Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well define not wealthy, if you have over $90,000 net worth you would be in the top 10% already.
Wealthy = enough money to lobby
400k per year income could be 0 saved if one has enough expenses.
Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
51–60 of 488 posts
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess: because they hope to be wealthy some day.
That's very reductive. You should know that the Federal Income Tax that was first collected in 1913 had a top bracket of 7%. Today, the minimum bracket is 10% and the average middle class citizen pays around 12-18% of their income to the IRS. So sure, the wealth tax would only be on "the rich" when it first starts out but I guarantee you the middle class will be hit by it eventually.
Most people are already hit by "wealth taxes", except they are regressive - it's called "property tax".
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#53As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…
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 to reduce taxation on that large amount of money.
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess: because they hope to be wealthy some day.
Doesn't everyone? Plus, there's other reasons to be skeptical of wealth taxes, capital flight is a real thing.
Isn't that just another myth peddled by wealthy groups? This was a pretty good study and didn't find that effect[1].
Just on the face of it, sure if you're wealthier you have greater ability to move but that also means you probably like where you are because you chose to be there. Most of my high school friends dispersed around the country solely for job opportunities, not because they wanted to be somewhere.
[1] https://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/02/documents...
> The New Jersey millionaire tax experiment offers a potent testing ground, given the magnitude of the policy change and the relative ease of relocating to a different state tax regime without leaving the New York or Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Using a difference-in-difference estimator, we find minimal effect of the new tax on the migration of millionaires.
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#55As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…
Strange. Business owner friends of mine have taken the opposite approach over the years. Taxes low? Start up something new, get it going. Taxes go up again? Sell it off (if they haven't already) and go back to early retirement doing whatever. Maybe it is largely the type of business that behavior changes. Their last venture was starting up an aquaponics farm in a borderline urban / suburban area, though I haven't kep…
Federal taxes have been going down my whole life (born 1990 in the US). What era/region are you referring to where taxes go up?
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? (I mostly agree but it's not a strong opinion)
If my wealth comes from owning a percentage of a company (say I own 30% of AMZN) what is the way to tax me other than taking my shares, i.e. the Gov would take certain percentage of my shares? And if we go that route how many years would it go by before Gov owned majority of shares of most companies? Lots of people scream that we should tax the wealthy but I do not follow how you tax someone whose wealth comes from l…
I don't see how you came to your conclusion. Gov would tax you as they do now (including when you receive shares for instance), by asking you money. It is up to you to find it. If your assets are illiquid, then it is your problem not the government's one -- and in some cases it can indeed be quite unfair, e.g. for some startup employees.
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#57fair.org? Ha! Confiscating others money is hardly "fair" but here we are.
FAIR stands for "FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING"
Meaning they're attempting to be a reporting watchdog
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you consider volontarily contribution instead?
Possibly not what you mean but I very strongly believe tax rates should he a minimum where you can set your own (and displayed publicly) tax rate above a certain level for your income. Both physically and online, as someone who grew up not poor but far far from rich i.e. I've still only been abroad from the UK twice in my (so far short) life, I am absolutely sick of rich people saying "I'd pay more tax if I could" as…
This is very similar to saying that charities should deal with these issues (homelessness, drug additction, etc) not the government. Charities rely on donations. I strongly think that the government should be dealing with these things.
I think I should be taxed more but I also don't think that me voluntarily paying 1% more tax will change anything. However everyone playing 1% more tax will so fundamentally change everything that it's worth doing.
I don't say "I'd pay more tax if I could" I say "I should pay more tax and so should everyone else earning as much as me"
>I increasingly think an underlying motive of why I study fairly intensely is just to end up better than those who were born better than me. You might want to consider the fact then that social mobility is generally higher in countries with higher tax rates.
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#59Classic circular fallacy. "Wealth taxes are good. Wealthy people don't like wealth taxes, and that's how you know they are good." Or is it an ad hominem even if the "hominem" is a class (wealthy people) instead of a person?
Its not making the argument that wealth taxes are good because wealthy people oppose them, only that their point of view on the topic is deeply self serving and masquerading as an objective analysis.
If we grant that this argument is valid, do the same implications apply to the contrapositive case? E.g. people who aren't wealthy that support wealth taxes (or higher taxes on people who earn more than them).
Re: Media Owned by Wealthy Are Quick to Tell You Wealth Taxes Are a Bad Idea
#60As a business owner, when taxes are low, I see that as an incentive to pocket profits. But when taxes are high, I see that as an incentive to hide the profits by investing in the future. I know this isn't always the case with everyone. And especially investors have a case that higher corporate taxes reduce the value of their investments, possibly to the point of not making them. But this incentive is so blatantly obv…
Strange. Business owner friends of mine have taken the opposite approach over the years. Taxes low? Start up something new, get it going. Taxes go up again? Sell it off (if they haven't already) and go back to early retirement doing whatever. Maybe it is largely the type of business that behavior changes. Their last venture was starting up an aquaponics farm in a borderline urban / suburban area, though I haven't kep…
I think the OP is talking about investing within the business. The business is a separate legal entity with its own income, expenditures, and assets that is under the control of its owner. Assuming that you want to continue owning the business as a going concern, it makes sense to maximize expenditures (by investing in the future) and minimize profits when tax rates are high. But if you're happy entering and exiting the business as a whole, it makes sense to sell it (transferring money equal to its value to your personal balance sheet) when taxes are low and about to go up, and then just not work while taxes are high.
Inflation can put a bit of a wrinkle in this, since if you get $20M for your business and then you find that that's worth the equivalent of $2M in 5-10 years it can crimp your early retirement.