4 ms·

Have you actually tried to calculate how much money you could raise if you increased taxes on the richest 0.01%? And have you checked how much money is necessar

Have you actually tried to calculate how much money you could raise if you increased taxes on the richest 0.01%? And have you checked how much money is necessary to pay out pensions in the future?

crdoconnor 11y ago
The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). So you could raise rather a lot more than you needed, actually. Raising those taxes will also significantly drag down the cost of property (and consequently rents) which is the main outgoing for lower and middle class families.
- minot 11y ago
  I honestly doubt we can raise the marginal tax on income (even just income over $1M a year) to over 50%. Not in the foreseeable future at least as far as the US is concerned.
  - harryh 11y ago
    It's already over 50% in CA (as well as various other places). 39.6% (Fed) + 12.3% (CA) = 51.9% There are city taxes as well in some places, for example add an additional 1.5% to that if you live in SF. Thinking about this, I suppose that the fact that you can deduct state taxes on your fed taxes brings this down a bit so maybe it does dip below 50? Not sure about the math. Real close though.
    - gergles 11y ago
      The deduction you can make on your federal taxes for state taxes paid vanishes once you're in AMT land which you almost certainly are if you're in the 39.6% tax bracket.
      - harryh 11y ago
        If you're paying the AMT the 39.6% doesn't apply. The top AMT rate is 28%. Whether you pay the AMT or not isn't really based on how much money you make. It's based on how many deductions not allowed under the AMT you take (deductibility of state taxes being the biggest one).
- harryh 11y ago
  > The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-20110...
  - jayvanguard 11y ago
    The article you reference doesn't actually provide any evidence that the claim is false.
  - dahart 11y ago
    This might be the misquoted source for the claim you're refuting: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-inequality-piketty-capital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... That article is discussing wealth (net worth) versus the article you cited which discusses income. No surprise that the lines between rich and poor differ when you measure it different ways. I found that via: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... One question: aside from arguing the specific numbers, it is irrefutably true that a small minority hold the majority of the money, and it is widely reported that the gap is currently growing, not shrinking. Is this a good thing? Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Even that Vanity Fair article concludes the situation is bad.
    - harryh 11y ago
      A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Of course the data matters! Especially when (as crdoconnor did) you report data that is incorrect by an order of magnitude! Jesus.
      - dahart 11y ago
        I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?
- xiaoma 11y ago
  Setting the numbers aside for a moment, a wealth tax would definitely have a large effect. It's a somewhat extreme measure by the standards of modern tax schemes though, and it would cause a much higher number of super wealthy people to expatriate than just raising income and capital gains taxes would.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). Even assuming tapping billionaires' wealth is a zero-impact answer, that doesn't necessarily help you if you're in a random municipality which has overpromised on its pension plan. As one example, take San Jose, which is Bay Area but not prime Bay Area (and beginning to see pension problems) and could easily see its richest citizens moving a few cities away to somewhere like Cupertino or Mountain View if it means a 5% savings on income tax. And what of cities like Stockton, CA, which was already bankrupted by its pensions and doesn't exactly have a bevy of billionaires to tap? I guess you could hope for the day that the federal government decides to send a bunch of its money to your own local government, but the rest of the nation is likely to resent that so they might not approve of the measure.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >could easily see its richest citizens moving a few cities away The richest citzens always make this threat but they don't actually follow through on it: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studies-rich-dont-flee-high-tax-states http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studi... Apparently if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
    - fennecfoxen 11y ago
      That's an article about high-tax states like California and NYC. In the case of San Jose you can move literally five miles, work the same job, have the same friends, even shop at the same places that you did before, but have a different tax regime. And that still doesn't help Stockton.

Have you actually tried to calculate how much money you could raise if you increased taxes on the richest 0.01%? And have you checked how much money is necessary to pay out pensions in the future?

crdoconnor 11y ago

The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). So you could raise rather a lot more than you needed, actually. Raising those taxes will also significantly drag down the cost of property (and consequently rents) which is the main outgoing for lower and middle class families.

minot 11y ago
I honestly doubt we can raise the marginal tax on income (even just income over $1M a year) to over 50%. Not in the foreseeable future at least as far as the US is concerned.
- harryh 11y ago
  It's already over 50% in CA (as well as various other places). 39.6% (Fed) + 12.3% (CA) = 51.9% There are city taxes as well in some places, for example add an additional 1.5% to that if you live in SF. Thinking about this, I suppose that the fact that you can deduct state taxes on your fed taxes brings this down a bit so maybe it does dip below 50? Not sure about the math. Real close though.
  - gergles 11y ago
    The deduction you can make on your federal taxes for state taxes paid vanishes once you're in AMT land which you almost certainly are if you're in the 39.6% tax bracket.
    - harryh 11y ago
      If you're paying the AMT the 39.6% doesn't apply. The top AMT rate is 28%. Whether you pay the AMT or not isn't really based on how much money you make. It's based on how many deductions not allowed under the AMT you take (deductibility of state taxes being the biggest one).
harryh 11y ago
> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% False. Some claim that the top 1% have as much as the bottom 90% but even that claim is disputed. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-20110...
- jayvanguard 11y ago
  The article you reference doesn't actually provide any evidence that the claim is false.
- dahart 11y ago
  This might be the misquoted source for the claim you're refuting: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-inequality-piketty-capital.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-i... That article is discussing wealth (net worth) versus the article you cited which discusses income. No surprise that the lines between rich and poor differ when you measure it different ways. I found that via: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni... One question: aside from arguing the specific numbers, it is irrefutably true that a small minority hold the majority of the money, and it is widely reported that the gap is currently growing, not shrinking. Is this a good thing? Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Even that Vanity Fair article concludes the situation is bad.
  - harryh 11y ago
    A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Of course the data matters! Especially when (as crdoconnor did) you report data that is incorrect by an order of magnitude! Jesus.
    - dahart 11y ago
      I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?
xiaoma 11y ago
Setting the numbers aside for a moment, a wealth tax would definitely have a large effect. It's a somewhat extreme measure by the standards of modern tax schemes though, and it would cause a much higher number of super wealthy people to expatriate than just raising income and capital gains taxes would.
fennecfoxen 11y ago
> The top 0.1% have as much as the bottom 90% (which includes housing wealth as well as pension wealth). Even assuming tapping billionaires' wealth is a zero-impact answer, that doesn't necessarily help you if you're in a random municipality which has overpromised on its pension plan. As one example, take San Jose, which is Bay Area but not prime Bay Area (and beginning to see pension problems) and could easily see its richest citizens moving a few cities away to somewhere like Cupertino or Mountain View if it means a 5% savings on income tax. And what of cities like Stockton, CA, which was already bankrupted by its pensions and doesn't exactly have a bevy of billionaires to tap? I guess you could hope for the day that the federal government decides to send a bunch of its money to your own local government, but the rest of the nation is likely to resent that so they might not approve of the measure.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >could easily see its richest citizens moving a few cities away The richest citzens always make this threat but they don't actually follow through on it: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studies-rich-dont-flee-high-tax-states http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studi... Apparently if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    That's an article about high-tax states like California and NYC. In the case of San Jose you can move literally five miles, work the same job, have the same friends, even shop at the same places that you did before, but have a different tax regime. And that still doesn't help Stockton.