621–630 of 727 posts
Classic PG dishonesty. It's not mathematically the same, because it affects different people. "What is the income tax equivalent" isnt a relevant question unless your either stupid or desingenuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he meant that you'd have the brackets apply to types of consumption instead of income level, so no tax on food, low tax on restaurants, medium tax on high-end electronics, insane tax on planes and yachts. I mean it sounds like it would be easier to maintain/enforce such tiering system than constantly fight with people trying to not technically be wealthy. Downside of course is that some people's luxuries are…
What "high end electronics" would be taxed at a medium rate? Do billionaires not just use iPhones? Most high end private planes are the same models as regional jets (e.g. Embraer ERJ line), so a tax on them would still be mostly impacting normal folks' plane tickets. The core problem remains the same: consumption does not scale with wealth. If we limit taxes go a handful of goods and services, then demand is just goi…
Planes are the things airlines buy, not the things economy passengers buy. If you're conceding that taxes corporations pay get passed on to consumers then what does that imply about corporate income tax?
Also, poor people don't generally buy a lot of air travel.
> Consumption taxes give billionaires the option to drastically reduce their tax burden by consuming less.
Isn't that what we want? An incentive for the money to go to creating jobs or charitable donations rather than private jets and third mansions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh good! I was worried that trickle down economics was self-serving nonsense pushed by think tank economists on behalf of their benefactors. Since it is economic fact rather than self-serving fiction, when I review its track record I will find that it caused an upward inflection in real wages, right? Right? https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Oops!
Total labor compensation has in fact grown. Unfortunately, much of the non-wage compensation involves services like healthcare that has become a lot more expensive over time due to burdensome overregulation and an overall lack of price transparency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd much prefer simply stopping that cost basis reset instead of implementing a wealth tax. Neither of these would really work against the people you actually want it to work against. If you don't have a basis reset then they just do a transaction that has the same effect, e.g. create a new corporation owned by the recipient and then have it repeatedly enter into slightly favorable transactions with the one owned b…
Consumption taxes are regressive in general and in particular with the 1%, they simply don't spend enough to have it impact their lifestyles.
Getting from that to where they at least pay the same taxes as anyone else on the money they actually spend would be a marked improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the government not have the goal to make society a more just society? When did that stop being a priority of government? Even a teeny, tiny one?
Sure, the government has that goal too. But the government has many tools, and using taxes for that is using the wrong tool. Or maybe you think that billionaires owe us not only to pay taxes, but also to play nice, and pay those taxes with a smile on their face?
Considering the alternative for them over the past millennia has been, inevitably that they get caught, hanged, quartered, beaten and other various violent methods: yes, they should smile, they're buying their lives with all that money :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homeowners already pay a wealth tax.
> Homeowners already pay a wealth tax. If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county). * https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro... And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners: * https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...
If you are wealthy enough, you can live off of untaxed loans from your “unrealized” gains, and never pay taxes on that money at any rate. Meanwhile, I am paying an effective tax rate of around 35%. The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.
In order to pay zero taxes you’d need to know you’re about to die. Until then your debt would be growing faster than your wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Homeowners already pay a wealth tax. If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county). * https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro... And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners: * https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...
This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.
I assume that rising property values make the endeavor worthwhile?
tone: I am not being snarky here. Genuine question.
> To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%. This seems to only be true for people whose income entirely comes from their wealth, rather than their labor. The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtai…
So complaining about having to contribute to the society that gave the conditions for your vast wealth is going to get you 0 sympathy