5 ms·

But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It w

But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years. Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (talk about populism...) but nobody ever explains why wealth inequality is so bad. So the 1% has a large concentration of the wealth. If we took all their money and distributed it evenly among all citizens it would barely move the needle in terms of living standards. Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. In fact, that money is likely floating around the economic system anyways in the form of investments. Asking that the government liberate that money – which in terms of total tax revenue is a rounding error – does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. I'd rather there be a few fat-cats sitting on yachts doing nothing (which is better than bombing brown people or spying on me) and have a Bill Gates and Elan Musk actually tackling important problems than have no fat-cats at all and a slightly larger government making all the same mistakes they make today with no visionary capitalists to speak of. Call me crazy.

gerbilly 10y ago
>Asking that the government liberate that money [...] does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. So don't ask the government to liberate the existing holdings of the 1%, ask them to change policy to cutoff the supply. The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade.
- naasking 10y ago
  > The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade. Except this 1% are exactly the sort that have the resources to just leave Canada if it ceases to be financially favourable. It's unfortunately not so cut and dry.
  - XorNot 10y ago
    They're a lot more willing to threaten to do this, and also invite politicians to fancy dining / holiday homes / helicopter rides, then they have historically proven to be willing to actually do this.
- marknutter 10y ago
  Overwhelmingly in favor of the investing class? How on earth are you reaching that conclusion? The bottom 45% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. In fact, the top 1% pay 25% of all taxes in the US. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly in favor. You can certainly argue that they should be taxed more but let's not pretend they're not already footing a disproportionate portion of our tax obligations.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    The conclusion is reached by distinguishing between earned and unearned income. Unearned income is essentially investment income, and there is no FICA tax on that income, and it's taxed based on your earned income tax bracket, which could end up making it 0% and thus not taxed at all if you have no earned income. https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains-tax-rates/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains... Further, while it is true that "federal income tax" does not include FICA, FICA is a tax on income and the poorest sod pays FICA tax from the very first dollar of income. So it's kinda misleading to say the bottom 45% won't pay any income (related) tax whatsoever. You can have a case where those 45% are paying 7.65% of their pittance of income on FICA, with no additional income related tax, where someone wealthy enough who has no earned income is paying 0% federal income tax or capital gains tax or FICA on their unearned investment income. And that's just a small example.
    - marknutter 10y ago
      It's unearned income. In other words: no income. They will get taxes the full 15% rate when they sell the asset so what does it matter if it's 0% in the year they don't sell it other than to sell a narrative? I'm sorry if somebody's assets appreciate over time but to call that income is just dishonest. I hate how people constantly move the goalposts when it come to claiming that a certain minority of people aren't "paying their fair share". You know who else doesn't pay taxes on unearned income? The 99%. That's about as fair as it can get. FICA goes to benefits that overwhelmingly favor the poor compared to the rich, so I don't find that argument compelling either. Your original claim was that the tax code heavily favored the 1% but so far all you've managed to back that up with is a tax rate on their unearned income being the exact same as it is for the 99%'s unearned income. Hardly convincing.
ryandrake 10y ago
> Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. This is observably not true. Prices increase for everyone when average incomes (demand) go up. So if people around me suddenly start making more and I don't, suddenly, I'm paying more for things, and am worse off. If you want a concrete example look at Bay Area housing prices.
- marknutter 10y ago
  Yet a rich person can only occupy one house at a time. Maybe they could own a couple different houses in different locations but even then they have to pay people to maintain them throughout the year. I don't think the 1% are having any effect on your rent bills in SF. The 10%, maybe, and outside investors from China, and a broken local government for sure.. but not the 1%. And besides, you're not addressing my point. You're trying to explain supply and demand for some reason and ignoring the fact that I said "1000 times more money" which means the ultra rich, which is the group that progressives like to scapegoat. Explain to me how anyone from the 1% "observably" negatively affects your daily life in significant way.

gerbilly 10y ago

>Asking that the government liberate that money [...] does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. So don't ask the government to liberate the existing holdings of the 1%, ask them to change policy to cutoff the supply. The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade.

naasking 10y ago
> The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you wouldn't have to take anyone's money to achieve a similar outcome in a decade. Except this 1% are exactly the sort that have the resources to just leave Canada if it ceases to be financially favourable. It's unfortunately not so cut and dry.
- XorNot 10y ago
  They're a lot more willing to threaten to do this, and also invite politicians to fancy dining / holiday homes / helicopter rides, then they have historically proven to be willing to actually do this.
marknutter 10y ago
Overwhelmingly in favor of the investing class? How on earth are you reaching that conclusion? The bottom 45% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. In fact, the top 1% pay 25% of all taxes in the US. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly in favor. You can certainly argue that they should be taxed more but let's not pretend they're not already footing a disproportionate portion of our tax obligations.
- cmurf 10y ago
  The conclusion is reached by distinguishing between earned and unearned income. Unearned income is essentially investment income, and there is no FICA tax on that income, and it's taxed based on your earned income tax bracket, which could end up making it 0% and thus not taxed at all if you have no earned income. https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains-tax-rates/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains... Further, while it is true that "federal income tax" does not include FICA, FICA is a tax on income and the poorest sod pays FICA tax from the very first dollar of income. So it's kinda misleading to say the bottom 45% won't pay any income (related) tax whatsoever. You can have a case where those 45% are paying 7.65% of their pittance of income on FICA, with no additional income related tax, where someone wealthy enough who has no earned income is paying 0% federal income tax or capital gains tax or FICA on their unearned investment income. And that's just a small example.
  - marknutter 10y ago
    It's unearned income. In other words: no income. They will get taxes the full 15% rate when they sell the asset so what does it matter if it's 0% in the year they don't sell it other than to sell a narrative? I'm sorry if somebody's assets appreciate over time but to call that income is just dishonest. I hate how people constantly move the goalposts when it come to claiming that a certain minority of people aren't "paying their fair share". You know who else doesn't pay taxes on unearned income? The 99%. That's about as fair as it can get. FICA goes to benefits that overwhelmingly favor the poor compared to the rich, so I don't find that argument compelling either. Your original claim was that the tax code heavily favored the 1% but so far all you've managed to back that up with is a tax rate on their unearned income being the exact same as it is for the 99%'s unearned income. Hardly convincing.

ryandrake 10y ago

> Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. This is observably not true. Prices increase for everyone when average incomes (demand) go up. So if people around me suddenly start making more and I don't, suddenly, I'm paying more for things, and am worse off. If you want a concrete example look at Bay Area housing prices.

marknutter 10y ago
Yet a rich person can only occupy one house at a time. Maybe they could own a couple different houses in different locations but even then they have to pay people to maintain them throughout the year. I don't think the 1% are having any effect on your rent bills in SF. The 10%, maybe, and outside investors from China, and a broken local government for sure.. but not the 1%. And besides, you're not addressing my point. You're trying to explain supply and demand for some reason and ignoring the fact that I said "1000 times more money" which means the ultra rich, which is the group that progressives like to scapegoat. Explain to me how anyone from the 1% "observably" negatively affects your daily life in significant way.