281–290 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it unlikely that even a state actor would have access to literally all the same private data that ProPublica has acquired over the years, and that they'd know what data ProPublica has and what can be safely manipulated.
Yes, state actors have a lot of resources and capabilities, but omniscience is not one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe in extremes. like 100:1, but 2:1, 3:1 doesn't seem that bad... honestly better for social cohesion
I can pretty much guarantee that in the semi-rural town where I live, there are households that are probably down around median US income (~$50K) and households making hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Then real wealth started moving in to buy property as investments. Now we have people who have gates and armed guards. They have private police to scare the locals. They harass school board members for access to school vouchers for the private schools they are starting so their kids don't have to attend the public schools.
It's different around here now. It's a lot less 'community' and all it took was about a half dozen really wealthy folks to upset the apple cart.
Nobody jokes about money anymore in any context, and people seem to be a lot less happy than they used to be just in general.
How are you going to pay taxes on that "gain"? You already borrowed money to pay for the farmland, you can't borrow any more.
The only way is by selling off parts of the farm, which may not be feasible.
In other words, many enterprises will never start because it is an impossible business model.
You'll just wind up crushing existing businesses and make starting new ones infeasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know being a millionaire today has a massively different meaning than 20 years ago.
What? Now you're making me feel old. I remember 20 years ago... it didn't seem that different from today. What's "massively different" about being a millionaire then? You mean, inflation-adjusted, how it's $1.5 million today?
seriously - maybe narcissism isn't the best character trait to structure your society around?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that there is no way to track what flows into his bank account. Evidence says that he can avoid being taxed on any dollars flowing to his bank account. This wasn't a huge problem a century ago due to the Estate tax ensuring that estates would shrink over time and eventually be taxed. In stark contrast to European laws that required estates to be maintained in their entirety to preserve the aristocracy.…
Off topic, just for your information: gentile in English is not the same word as in, for example, French. The English word means not-Jewish whereas I think you probably meant gentle which has an archaic meaning of noble . See https://www.lexico.com/definition/gentle
Let's say you borrow and invest $1 million into a business startup, like buying farmland. The land goes up in value 10%. Now you owe $40,000 in taxes. But you only made a $50,000 profit farming it. How are you going to pay taxes on that "gain"? You already borrowed money to pay for the farmland, you can't borrow any more. The only way is by selling off parts of the farm, which may not be feasible. In other words, man…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're describing an obstacle to change, you're describing the mechanism of change avoidance. Compare: "Gosh, every time we try to tax the wolves, it ends up hurting the sheep as well. Why can't our 100% wolf, 0% sheep Congress get this right? I guess it's just a hard problem!" The solution is not to give up, the solution is to actually tax the rich more. Also, your examples are awful: paying taxes on t…
The problem isn't that it hurts the sheep as well, it's that it hurts the sheep almost entirely. Raising capital gains would be a decent idea that forces the rich to pay more. Basically zero support for it. Closing loopholes helps too, not what we're seeing in tax policy discussions which focus on rates instead. Raising the top rate on income when most of the ultra-rich's money comes from investment isn't making sens…
Maybe a requirement to save money in advance based on market price, like payroll deductions? Then once you actually sell, you might even get a bit of a refund, encouraging turnover. But that would affect people with cash-flow problems the most.
And the biggest problem is that many people don’t want to sell and will resent any attempt to encourage it. Because encouraging turnover is equivalent to penalizing people who stay.
There is no “natural” way to do this, anything can be considered a market distortion depending on your point of view.
For large residential buildings in California, I’ve heard that apartment owners will essentially swap buildings for some kind of tax advantage. (I forgot what it was, though.)
Every time someone tries to make a tax targeting the ultra rich, it ends up hurting the moderately wealthy instead. Every. Single. Time. The worse tax situation is always the person who makes 500k in a good year, or sells a house they held for 25 years which went up a bunch in value. I suspect this is a significant factor in social mobility. Our tax system is punitive to people who try to leave the working class.
Let's say you borrow and invest $1 million into a business startup, like buying farmland. The land goes up in value 10%. Now you owe $40,000 in taxes. But you only made a $50,000 profit farming it. How are you going to pay taxes on that "gain"? You already borrowed money to pay for the farmland, you can't borrow any more. The only way is by selling off parts of the farm, which may not be feasible. In other words, man…
That logic doesn't really apply when you scale up to the ultra-billionaires. Shares of stock are plenty liquid.