91–100 of 504 posts
There’s so much that could be done if we taxed the ultra rich and huge corporations just a little bit more, and more effectively.
We might spend it on things we actually want, which of course is to be prevented at all costs.
The argument for corporate income tax is misplaced. Many socialist countries have a low (or no) corporate income tax and that's goods. A country shouldn't tax the things it would like to encourage. In this case, that companies re-invest and not pull the funds out to pay investors. Capital gains tax should probably be mentioned. Why is it a much lower rate than income tax? Why not talk about that? Strange also that th…
basically this. in these mostly socialist countries, the top income bracket starts much much lower than in the US. these countries tax the middle class and consumption with VAT ranging from 15-21% on consumption. in spain the top bracket starts around 60,000 euros a year and its 45% not including local tax. these policies and similar ones in other countries in effect keep the rich rich and make it much, much harder f…
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. That's the strategy the Military uses - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pent... "At a cost of $400 million, some 1,200 auditors charged into the jungle of military finance, but returned in defeat. They were unable to pass the Pentagon or flunk it. They could only offer no opinion, explaining the military’s empire of hundreds of acronymic accounting silos was too illogical to penetrate"
This is just a single example but it was eye opening when my friend told me about one of his clients. He is the chief mechanic at an exotic car dealership and one of their biggest customers is an active duty general in the Marines, this guy has millions of USD worth of cars.
That is correct, the rich don't pay any taxes at all (whenever the can). The was a recent thread on HN regarding tax audits [0]. What I got from that is that the IRS cannot afford to audit the rich because their taxes are complicated and they don't have enough resources to do so. They choose to audit the poor instead because, it is simpler.. link [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176705
And let's not forget, taxes are extremely high on everyone. The US Govt spends 38% of all US GDP, currently (recently above 40%!). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi...
And that's not even including 2nd order effects. When you go to spend it, your costs are much higher because part of what you're paying is someone else's really high tax rates. IE: the plumber has to charge you 300$/hr instead of just 200$/hr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you're so sure of your viewpoint and the NYT's bias, it should be really easy for you to go into more detail here, right? (I'm not expecting a thorough response from you, don't worry)
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…
- They are NOT speaking of the 1% (such as medical professional or high income technical professionals) - They are NOT speaking of the 0.1 %. - They are speaking of the 0.01%. One person out of 10000. Not multimillionaires. 100 millionaires and billionaires. There is a very good reason why the tax foundating speaks of the 1% and not of the 0.1% or 0.01% : it is usefull to protect billionaires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The graph in article is effective, not marginal. The poorest do pay less in absolute numbers because they are poor, that's a statement of income inequality, not progressivity of the tax rate.
They have higher marginal and effective rates. The title "The Rich Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You" is so false and ill-intentioned it says a lot about journalism and the left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just a single example but it was eye opening when my friend told me about one of his clients. He is the chief mechanic at an exotic car dealership and one of their biggest customers is an active duty general in the Marines, this guy has millions of USD worth of cars.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting, but wouldn't the taxes of an individual general in the Marines be completely different from the Department of Defense itself?
How much taxes should people pay? If rich people pay should pay more, does that mean more dollars or more %? If they should, can we make them? If we can, will that incentivize them to leave? if they leave, is that a net benefit globally even if it hurts america? is globalization a positive thing, economically? if it is, is there a concurrent reduction in cultural diversity? if there is, is that bad?
do we even need _any_ taxes besides sales tax? how should taxes even be accomplished? queue discussion about big/small government, libertarians vs dems vs reps.
im not even trying. thousands of questions about any small subset of this topic. its almost not even worth talking about in anything less than a doctoral defense, if thats even a big enough stage.