Rich people don't pay much in taxes (now in CR) - ProPublica

[Dahobbs 17451]

6 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Though not by legislative design, wouldn't a flat tax end up being "non-regressive" in the sense that it actually collects more revenue than the current "progressive" tax system?  Progressive whiners are so busy bitching about the front-end, they forgot---their system doesn't actually work all that well except for middle/mass affluent income earners fucked on both sides.  

How are you reaching this conclusion? Also, I don't think you know what "regressive" and "progressive" mean in this context. It has nothing to due with maximizing tax revenue. 

Further, the graduated part of the income tax scheme isn't the part that causes the system to not "actually work all that well." It's that it is (1) an income tax which necessarily penalizes labor and (2) contains thousands of exemptions and loopholes that are almost exclusively able to be utilized by the truly wealthy.   

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31304]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Though not by legislative design, wouldn't a flat tax end up being "non-regressive" in the sense that it actually collects more revenue than the current "progressive" tax system?  Progressive whiners are so busy bitching about the front-end, they forgot---their system doesn't actually work all that well except for middle/mass affluent income earners fucked on both sides.  

Not non-regressive, but perhaps less regressive than a graduated tax full of loopholes in operation.

[Guest Lobo]

Hence, my quotation marks.  I realize "non-regressive" and "less-regressive" don't actually make much sense.  How about "less fucked up"?  

[Dahobbs 17451]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not non-regressive, but perhaps less regressive than a graduated tax full of loopholes in operation.

 

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Hence, my quotation marks.  I realize "non-regressive" and "less-regressive" don't actually make much sense.  How about "less fucked up"?  

A flat income tax with no exemptions or loop holes I suppose would be less regressive than the current system in practice. But you could also just get rid of all exemptions and loops holes in the current system and leave the graduated income tax brackets in place. The graduated element isn't what causes the problem and isn't what complicates things.

The primary problem with a truly simplified taxing system is that it eliminates the primary way the government currently has to influence private behavior. Maybe that is a good thing. But it does reduce flexibility and ability to encourage whatever the government considers to be beneficial behavior. I think addressing that change requires  a much broader discussion than we have been having.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31304]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

A flat income tax with no exemptions or loop holes I suppose would be less regressive than the current system in practice. But you could also just get rid of all exemptions and loops holes in the current system and leave the graduated income tax brackets in place. The graduated element isn't what causes the problem and isn't what complicates things.

The primary problem with a truly simplified taxing system is that it eliminates the primary way the government currently has to influence private behavior. Maybe that is a good thing. But it does reduce flexibility and ability to encourage whatever the government considers to be beneficial behavior. I think addressing that change requires  a much broader discussion than we have been having.

I tend to think that taxation went astray when it began trying to incentivize behavior.

[fattyflattie 4636]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't see how the latter is anything but a highly regressive tax on the working class. 

Can you explain this. Assume the rich and middle have their loopholes closed and are paying their steady %.  

[wildcat09 29267]

We never did get around to it last night, but I was originally trying to get around to a point about the estate tax. I'll try to be brief. We've discussed the social contract that underlies private property rights. I agree to recognize Fatty's right to property that he thinks is his in exchange for his agreement to recognize my right to property that I think is mine. We do this because we each get something out of it. But what do I get out of agreeing to recognize that his heirs are entitled to receive what I recognize as his property when he dies? What does he get out of agreeing to recognize that my heirs are entitled to receive what I recognize as my property when I die? The benefit of doing so is less clear for both of us than in our agreement to recognize each other's "property." What if my kids are lazy shitheads who let my property degrade and waste away? Society wants property to be put to its highest and best use and present generations don't want to be burdened by the dictates of past generations. The founders, who disagreed about a lot of shit, pretty much universally hated the concept of inherited wealth. People who inherit wealth typically don't work hard. They don't generally dedicate themselves to producing anything of value. Instead, they use their wealth to warp the rules of society to protect their concentrated wealth, and in doing so harm the ability of others to build their own wealth by producing things of value. The idea was that the earth is for the living and that concentrated wealth was bad because it discouraged productivity. Again, this is all stuff the founders thought, not radical marxism.

There is no "right" to leave property to your descendants or to inherit property. That has never been recognized as a right protected by the Constitution. Estates were left to be disposed of by the public, according to whatever laws they saw fit to pass in the states. Every state did later adopt laws providing for inheritance. But why? There's a lot of reasons, some good and some not so good. But the biggest reason is probably simply that it's what they knew and it's the easiest thing to do. Courts would quickly become overwhelmed if we didn't have clear rules for what happened to property when someone died. And though we left it up to the public to decide, the overwhelming majority of the public has always had some basic notion that it's fair to allow someone to leave some property to their children to help their children out. That's not really rooted in any fundamental theory concerning property rights, it's just an emotional decision about what's fair, but nobody really has a problem with it. So we created new rules for inheritance, with some tweaks to the old British rules that were intended to break up concentrations of wealth. But the rules we created still allowed for the passing of greater concentrations of wealth than was realized at the time, and unless we want to abolish inheritance laws the only real way to address that is to tax estates. It's not about punishing people for success, it's about ensuring that successive generations can achieve success as well. 

Sorry, guess that wasn't very brief.

[Brew 3049]

Sweet, another Surly tax policy debate. A strict flat tax by definition would not be regressive as it is a flat tax. At the point credits/deductions are added, then it will become regressive (less likely) or progressive (more likely). You all are using the top .000001% for your arguments, when the average “rich” person is paying pretty close to the max marginal rate that is out there until they reach the point of retiring and living off investments. They don’t have the luxury of capital like the ones being discussed to fully take advantage of the tax system outside of the 20% pass through deduction gift they have gotten the last few years. Those guys can do it because they are operating inside the largest public companies out there with access to pretty well unlimited capital, your local guy running a $100m company and making $5M a year can’t operate that far into the gray and is well into the 30’s on their marginal tax rate. We keep going in this circle, but you’re arguing over a handful of people ultimately. There are ways to pull them back into the system if they are generating any income, but that still will not cover all of them.

As far as the argument about building infrastructure, you individually may have paid for it but you didn’t build it. The guy that took the risk, started the company, bought the assets, hired the employees, etc. built it and was paid for each of those risks. Plenty of guys have gone under in those industries.

[Brisketexan 104669]

34 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Hence, my quotation marks.  I realize "non-regressive" and "less-regressive" don't actually make much sense.  How about "less fucked up"?  

Sorry, this is America.  We don't do "less fucked up."  The bald eagle chugging a Bud heavy and toting an AR while cranking up the Skynyrd out front shoulda told ya.

[TwiceHorn 31304]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The founders, who disagreed about a lot of shit, pretty much universally hated the concept of inherited wealth.

I'm not sure about this.  They hated nobility, aristocracy, and inherited titles and power.  Certainly wealth is a sine qua non of that, but I'm not sure the one is equivalent to the other.

Many or most of them were wealthy and I'm sure most of them descended their wealth and did not object to doing so.

[Brew 3049]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We never did get around to it last night, but I was originally trying to get around to a point about the estate tax. I'll try to be brief. We've discussed the social contract that underlies private property rights. I agree to recognize Fatty's right to property that he thinks is his in exchange for his agreement to recognize my right to property that I think is mine. We do this because we each get something out of it. But what do I get out of agreeing to recognize that his heirs are entitled to receive what I recognize as his property when he dies? What does he get out of agreeing to recognize that my heirs are entitled to receive what I recognize as my property when I die? The benefit of doing so is less clear for both of us than in our agreement to recognize each other's "property." What if my kids are lazy shitheads who let my property degrade and waste away? Society wants property to be put to its highest and best use and present generations don't want to be burdened by the dictates of past generations. The founders, who disagreed about a lot of shit, pretty much universally hated the concept of inherited wealth. People who inherit wealth typically don't work hard. They don't generally dedicate themselves to producing anything of value. Instead, they use their wealth to warp the rules of society to protect their concentrated wealth, and in doing so harm the ability of others to build their own wealth by producing things of value. The idea was that the earth is for the living and that concentrated wealth was bad because it discouraged productivity. Again, this is all stuff the founders thought, not radical marxism.

There is no "right" to leave property to your descendants or to inherit property. That has never been recognized as a right protected by the Constitution. Estates were left to be disposed of by the public, according to whatever laws they saw fit to pass in the states. Every state did later adopt laws providing for inheritance. But why? There's a lot of reasons, some good and some not so good. But the biggest reason is probably simply that it's what they knew and it's the easiest thing to do. Courts would quickly become overwhelmed if we didn't have clear rules for what happened to property when someone died. And though we left it up to the public to decide, the overwhelming majority of the public has always had some basic notion that it's fair to allow someone to leave some property to their children to help their children out. That's not really rooted in any fundamental theory concerning property rights, it's just an emotional decision about what's fair, but nobody really has a problem with it. So we created new rules for inheritance, with some tweaks to the old British rules that were intended to break up concentrations of wealth. But the rules we created still allowed for the passing of greater concentrations of wealth than was realized at the time, and unless we want to abolish inheritance laws the only real way to address that is to tax estates. It's not about punishing people for success, it's about ensuring that successive generations can achieve success as well. 

Sorry, guess that wasn't very brief.

Estate tax needs to be rolled back and all formed trusts should remain part of the taxable estates for the individual. We have allowed people to form trusts to get around end of life care issues to protect their “estates” as well as allowed the formation of certain trusts to avoid inheritance tax.

[wildcat09 29267]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure about this.  They hated nobility, aristocracy, and inherited titles and power.  Certainly wealth is a sine qua non of that, but I'm not sure the one is equivalent to the other.

Many or most of them were wealthy and I'm sure most of them descended their wealth and did not object to doing so.

I say "hated inherited wealth" like I say "they loved liberty." Of course they were massive hypocrites about both. But if you read their writings on concentrated wealth, not titles or aristocracy, but wealth, they all hated it and shared the same understanding of its impacts on successive generations.

[StruggleBus 3922]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'll try to be brief.

failed

[TwiceHorn 31304]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I say "hated inherited wealth" like I say "they loved liberty." Of course they were massive hypocrites about both. But if you read their writings on concentrated wealth, not titles or aristocracy, but wealth, they all hated it and shared the same understanding of its impacts on successive generations.

Fair enough.  I suppose most wealthy people tend to minimize their own wealth or other advantages, that's kind of human nature.  

[Dahobbs 17451]

37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Can you explain this. Assume the rich and middle have their loopholes closed and are paying their steady %.  

Sure, it is an income tax, so it inherently more heavily taxes those whose increases in wealth are tied to income (i.e., labor). It doesn't tax increases in other types of increase in wealth (e.g., real property, stocks, etc.) that are primarily the province of the wealthy. I suppose you could structure an income tax such that it does capture those things, but then it is really just the wealth tax I proposed. 

20 minutes ago, Brew said:

Sweet, another Surly tax policy debate. A strict flat tax by definition would not be regressive as it is a flat tax.

A strict income tax is regressive because it doesn't account for other resources. 

Quote

At the point credits/deductions are added, then it will become regressive (less likely) or progressive (more likely).

Credits/deductions in our current system have clearly led to a more regressive tax system. Your probability matrix seems to be the opposite of the available evidence. 

 

Quote

You all are using the top .000001% for your arguments, when the average “rich” person is paying pretty close to the max marginal rate that is out there until they reach the point of retiring and living off investments. They don’t have the luxury of capital like the ones being discussed to fully take advantage of the tax system outside of the 20% pass through deduction gift they have gotten the last few years. Those guys can do it because they are operating inside the largest public companies out there with access to pretty well unlimited capital, your local guy running a $100m company and making $5M a year can’t operate that far into the gray and is well into the 30’s on their marginal tax rate. We keep going in this circle, but you’re arguing over a handful of people ultimately. There are ways to pull them back into the system if they are generating any income, but that still will not cover all of them.

I guess it depends on how you define "rich." Anyone making south of $1 million a year is well off, but not really rich. But, even then, under our current system, those making north of 300k aren't really being taxed on all their full set of assets compared to folks slightly lower on the income bracket. And the person making $5 million a year is definitely seeing a larger percentage of his true wealth hidden from the taxman. That said, yes, we are talking about a relatively small number of people. But that relatively small number of people own a staggering portion of the country's wealth, which is why this matters. 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29267]

I think one source of a lot of confusion is that people don't realize that an income tax is a property tax, because income is property. Any system of taxation that relies solely on an income tax is always going to be regressive, because it's a choice to tax the only property working people have and to not tax other forms of property that people with more property have. 

[Dahobbs 17451]

I'll add that I'm not vilifying the rich. I hope to be accounted among them. I just want our system to function in a way to maximize the benefits for everyone as opposed to a few individuals. 

[Brew 3049]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A strict income tax is regressive because it doesn't account for other resources. 

Credits/deductions in our current system have clearly led to a more regressive tax system. Your probability matrix seems to be the opposite of the available evidence. 

I guess it depends on how you define "rich." Anyone making south of $1 million a year is well off, but not really rich. But, even then, under our current system, those making north of 300k aren't really being taxed on all their full set of assets compared to folks slightly lower on the income bracket. And the person making $5 million a year is definitely seeing a larger percentage of his true wealth hidden from the taxman. That said, yes, we are talking about a relatively small number of people. But that relatively small number of people own a staggering portion of the country's wealth, which is why this matters. 

 

A strict flat tax would not be a regressive TAX without the use of deductions. You can call it regressive in the general sense of your feelings on taxation as a whole, but it is not a regressive tax.

Credits/deductions have led to a more progressive income tax system. Again, you may argue it's regressive in general terms, but it is progressive in specific tax terms which are related to percentage of tax paid in relation to income. It's why marginal rates increase as income goes up outside of some very specific examples being used in this thread.

I don't agree with your premise in regards to the income tax system. They are paying high marginal tax rates on income especially in relation to those in the lower range of your numbers outside of again a few very specific examples. They are not paying tax on deferrals of income like retirement plans, unrealized gains, etc. but that's a separate debate from the income tax system. I've made my arguments on the pitfalls of a wealth tax before.

[Brew 3049]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think one source of a lot of confusion is that people don't realize that an income tax is a property tax, because income is property. Any system of taxation that relies solely on an income tax is always going to be regressive, because it's a choice to tax the only property working people have and to not tax other forms of property that people with more property have. 

That's stretching it quite a bit I would say especially when accounting for the average marginal tax rates that people in a lower income bracket pay.

[Brew 3049]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to think that taxation went astray when it began trying to incentivize behavior.

That shipped sailed a few thousand pages ago. Like most things, if we would approach it with a clean slate we would have a much better system. However, in all things government related they can't go with the clean slate approach and instead amend and abridge. The problem we have now is that they have done that more in the last 3-4 years than any time I remember and they are doing it in more sweeping fashion without considering the side effects. The tax code is a clusterfuck at this point which wasn't really the case 10-15 years ago.

[wildcat09 29267]

7 minutes ago, Brew said:

That's stretching it quite a bit I would say especially when accounting for the average marginal tax rates that people in a lower income bracket pay.

Please go back and re-read what you're responding to.

[TwiceHorn 31304]

28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think one source of a lot of confusion is that people don't realize that an income tax is a property tax, because income is property. Any system of taxation that relies solely on an income tax is always going to be regressive, because it's a choice to tax the only property working people have and to not tax other forms of property that people with more property have. 

it's interesting how this income/wealth dichotomy crops up all the time.

Wages/income becomes wealth only if there's enough to accumulate.

Wages can be garnished, accumulated wealth can't.  Wages are taxed, accumulated wealth isn't, generally speaking.

Income statements versus balance sheets.

I think income is intended to be taxed before it accumulates as wealth in order to match the "cash flow."  For most tax payers, the tax is withheld and never has any opportunity to accumulate or be "wasted."

In theory, wealth is accumulated income and should be taxed before it accumulates.

But then there's the issue of unrealized gains.  And different tax rates on gains when realized.

And on and on it goes.

[Dahobbs 17451]

12 minutes ago, Brew said:

A strict flat tax would not be a regressive TAX without the use of deductions. You can call it regressive in the general sense of your feelings on taxation as a whole, but it is not a regressive tax.

Credits/deductions have led to a more progressive income tax system. Again, you may argue it's regressive in general terms, but it is progressive in specific tax terms which are related to percentage of tax paid in relation to income. It's why marginal rates increase as income goes up outside of some very specific examples being used in this thread.

I don't agree with your premise in regards to the income tax system. They are paying high marginal tax rates on income especially in relation to those in the lower range of your numbers outside of again a few very specific examples. They are not paying tax on deferrals of income like retirement plans, unrealized gains, etc. but that's a separate debate from the income tax system. I've made my arguments on the pitfalls of a wealth tax before.

 

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

That's stretching it quite a bit I would say especially when accounting for the average marginal tax rates that people in a lower income bracket pay.

These two posts indicate to me that we are having a fundamental communication problem. 

I'm defining a regressive tax as one that decreases as the wealth of the taxed increases. An income tax is regressive because only accounts for one type of wealth/property, the type that forms the bulk of wealth owned by those lower on the economic ladder. As a result, in terms of percentage of entire wealth, the more wealthy pay less taxes EVEN IF they pay a higher percentage on income. You appear to be focused on only the income side the equation, which is why I contend is the entire problem. 

[Brew 3049]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Please go back and re-read what you're responding to.

I can read it 10 different times and my response doesn't change. I don't agree with your premise that income is property. What remains of it is turned into property, but the generation of income isn't property. It ultimately creates the attainment of property. 

[wildcat09 29267]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

I can read it 10 different times and my response doesn't change. I don't agree with your premise that income is property. What remains of it is turned into property, but the generation of income isn't property. It ultimately creates the attainment of property. 

If your income isn't your property, what right do you have to receive it?

[TwiceHorn 31304]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If your income isn't your property, what right do you have to receive it?

It's property, it's just not wealth.  Yet.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Here comes the asset v property semantics debate 

[Dahobbs 17451]

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

I can read it 10 different times and my response doesn't change. I don't agree with your premise that income is property. What remains of it is turned into property, but the generation of income isn't property. It ultimately creates the attainment of property. 

What? Of course income is a type of property. I think you are making some esoteric distinction that doesn't exist in the law. 

Just so we are clear, in the context of an income tax, we are talking about income actually received. Cash in your pocket is your property. Cash in your bank account is your property. If it were not, you'd have no right to use or dispose of it nor any right to complain if someone else took it. Even if we were to move beyond received income, any contractual right you have to income is also a form of property. The problem with an income tax is that it only taxes one form of property, income actually received. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29267]

The idea that income isn't property is absolutely wild. 

Brew, "property" is anything, tangible or intangible, that a state will recognize as "yours." That's all it is. There's no other requisite characteristic. 

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that income isn't property is absolutely wild. 

Brew, "property" is anything, tangible or intangible, that a state will recognize as "yours." That's all it is. There's no other requisite characteristic. 

Take out the state part, and I would agree 100%. There's a reason people say tax is theft. If it's not your property, what the hell is it? I'm not going to work if I only receive "unrealized property" that can all be taken away.

[wildcat09 29267]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Take out the state part, and I would agree 100%. There's a reason people say tax is theft. If it's not your property, what the hell is it? I'm not going to work if I only receive "unrealized property" that can all be taken away.

Property rights don't exist without a state.

[workswithseed 2037]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Property rights don't exist without a state.

Do you own yourself? That's the basic argument of property rights. 

[Brew 3049]

This is fucking painful. In regards to the tax system which is the discussion, income and property are two separately defined components. We can go in this stupid fucking circle all day or you can just debate a wealth tax and be done with the semantics. I have no issue with a wealth tax per se. It will ultimately allow me to increase what I get to pay in under either system which I can live with. How are you valuing operating closely held businesses? Are you including personal property and how is it valued? Are we setting a floor for taxation? 

[Samson's Wig 3182]

 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to think that taxation went astray when it began trying to incentivize behavior.

Wish I could rep this comment more.   

[TwiceHorn 31304]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What? Of course income is a type of property. I think you are making some esoteric distinction that doesn't exist in the law. 

Just so we are clear, in the context of an income tax, we are talking about income actually received. Cash in your pocket is your property. Cash in your bank account is your property. If it were not, you'd have no right to use or dispose of it nor any right to complain if someone else took it. Even if we were to move beyond received income, any contractual right you have to income is also a form of property. The problem with an income tax is that it only taxes one form of property, income actually received. 

He's plainly using the definitional connotation of property in "property tax," which is a tax on the accumulation of income.  As opposed to  "income" that has not yet accumulated and is taxed, ostensibly before it accumulates.

But wildcat is right, it is property, legally speaking.

[Dahobbs 17451]

26 minutes ago, Brew said:

This is fucking painful. 

I agree, it is painful. I'm not sure why you're intent on being difficult by relying on a technical distinction that exists only in a lay understanding of the tax code. Especially, since wildcat and I have been very explicit on what is meant by "property" and how income is a subset of property. It seems like you're trying to intentional misunderstand us, and I'm not quite clear as to why. 

Moving on, I agree there are some practical questions on the implementation of a wealth tax that are challenging. How do you account for personal property? One idea may be to exclude "consumable" personal property, but I can see how that could be gamed. Another idea may be to setup a simplified presumption on the cumulative value of personal property that is dependent upon amount of income, investment assets, and real property. 

[sheeeit 129]

19 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

If I have to pay taxes every year then I sure as shit want entitled rich brats to pay taxes on money never taxed. 

Sometimes the truth leaks out.  What if they are really nice and not bratty?   Do they get a pass?  

[Dahobbs 17451]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Sometimes the truth leaks out.  What if they are really nice and not bratty?   Do they get a pass?  

He still wants them to pay taxes. 

[BabaYaga 15214]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Sometimes the truth leaks out.  What if they are really nice and not bratty?   Do they get a pass?  

LOL, right.  Further it was taxed when it was earned.  This idea that it was never taxed is not always correct.   If we are talking about investments and portfolio growth, that is different.  

[Bevo 13528]

7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

 

Wish I could rep this comment more.   

That is true with all taxes such as state income tax and wealth tax and estate taxes. The intentions may have been fine to begin with but they become party tools. Anyone who thinks a state income tax would offset property taxes is a fool. It just adds another fund grab. Property taxes would not go down and if they did then they would go right back up a few years down the road. Wealth taxes wouldn't substitute for an estate tax. It would just be an added tax. And it would start out for the ultra-wealthy who are quite frankly a boogieman as there are very few Warren B., J. Bezos, B. Gates and Mark Z. And then, you know that second year law student who you said wouldn't be affected. Bullshit. All more taxes do is keep the middle class and lower, upper class down. It is a money grab pure and simple disguised as a need.

[wildcat09 29267]

15 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That is true with all taxes such as state income tax and wealth tax and estate taxes. The intentions may have been fine to begin with but they become party tools. Anyone who thinks a state income tax would offset property taxes is a fool. It just adds another fund grab. Property taxes would not go down and if they did then they would go right back up a few years down the road. Wealth taxes wouldn't substitute for an estate tax. It would just be an added tax. And it would start out for the ultra-wealthy who are quite frankly a boogieman as there are very few Warren B., J. Bezos, B. Gates and Mark Z. And then, you know that second year law student who you said wouldn't be affected. Bullshit. All more taxes do is keep the middle class and lower, upper class down. It is a money grab pure and simple disguised as a need.

Thank you for such an intelligent contribution. 

[Bevo 13528]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Thank you for such an intelligent contribution. 

Thanks for the pithy comment. I know you would rather argue existential Marxism philosophy. Personally, I would like to discuss what happens in the real world, the one in which surlyhorns live.

[Brew 3049]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree, it is painful. I'm not sure why you're intent on being difficult by relying on a technical distinction that exists only in a lay understanding of the tax code. Especially, since wildcat and I have been very explicit on what is meant by "property" and how income is a subset of property. It seems like you're trying to intentional misunderstand us, and I'm not quite clear as to why. 

Moving on, I agree there are some practical questions on the implementation of a wealth tax that are challenging. How do you account for personal property? One idea may be to exclude "consumable" personal property, but I can see how that could be gamed. Another idea may be to setup a simplified presumption on the cumulative value of personal property that is dependent upon amount of income, investment assets, and real property. 

I have zero comprehension of your second sentence. The federal tax code is an income based system. Whether you have a “lay” understanding or an in depth knowledge, it still is what it is. A progressive income tax system that taxes increasing income progressively. If you generate $5M in income, you pay a higher marginal rate than the guy at $1M than the guy at $500k than the guy at $100k and so on. Even with different rates on different income now, for the most part that holds true. When you talk about rich paying less and use the examples used, they are still paying a higher percentage of income than most people and those specific examples are few and far between. The guy making $5M a year is generally paying north of 30% on his income, the guy at $100k is generally paying 12ish% and much less with kids. As far as your contention that the code benefits the rich, most income tax benefits go to the lower income ranges. There is a ton of stuff that phases out at income levels in the $150k-$250k range and things that phase in at the $400k-$500k range.

As far as your second paragraph, unrealized appreciation is what you’re chasing. If you do a standard calculation like sales tax currently, you’re leaving a lot of holes. Business and property growth is where a lot of unrealized gains sit.

[Brew 3049]

16 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Thanks for the pithy comment. I know you would rather argue existential Marxism philosophy. Personally, I would like to discuss what happens in the real world, the one in which surlyhorns live.

Not happening, we just know the rich need to pay more (which I agree with in principle for the most part) with no plan on how to do it. However, taxes are a money grab, it’s how the government pays it’s bills. Everything done in the middle is just a reallocation. I assume you are a spend less person, but again probably not happening at this point.

As far as ways to even some things out, remove the 20% QBI deduction should be number one on the list. Remove the 100% bonus depreciation (at least on used items again) and lower 179 as long as you’re good with the requisite slow down in purchasing. All comp is taxable whether realized or not. Eliminate itemized deductions other than for charitable and taxes paid to other districts. Increase capital gains rates to 28% max rate, leave them in a sliding scale based on income brackets. Close the trust loophole and drop estate tax exemptions back down to $5M and allow for a financed payback on assets with unrealized appreciation to keep from forcing sales. Stop talking about a flat tax, items a waste of breath and confuses the discussion. Taxes should be progressive in some way, but everyone should pay something.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Brew

[workswithseed 2037]

@immamac or @hayden_horn what was overtly political about this?

[wildcat09 29267]

Must've been Incredulity's Trump gif.

[Brew 3049]

8 pages on rich people and taxes, so it was at least even money that it had turned political.

[Guest Lobo]

I actually thought for the length of the thread, it was fairly apolitical.  Certainly touched on political ideologies, but no names or parties or any old bullshit really seem to percolate.  For instance, I think the notion that our current taxation system is truly "progressive" is as insane as the notion that Donald Trump knows how to put on pants in the morning without help from the special olympiads he employs to make himself feel better about himself.  

The "fair share" notion is noble, but unreliable because idiotic liberal bureaucrats are behind it.  And they are corrupt just like Donald Trump. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Lobo

[immamac 42537]

I monitored the first 3 pages and it was fine. Haven't been back since, but it seems to have gotten to a policy discussion not a news one. No Brainerd to move. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

15 minutes ago, Brew said:

Not happening, we just know the rich need to pay more (which I agree with in principle for the most part) with no plan on how to do it. However, taxes are a money grab, it’s how the government pays it’s bills. Everything done in the middle is just a reallocation. I assume you are a spend less person, but again probably not happening at this point.

As far as ways to even some things out, remove the 20% QBI deduction should be number one on the list. Remove the 100% bonus depreciation (at least on used items again) and lower 179 as long as you’re good with the requisite slow down in purchasing. All comp is taxable whether realized or not. Eliminate itemized deductions other than for charitable and taxes paid to other districts. Increase capital gains rates to 28% max rate, leave them in a sliding scale based on income brackets. Close the trust loophole and drop estate tax exemptions back down to $5M and allow for a financed payback on assets with unrealized appreciation to keep from forcing sales. Stop talking about a flat tax, items a waste of breath and confuses the discussion. Taxes should be progressive in some way, but everyone should pay something.

Ok, so now do poor people.