Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 20, 2019.
Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
US monetary hegemony can't last forever, and when it goes, it is going to put a world of hurt on the US economy.
It's still wrong, but at least it contains everyone.
Separate names with a comma.