The top 1% contribute 38.5% of Federal income tax revenue.
No, the top 1% of earners contribute that. Wealthy people don't have earned income. If you go to work, even as a ceo, even in the top 1% of earners, you're not wealthy.
We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
441–450 of 580 posts
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#442I'm not sure I agree with taxing the "wealth", instead of income. Sure, on paper, Buffett's wealth went up by $23B; but these are just imaginary numbers based on the whims of the market. The tax should be on what amount of money actually flowed into his bank account.
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.…
The estate tax wasn't even enacted until 1916 so there wasn't a period of time where "estates would shrink over time" (for tax reasons, at least; the two World Wars plus inflation actually existing did lead to huge changes in the wealth distribution). And by the early 20th century land was no longer the single dominant form of capital in the portfolios of the wealthiest individuals.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#443The conflation of change in mark-to-market net worth with income has got a whole lot to do with the constant breathless reporting of "Bezos/Gates/Buffet/... made/lost x BILLION dollars today" every time the market moves by more than a point. Sure, I get they want to beat the drum on wealth inequality, and perhaps that's a drum worth beating. But its a disingenuous disservice to pretend that these people are sitting o…
one way to put it, if amazon stock lost 98% of its value, Bezos would still have over 1 billion dollars worth of it.
The day to day fluctuations may be relatively meaningless, but the amount of wealth controlled via it is very real.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#444Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#445The conflation of change in mark-to-market net worth with income has got a whole lot to do with the constant breathless reporting of "Bezos/Gates/Buffet/... made/lost x BILLION dollars today" every time the market moves by more than a point. Sure, I get they want to beat the drum on wealth inequality, and perhaps that's a drum worth beating. But its a disingenuous disservice to pretend that these people are sitting o…
I never followed this chain of logic. The whole point behind the stock market is to treat any commonly traded stock as a liquid asset. Why do you think that this fails with respect to Bezos and Gates?
By definition a stock is not a liquid asset.
It needs to be sold first. In order to be sold, you need a buyer. You don't always have a buyer.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never followed this chain of logic. The whole point behind the stock market is to treat any commonly traded stock as a liquid asset. Why do you think that this fails with respect to Bezos and Gates?
By definition a stock is not a liquid asset. It needs to be sold first. In order to be sold, you need a buyer. You don't always have a buyer.
> By definition a stock is not a liquid asset.
"By definition"? Which definition are you using?
Liquidity exists on a spectrum and is not binary:
> In business, economics or investment, market liquidity is a market's feature whereby an individual or firm can quickly purchase or sell an asset without causing a drastic change in the asset's price. Liquidity involves the trade-off between the price at which an asset can be sold, and how quickly it can be sold. In a liquid market, the trade-off is mild: one can sell quickly without having to accept a significantly lower price. In a relatively illiquid market, an asset must be discounted in order to sell quickly.[1][2]
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
> SALT deductions are a massive tax break for the wealthy. How? The point of being able to deduct state and local taxes from federal ones is to devolve power to as local a level of government as possible. You've already paid the local authorities some taxes, so now you owe the federal government less. SALT limits do the opposite of that.
SALT is a tax break for the rich because state and local taxes are progressive, the rich pay more per dollar earned, and the rich are much less likely to be taking the standard deduction. And when a state like New York or California decides to raises income taxes, it should not be understood that they are strengthening their participation in any power devolution scheme. It could work that way, but it doesn't. The Fed…
When I bought my home in 2008, I made $80k, and mortgage + taxes allowed me to itemize my charitable and some work expenses. It was not a ton of money, but helped with the community work that I do.
I wasn’t exactly living in the gutter, but would say I was “rich”.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealth taxes don't work. It was tried in Europe in many countries and they ended up rolling them back.
First, this is not true. I live in a country in Europe and I paid a wealth tax today, in fact. Second, please re-read my comment above as to why you might have understood that.
Nothing you said contradicts what I said.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#449In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.
>eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining. WOW! Never heard of this as an argument. I think it is a very good one for working class.
Maybe. But imagine
>enables transparency between workers and employers in wage bargaining.
Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%
#450I'm not sure I agree with taxing the "wealth", instead of income. Sure, on paper, Buffett's wealth went up by $23B; but these are just imaginary numbers based on the whims of the market. The tax should be on what amount of money actually flowed into his bank account.
But what do you think about him borrowing money using his "worthless" stock as collateral?
Clearly the increase in stock price is valuable to banks. So why not the IRS?