3 ms·

>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 spendin

>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.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      >It's unearned income. In other words: no income. No that's wrong, it is income. Examples of unearned income are dividends and interest, and capital gains. These are taxed at a lower income tax rate than earned income, i.e. income from a salaried job. And unearned income is not subject to FICA tax. You have to make enough money for starters in order to have income sources that are unearned, so yes this is favored at people who make money. The very wealthy, the 1%, aren't making this money from earned income, they make it from unearned income.

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.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    >It's unearned income. In other words: no income. No that's wrong, it is income. Examples of unearned income are dividends and interest, and capital gains. These are taxed at a lower income tax rate than earned income, i.e. income from a salaried job. And unearned income is not subject to FICA tax. You have to make enough money for starters in order to have income sources that are unearned, so yes this is favored at people who make money. The very wealthy, the 1%, aren't making this money from earned income, they make it from unearned income.