Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that unlikely, since someone making $7.25/hr is probably not paying any income tax at all.
If that was the only tax you would have a really good point
That's the only tax the article is discussing.
Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
41–50 of 161 posts
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's also giving thousands of people jobs, making necessities available to millions at low prices, and paying enormous amounts in total taxes. Can gov't really do more with his money than he can? Do you really want to disincentivize what he does for humanity?
> He's also giving thousands of people jobs Enterpreneurs don't "give" jobs to people. Refer to the "wage labour" definition: > Wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour power under a formal or informal employment contract. precisely, they're purchasing labor. And actually, Bezos is puchasing it at a dirty cheap price.
Pedantic. He created a job opening, they accepted it. Ask NYC how terrible those 30,000 new Amazon jobs are ... oh right, they don't exist there because the "Bezos is a meanie" people drove them away.
A job is better than no job. Bezos hired them to do something productive.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#43Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely puni…
"Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve."
Is this actually true? The vast majority of research and innovation is gov't funded. The vast majority of tuition reimbursement and educational spending is gov't. The US Gov't is the biggest employer in the nation of the USA. Medicare, food stamps, disability spending, and social security altogether dwarf any charity that the rich is doing in the US.
What is the rich doing to the public benefit that governments aren't dwarfing them in doing? I'm super baffled here.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#44Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely puni…
You raise an interesting point, and I'd like to follow it further with some numbers across job creation, charity, arts funding, etc, so I can follow things more closely? Also, how do contributions to these differ across the rich? Are there a couple of 'whales' who keep the numbers high while the other freeload or are they all equally contributing in this efficient manner? It's also somewhat implicit (correct me if I'…
[deleted]
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that unlikely, since someone making $7.25/hr is probably not paying any income tax at all.
If that was the only tax you would have a really good point
Neither point is good. If I only earn $50 a day and decide to buy a sandwich which has a meal tax of $1.00 - the problem isn’t that I just paid 5% of my earnings in sales taxes. The problem is I’m only earning $50 a day.
But even more to the point is that that only way you can calculate that someone earning $15,000 a year is paying a “higher tax rate” than someone earning $15 million a year is by ignore the fact that the person earning $15k is year is getting EITC, food, and health care subsidies and has an effective negative tax rate even if they did actually pay a few hundred dollars in sales taxes.
Here is a good analysis on average tax rates and effective marginal tax rates across income deciles:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44787.pdf
Note that average effective tax rate is negative up through the 4th decile. (Figure 2)
There are points along the curve where the effective marginal tax rate for a mid-range income earner is higher than the effective marginal tax rate of a high income earner. This is due to phase-out of transfer credits — specifically, ACA credits phasing out. (Figure 7) Specifically what that means is you earn an extra dollar and in addition to it being taxed at e.g. 25% it also causes you to lose .25 of ACA credits, making the effective tax rate on that $1 be 50%.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#46I just read that Jeff Bezoz will pay a lower tax rate than someone earning $7.25/hr. Incredible.
He's also giving thousands of people jobs, making necessities available to millions at low prices, and paying enormous amounts in total taxes. Can gov't really do more with his money than he can? Do you really want to disincentivize what he does for humanity?
> He's also giving thousands of people jobs
While also destroying jobs in the retail sector as brick and mortar stores are closing shop.
> Do you really want to disincentivize what he does for humanity?
This is such a broad question to directly answer. But in my opinion, a big part of Amazon's success has been at the expense of dozens of retail companies (Macy's stock price was $50+ 5 years ago, today it's $15, and the same trend exists for just about every large retailer).
I'm sure a lot of people will disagree, but I much prefer an economy with many smaller companies competing in the market instead of one giant company controlled by 1 person dominating everything. I think the government should do more to incentivize healthy market competition (which Amazon is not), BUT I don't think the solution to that is more taxes..
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a tired take. Is it not possible to just believe that a person shouldn’t HAVE to pay more (percentage-wise) in taxes because they’re successful - while at the same time, be fine with the credits / deductions available to the less fortunate? I can’t be the unicorn here.
Why is it tired? The wealthy benefit from the social infrastructure they live in. Should they not pay for it ? Think of the wear and tear the roads get from the Amazon delivery service alone.
The “temporarily embarrassed” take is tired. I can believe Jeff Bezos should pay the same tax rate as I do, regardless of his ability to pay more, without having my reasoning be because I assume I’ll be a billionaire someday.
Amazon still pays to register vehicles, so they’re paying for roads as much as anyone that uses them, right? I work from home, and pay as much for the roads as my neighbor who commutes. Is that fair? No - but I’m completely fine with it.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#48Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely puni…
> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not. > Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, wit…
Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs.
Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#49Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely puni…
These individuals accumulated their massive wealth by utilizing the infrastructure and economic substrate of our society. So the people who make up that society have a right to decide democratically how some of those resources are allocated. That’s the deal.
Even assuming you are right, there are many more important values than mere efficiency. Governments are the only bodies which can realistically pursue the values and needs of the people in the face of massively powerful multinational corporations. Of course there is always room for improving the effectiveness of government, but the alternative is blind faith that the super-rich know best for us, despite their limited perspective and many well-documented flaws and biases.
Re: Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a tired take. Is it not possible to just believe that a person shouldn’t HAVE to pay more (percentage-wise) in taxes because they’re successful - while at the same time, be fine with the credits / deductions available to the less fortunate? I can’t be the unicorn here.
Um, they aren’t paying more, percentage wise. That’s why everyone is upset. They’re paying more in gross volumes of money, but significantly less when compared to their actual income. You should ask, whose life would be enriched more by having more of the money they’re paying in tax - the average income household paying 30% on their $40,000, or the millionaire paying 7% on their hundreds of millions of income?
My point was - I can be okay with them not paying more, and it isn’t because I think I’ll be a billionaire someday.