not sure why so many people look up to the rich. They fail at kinder-garden. I have to work very hard to help my 4 year old to understand how to share. If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I've been using weight watchers lately and keep score with the right system helps a lot.
The rich typically make donations and support charity far more than any normal person could.
How is 90% taxation "sharing", sounds more like "give me all your money or you go to jail", followed by "now I get to spend it however I want". Show me the huge/efficient benefits that have been gained by the huge government expenditures. We're $20T in the hole, has it really benefited people that much.
Real wages stagnant for 20 years, household debt at all-time-high, costs at all time high. If you're going to be "robin hood", at least demonstrate that its helping (seems more like US politicians giving it all to their band of merry men).