8 ms·

One thing to consider: as per a recent Bloomberg article, with the tax code as it is now in the US, for the really rich with tax exempt structure over family o

One thing to consider: as per a recent Bloomberg article, with the tax code as it is now in the US, for the really rich with tax exempt structure over family offices, if you are paying any income tax on income that you haven't yet spent, you're not doing it right. Why shouldn't everybody demand to be under the same tax regime as the wealthy? Why is this not a debate? Who owns the debate?

adwhit 8y ago
Obviously, the wealthy own the debate. And that is no accident but the result of a highly successful political project that has been instituted over the past 40 years. Hey, there was even a study about it[1]: Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence It wasn't always like this. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  It’s a new nation, really, with a new standard of citizenship. It probably was bound to happen after extending the vote to all persons.
Arnt 8y ago
Define "rich". IMO the correct threshold is "earns more than needed over some longish period of time", which is another way of saying "has income that isn't spent". If you use that definition, everyone who spends all of their income gets that treatment, because their unspent income is zero and the tax on that is zero.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Not really. The very lowest level I would consider someone rich is that he/she has enough passive income (income independent of any day to day activity) to support himself anywhere they want to for an indefinite period of time. Very rich is to be able to do that for both themselves and a staff. Also: you should broaden your economic knowledge ... it's cute that you think unspent income isn't taxed. Directly taxed ... perhaps not. Now what happens if you want to do anything with that money (different from spending it). Tens of different taxes suddenly apply.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    I do not think so, and I did not say so. On the contrary. What I said that people who have zero unspent income are taxed zero on that amount.
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      poor homeless people don't sell products, and hence don't collect sales tax. analogy with your example: shops don't need to pay sales tax because homeless people sell zero things.
  - hondadriver 8y ago
    In some countries, for example the Netherlands, unspent income is taxed if it is above EUR 25000 per person.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      So would you not just spend that money investing into stocks / property etc and presumably you paid tax on receiving that income in the first place.
      - antientropic 8y ago
        There is no "unspent income tax" in the Netherlands. There is however a tax of 1.2% on savings and investments over 25000 euros.
- giantsloth 8y ago
  You are propping up a very weird straw man definition to tear down which has absolutely no basis in material reality, so that you can simply state that taxes are bad. From an actual real world level, it’s unfair that the stock market is used to decide how good the economy is when 84% of the stock market is controlled by the top 10% richest segment of the population. It’s unfair that corporations get massive tax breaks provided by local municipalities for short term political wins in the establishment of jobs that they will summarily destroy if another town comes in wit better incentives 5 or 10 years down the line living that town in ruin when they leave. It’s unfair that companies are allowed to offshore their headquarters and pay no income tax at all to their countries of origin. It’s unfair that these giant companies can control and manipulate our political system with money. The point is it’s irrelevant how you define rich, we have real unfair realities that we can look at and address. Coming up with an arbitrary definition of rich is a distraction rooted in no reality. This is a very naive statement, with a heavy helping of dog whistling libertarian utopian memes and philosophical navel gazing.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    > it’s unfair that the stock market is used to decide how good the economy is But the stock market swings in response to economic reports like unemployment rate. The government doesn't report unemployment based on stock prices.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      There's a bit of a feedback cycle :-). If stock prices fall, then they fall more usually. Then that can hurt the economy for real, instead of just the stock market part.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Most of the stock market is owned by John and Jane Doe's pension funds
    - Noumenon72 8y ago
      A quick Google said pension funds own [16%](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-...).
walshemj 8y ago
How do you mean shurly all "income" is taxed how does what you do with it come into it. Also if your rich any "unspent income" would get reinvested to avoid losing value to inflation?
perl4ever 8y ago
Well, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, it amounts to the same thing. Regarding "if you are paying any income tax on income that you haven't yet spent, you're not doing it right" I'm doubtful of this - if you live off capital, and you have no dividend paying stocks or bonds, isn't that unnecessarily risky? It seems like some assumptions are likely to be made, where you pre-plan your income according to your expected expenses, as opposed to selling shares of stock whenever you need money. Also, dividends or interest payments inherently provide a barometer of whether you're living beyond your means, assuming you're wealthy enough to live off of them.

adwhit 8y ago

Obviously, the wealthy own the debate. And that is no accident but the result of a highly successful political project that has been instituted over the past 40 years. Hey, there was even a study about it[1]: Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence It wasn't always like this. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

erikpukinskis 8y ago
It’s a new nation, really, with a new standard of citizenship. It probably was bound to happen after extending the vote to all persons.

Arnt 8y ago

Define "rich". IMO the correct threshold is "earns more than needed over some longish period of time", which is another way of saying "has income that isn't spent". If you use that definition, everyone who spends all of their income gets that treatment, because their unspent income is zero and the tax on that is zero.

candiodari 8y ago
Not really. The very lowest level I would consider someone rich is that he/she has enough passive income (income independent of any day to day activity) to support himself anywhere they want to for an indefinite period of time. Very rich is to be able to do that for both themselves and a staff. Also: you should broaden your economic knowledge ... it's cute that you think unspent income isn't taxed. Directly taxed ... perhaps not. Now what happens if you want to do anything with that money (different from spending it). Tens of different taxes suddenly apply.
- Arnt 8y ago
  I do not think so, and I did not say so. On the contrary. What I said that people who have zero unspent income are taxed zero on that amount.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    poor homeless people don't sell products, and hence don't collect sales tax. analogy with your example: shops don't need to pay sales tax because homeless people sell zero things.
- hondadriver 8y ago
  In some countries, for example the Netherlands, unspent income is taxed if it is above EUR 25000 per person.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    So would you not just spend that money investing into stocks / property etc and presumably you paid tax on receiving that income in the first place.
    - antientropic 8y ago
      There is no "unspent income tax" in the Netherlands. There is however a tax of 1.2% on savings and investments over 25000 euros.
giantsloth 8y ago
You are propping up a very weird straw man definition to tear down which has absolutely no basis in material reality, so that you can simply state that taxes are bad. From an actual real world level, it’s unfair that the stock market is used to decide how good the economy is when 84% of the stock market is controlled by the top 10% richest segment of the population. It’s unfair that corporations get massive tax breaks provided by local municipalities for short term political wins in the establishment of jobs that they will summarily destroy if another town comes in wit better incentives 5 or 10 years down the line living that town in ruin when they leave. It’s unfair that companies are allowed to offshore their headquarters and pay no income tax at all to their countries of origin. It’s unfair that these giant companies can control and manipulate our political system with money. The point is it’s irrelevant how you define rich, we have real unfair realities that we can look at and address. Coming up with an arbitrary definition of rich is a distraction rooted in no reality. This is a very naive statement, with a heavy helping of dog whistling libertarian utopian memes and philosophical navel gazing.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  > it’s unfair that the stock market is used to decide how good the economy is But the stock market swings in response to economic reports like unemployment rate. The government doesn't report unemployment based on stock prices.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    There's a bit of a feedback cycle :-). If stock prices fall, then they fall more usually. Then that can hurt the economy for real, instead of just the stock market part.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Most of the stock market is owned by John and Jane Doe's pension funds
  - Noumenon72 8y ago
    A quick Google said pension funds own [16%](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-...).

walshemj 8y ago

How do you mean shurly all "income" is taxed how does what you do with it come into it. Also if your rich any "unspent income" would get reinvested to avoid losing value to inflation?

perl4ever 8y ago

Well, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, it amounts to the same thing. Regarding "if you are paying any income tax on income that you haven't yet spent, you're not doing it right" I'm doubtful of this - if you live off capital, and you have no dividend paying stocks or bonds, isn't that unnecessarily risky? It seems like some assumptions are likely to be made, where you pre-plan your income according to your expected expenses, as opposed to selling shares of stock whenever you need money. Also, dividends or interest payments inherently provide a barometer of whether you're living beyond your means, assuming you're wealthy enough to live off of them.