Why doesn't the tax system take into account that there are millionaires and billionaires?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 20, 2019.

  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you; moving in that direction would in theory lead to the most efficient and imo fairest outcomes.
    But there are two issues which if not addressed would definitely prevent that from ever being a possibility.

    1) Lack of a consistent and effective yet affordable method for valuing assets of widely varying types.
    2) A general reluctance to change, particularly when it comes to topics relating to taxation.

    -Meta
     
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a pretty nice first pass, and I think you're right.
    The bottom 90% of folk may not earn a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things,
    but they do pay a pretty big chunk of the taxes. Keep in mind that the bottom 90%,
    roughly the same amount of people making less than $100k, is still quite a lot taxpayers.
    If they all of a sudden aren't paying that anymore, it has to be made up elsewhere.

    Given this, your idea very well may not be feasible. But rather than the rates you posted before,
    it might be good to try and see what the rates would need to be in order to keep things revenue neutral,
    while still sticking to your general overall principle of giving folks earning under $100k a tax cut.
    I might try to do a few more calculations myself in bit too.

    -Meta
     
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think what they're getting at, is that money being spent shouldn't be taxed, regardless of who's doing the spending.
    And that instead, what should be taxed is money that isn't being spent,
    as such spending being the very purpose for which government creates that money.
    Or at least, that is my poetic interpretation of it...

    -Meta
     
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like your chart there only includes the top 10%, with the bottom 90% left out.
    Even if you still intend for their tax rate to go to 0%, I think its a good idea to include
    that bottom 90% in all table calculations, just to ensure they are always accounted for.

    -Meta
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's just objectively false. The great majority of estate assets consist of uncrystallized and thus untaxed capital gains. Moreover, estates grow to the extent that their owners do NOT pay taxes: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." -- real estate billionaire Leona Helmsley
    I just proved to you that most of it has never been taxed at all.
    What on earth makes you think wealthy people have earned any significant fraction of their wealth?? The greater the private accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was earned by commensurate contributions to production of wealth.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we only tax assets to the extent that their value comes from the community rather than a private producer ("beneficiary pay"), we don't need to value most of them. It's enough to value government-issued and -enforced privileges like land titles, broadcast spectrum allocations, patents and copyrights, bank licenses, etc., which are pretty easy to value, and impossible to move offshore or hide.
    People are more willing to change when they are hurting. See Trump, Brexit, etc. We just have to make sure that the right change is on the table when the hurting gets bad enough.
     
  8. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    short of another housing bubble crashing the stock market, Trump's tax system is here to stay.

    that most likely won't happen for another 2 decades as the cycle goes, so get used to the pain.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    US monetary hegemony can't last forever, and when it goes, it is going to put a world of hurt on the US economy.
     
  10. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's still wrong, but at least it contains everyone.
    upload_2019-9-22_11-1-32.png
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, we have a very expensive government, including local and state governments. The more we spend on these governments the higher the tax burdens on society. Sure there is some waste spending but fact is the 325 million Americans have huge demands which all translates to higher tax revenues.

    It is unlikely we will ever be able to force more efficient spending in all levels of government, therefore, as society demands more and more government society must also fund the governments which they demand. If society wants less taxation then greatly reduce the demands on government.

    Across society today, the wealthier are paying a majority of taxes, while perhaps 75-100 million Americans are paying almost no federal taxes. Wealthier people have no problem paying higher tax rates than others, but how is it fair for millions of Americans to pay little to no federal taxes?

    IMO our government spending is out of control! We have a president today who refuses to follow a budget and instead has created $1.2 trillion deficits for the next 10 years. Members of Congress are equally to blame for not forcing any level of fiscal responsibility. And voters are to blame as well because collectively they cry like babies if their government representatives don't bring home the bacon. Therefore, any dialogue about taxation is 99% political and we can guess there seldom will be good political decisions...
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why should there be, they are paying the top marginal rate.
     

Share This Page