311–320 of 488 posts
I’m more concerned about what happens if we don’t start taxing the rich more (in the US). I’m worried about the class divide turning violent
They'll all be in New Zealand in their other private compounds.
BI sucks but even they said as much for why Europe has scrapped most of their wealth taxes:
https://www.businessinsider.com/4-european-countries-wealth-...
The US is a country with a terribly funded IRS. They can barely audit those who obviously don't pay their taxes. If you are someone with 10 or 100M of assets it's easy and obvious to hide them in assets that can't be tracked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The top 1% of US taxpayers already cover 21% of the share of federal taxes collected with the top 10% covering 48% percent of taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pay little to no taxes (11%). https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inco...
The top 1% also have 39 percent of the wealth and rising. The "and rising" means it's pretty clear that the taxes are not enough (and/or wages need to be wildly adjusted), if you believe that we currently have too much wealth inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so hidden in the debate that it is almost like a "secret". The more taxes you have on corporate income, the higher the incentive for corporations to invest in the company, so they can avoid paying taxes. This is good for the economy. On the other hand, lowering corporate taxes also generates a cascade of tax avoidance, since you have higher profits that generate the need for more complex tax avoidance schemes…
This is obviously fallacious, just consider the extreme case of 100% taxation. At the macro level the only source of investment funds is income that does not go to consumption. Lower the expected rate of return through taxation, and the result is inevitably a shift from investment to consumption. At the individual firm level it's obvious that taxation lowers the NPV of the firm's available projects - they are obvious…
What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to area…
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things I guess “wealthy” is an easily movable goal post...
This seems to be a classic problem in American political discourse, people immediately discount solutions for very serious problems that exist right now, due to (often extremely shaky) hypotheticals that might some day come to pass (usually with a massive heaping helping of slippery slope fallacy).
I believe the problem is this: we hardly ever describe the end state. We don't define a metric that we look to achieve and then what we change about the policy when we've achieved it. So what happens is bloated bureaucracies become established and fight for self preservation, even if the mission they were on is complete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So tired of reading this quote every time taxes come up like it's some profound statement. I see it so often to ridicule "silly poor people voting for lower taxes". It's possible for someone to think that it's unfair for some people to pay a huge amount of taxes unfairly, without they themselves thinking "one day I'll be rich".
I think it's more than just "one day I'll be rich"; it's part of the mythos of where wealth comes from. If your starting point is the American Dream, that wealth comes purely from a combination of ingenuity, luck, and hard work, either from the individual or one or more previous generations, then it's easy to see being asked to pay away a share of it as unfair. But if you see wealth as something that arises at least…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so hidden in the debate that it is almost like a "secret". The more taxes you have on corporate income, the higher the incentive for corporations to invest in the company, so they can avoid paying taxes. This is good for the economy. On the other hand, lowering corporate taxes also generates a cascade of tax avoidance, since you have higher profits that generate the need for more complex tax avoidance schemes…
>The more taxes you have on corporate income, the higher the incentive for corporations to invest in the company, so they can avoid paying taxes. And the lower the incentive to make new investments. And the higher the incentive to engage in socially wasteful tax-avoidance accounting.
The difference being that the former is low risk and can grow the business, while the other has a good chance of triggering penalties that wipe out the savings and could even result in jail time for one or more executives.
Consider that the historically highest rates of tax fraud are during the current administration, despite historically low levels of tax on corporate income.
What frustrates me about this whole argument over wealth taxes is that the arguments aren't grounded in facts. The reality is that we "pay" for inequality with reduced productivity. A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to area…
> A great example of this is "single family home neighborhoods" in urban areas. They have no societal benefit, they are essentially subsidized land use patterns for the well off, and it makes it harder for less well of folks to move to areas where they can get a better job/improve their lot in life and grow the economy. I've seen this talking point twice now this week. What's the alternative? We all live in crowded m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not the person you responded to but this kind of comment really bugs me. Why assume someone didn't form their own opinion?
No one "forms their own opinion" in a vacuum. Your beliefs and opinions are influenced in a multitude of ways by your environment including the media you consume. Asking how the biases you have were formed is something everyone should be asking of themselves, and certainly doesn't seem like an inappropriate question.
I'm not the guy from above, but responding with "I disagree with you so are you sure your opinions are your own" is dismissive and doesn't lead to a more interesting or thoughtful discussion. Instead, asking WHY he believes gives you the opportunity to engage in the discussion, maybe change your views a little or change the other persons' a bit.
That's why comments like that are annoying, they're a way to dismiss discussion instead of engaging in it, and engaging in discussion is the point of this silly site.
I'm someone who also isn't wealthy and disagrees with wealth taxes. Responses like that one aren't an honest attempt to engage, and I'd also ignore it and move on :)