Evidence from leaked account data on how elites use offshore banking [pdf]

Post by EB66 » Sat, May 08, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #129

gzer0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are making more than $400,000, the new tax proposals would not affect you. What is your definition of "middle class"? Someone making $400k is most certainly in the top 1%. What tax changes have occurred so far in the past few decades that are significantly affecting you? I would genuinely like to know

Owns a reasonable home in a decent school district with a commute around 30 minutes. Eats out a few times a month. Takes 1-2 vacations a year. If upper middle class, savings adequate to gradually upgrade housing, send kids to University of State, etc. If regular middle class, home will be maintained against entropy and kids will take out student loans. Either way, will retire at the usual time. In some places $400k c…

Post by brianwawok » Sat, May 08, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #117

tfehring wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than 1% of US households (something like 1.5M households with a total of ~3M people) have >$10M in household net worth. The primary target is that class, irrespective of its members’ earned income, in part because they can reliably earn mid-six-figures per year in returns to capital alone. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/10/22/the-number...

Great, but there are many more mid-six-figure earners who don't have >$10M in household net worth. And if you tax mid-six-figure earners, you get them, too. If you want to target wealth over $10M, tax wealth over $10M .

Post by trentnix » Sat, May 08, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

Guest42 wrote: post #88

trentnix wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the taxes they take from you get spent as poorly as possible. And the solution is always more taxes.

My impression is that GWB and DJT delivered some very large tax breaks and that the “more” taxes would be more accurately described as a return to normal taxation levels, provided how much one agrees that post-Reagan establishes the level of normalcy. I do agree though that the spending could be improved. That position varies group by group.

Post by coldcode » Sat, May 08, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #127

modo_mario wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The top 1% pay 6x more tax than the bottom 50%! And yet their share of wealth keeps on growing and growing for decades. Curious.

Primarily because their unique value add to society has been growing (due to technology), and the unique value add of the bottom 50 percent has been decreasing (due to technology and globalization). Take JK Rowling as an example. Her work added significant value to the lives of hundreds of millions, and she got a slice of all that value creation (say, 30 percent of it). Nobody is worse off. Everyone is better off. He…

Post by frenchman99 » Sat, May 08, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

Trias11 wrote: post #35

ficklepickle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is unlikely to agree, but I'm pretty sure we could find a range that the majority of people agree with.

When majority is agrees on something it doesn't make this automatically the right thing. Especially if this is a majority of non-productive, lazy individuals unwilling to get educated, work and prefer to live by selling their votes for printed money of government grants.