4 ms·
One (absurd) solution would be to say, no income taxes beyond $127,000 (same as social security) and to pay for it, we'll just not have a military. The homeless
by jfoutz 9y ago
One (absurd) solution would be to say, no income taxes beyond $127,000 (same as social security) and to pay for it, we'll just not have a military. The homeless person down the street wouldn't really notice. The homeowner would get very nervous. The international oil corporation would essentially self destruct. So in this case, The more you have the more you stand to lose.
Another (absurd) option, we could cut all discretionary spending in half. So, 1/2 size military, 1/2 size departments of state, health, homeland security, veterans affairs, education and the rest. This might be kinda workable, but we'd probably lose military control in the middle east, which is essentially access to all that oil. i think it'd be tough to enforce copyright without heavy state department involvement, which would risk a bunch of wealth.
I think the 1% get outsized returns from the stability of the government. If you can pick a set of departments to simply eliminate i'd love to see the set, and why it wouldn't risk current wealth. There are a few i'd be sad to see go, but you could probably eliminate education, energy (no more nukes though), nasa, interior, hud, and agriculture. that gets you fairly close to 200 billion, with about 400 billion more to go. those are risky, but probably survivable.
i dunno. I fundamentally disagree, the more you have the more you benefit from the status quo.
- ImSkeptical 9y agoI agree that rich benefit more from the status quo than the poor. That's part of why I'm not bothered by the fact that the rich pay a disproportionate (mathematically speaking only) share of the taxes. Plus, a rich person can give up a third of their income whereas a poor person couldn't. What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem true to say the rich aren't paying their fair due. If you think that, then please answer what percentage of federal taxes do you think the 1% should pay and why would that be more fair than what they currently pay?
- jfoutz 9y agoif i could wave a magic wand, taxes would be strictly progressive. I understand the difference between income and capital gains, but i find Buffet's comments about 'lower rate than my secretary' frustrating. I would support Paul Ryan's original promise that 'you can file your taxes on a postcard'. With the caveat, every other person and corporation also files their taxes on a postcard. This, of course, strips a fantastic amount of subtlety and control. Subsidize what you want and tax what you don't is standard tax policy. On the other hand, i prefer scheme to c++. so simple as to be completely transparent is better than fabulous complexity. But, it turns out that's not a particularly popular world view.
- ImSkeptical 9y agoBuffet's comments are just nonsense though. He doesn't pay a lower rate on capital gains tax than his secretary does. Buffet is comparing federal income tax rate to capital gains tax, that's comparing two different things, like if I said I paid more in sales tax than the coupon rate on your savings bonds - maybe that's true, but so what? The reason why capital gains are taxes less includes things like you were already taxed on the money when you earned it before investing it so the capital gains tax is the second time you're getting taxed on that money, and that capital gains tax affect the risk to return ratio of investments. In other words, if you are taxed on capital gains more that diminishes the potential gains of your investments, while leaving your potential losses alone. If the balance of risk to reward shifts too much towards "risk" then investments will fall and the whole economy will suffer. I agree with you that our taxes should be simpler.
- tmnvix 9y ago> the more you have the more you benefit from the status quo. Also, as a general rule, the more land you own, the more you benefit from public expenditure. This is because the value of land rises as taxes are spent improving the surrounding environment (roads, schools, parks, etc). The 'return' on this investment is captured in property values and so is essentially a tax rebate for land owners.