6 ms·

I’m not comfortable with the idea that you should just take more of someone’s money just because someone thinks they don’t need it. There’s nothing wrong with

I’m not comfortable with the idea that you should just take more of someone’s money just because someone thinks they don’t need it. There’s nothing wrong with implementing a floor, either. We effectively have one today. If everyone above the floor, extending all the way to infinity, pays the same % it’s a stretch to call that a bracket.

lovich 8y ago
I don't see it as a stretch, it's putting people into different buckets which is just another word for a bracket. >I’m not comfortable with the idea that you should just take more of someone’s money just because someone thinks they don’t need it. I understand that view and believe I share it. The modifier is that I don't think you can ascend to the uber rich tier of society without having had siphoned off value from society. At that point I don't think you should be taxed more just because you don't need it but because you are obligated to pay back into society and you are the one who can shoulder the burden.
- splintercell 8y ago
  > The modifier is that I don't think you can ascend to the uber rich tier of society without having had siphoned off value from society. That's cart before the horse. Siphoning implies stealing. Then you're justifying your theft from those individuals. Value is created, and of course theft is possible, but you'ren't talking about theft, you're claiming that people just should pay more because of the virtue of having more.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    > just should pay more because of the virtue of having more. First off, is having more really a virtue? Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? They'll still end up with more in the end - someone who makes $10m a year and pays 80% of it still ends up with quite a bit more money than someone who only makes $15k a year.
    - splintercell 8y ago
      > First off, is having more really a virtue? It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. > Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. > They'll still end up with more in the end. Here's the problem though. At a higher tax bracket, I now have an incentive to find ways to avoid it. At 10% income tax on a $100K income I might not care, but at $10 million and an applicable 70% tax rate, I am willing to spend upto $5 or even $6 million to keep more of my money with me. (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue). 1. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-virtue-of-something https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-vi...
      - dorchadas 8y ago
        > It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. Yeah, I realized that upon re-reading, but wasn't in a place to edit my comment. I wonder if it's more common in Britain, though, as it didn't sound completely natural in that sense to my American ears. > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. This doesn't follow. So because people who have more pay more (as a proportion of their money, yet still have more in the long run), millions are going to die? And by making these people who have more pay less (as a proportion of their money), millions are going to emerge out of poverty? Seems to me that it'll basically end up with the increasing wealth inequality we're already seeing, except 10-fold. > (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue) Ah, there's the truth. Heaven forbid somebody else pay less (as a proportion of their money) than you, even though it affects them far, far more. Flat taxes hurt the poor and will do nothing but increase inequality.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > It's an expression in English. The expression is “by virtue of” not “becauase of the virtue of”. I don't know that most English speakers would recognize the latter as a mangled attempt at the former rather than having the normal meaning of the individual words.
splintercell 8y ago
Well I think 640K ought to be enough for anybody.
- RhysU 8y ago
  I see your 640K and raise you Manhattan.
tptacek 8y ago
If you believe that, why do you believe a percentage tax is reasonable in the first place? Shouldn't it be an absolute flat number of dollars taken from each citizen (or, perhaps, a percentage with an absolute cap), recognizing that regardless of how many dollars you generate, the services you're obtaining from the government don't scale with that revenue?
- larrywright 8y ago
  I think that’s a different definition of fair than I was using. I think that logically what you are saying (perhaps sarcastically) is correct - the fairest of all taxes would be a flat amount. I don’t think that’s necessarily the goal here. So perhaps I should restate my comment as “A fairer tax is a flat tax”. Ultimately, I think that the tax structure that AOC is proposing is punitive. If you’re successful, we will punish you for that success. I am not anywhere near a tax bracket that would be impacted by her proposal. I don’t really expect to be in my lifetime. But I don’t think it’s fair to punish someone for achieving success in life. Everyone should pay their fair share, but a flat percent-based tax already does that. One other idea that I like (although haven’t studied enough to determine its feasibility), is to do away with the income tax altogether (or make it very low) and tax consumption. Exempt the necessities of life, like food, but everything else has a national sales tax applied to it. This has the nice benefit of rewarding people for saving rather than spending.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 8y ago
    A private equity partner who makes $10,000,000 a year and pays 30% on it pays $3,000,000 to the government. A custodian who makes $50,000 a year and pays 30% on it pays $15,000, just 0.05% of what the investor does --- the investor pays 200x more than the custodian, simply for being more successful. By your logic, how could a flat 30% tax (really, a percentage tax set at any level) possibly not be "punitive"?
    - 8y ago

lovich 8y ago

I don't see it as a stretch, it's putting people into different buckets which is just another word for a bracket. >I’m not comfortable with the idea that you should just take more of someone’s money just because someone thinks they don’t need it. I understand that view and believe I share it. The modifier is that I don't think you can ascend to the uber rich tier of society without having had siphoned off value from society. At that point I don't think you should be taxed more just because you don't need it but because you are obligated to pay back into society and you are the one who can shoulder the burden.

splintercell 8y ago
> The modifier is that I don't think you can ascend to the uber rich tier of society without having had siphoned off value from society. That's cart before the horse. Siphoning implies stealing. Then you're justifying your theft from those individuals. Value is created, and of course theft is possible, but you'ren't talking about theft, you're claiming that people just should pay more because of the virtue of having more.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  > just should pay more because of the virtue of having more. First off, is having more really a virtue? Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? They'll still end up with more in the end - someone who makes $10m a year and pays 80% of it still ends up with quite a bit more money than someone who only makes $15k a year.
  - splintercell 8y ago
    > First off, is having more really a virtue? It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. > Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. > They'll still end up with more in the end. Here's the problem though. At a higher tax bracket, I now have an incentive to find ways to avoid it. At 10% income tax on a $100K income I might not care, but at $10 million and an applicable 70% tax rate, I am willing to spend upto $5 or even $6 million to keep more of my money with me. (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue). 1. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-virtue-of-something https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-vi...
    - dorchadas 8y ago
      > It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. Yeah, I realized that upon re-reading, but wasn't in a place to edit my comment. I wonder if it's more common in Britain, though, as it didn't sound completely natural in that sense to my American ears. > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. This doesn't follow. So because people who have more pay more (as a proportion of their money, yet still have more in the long run), millions are going to die? And by making these people who have more pay less (as a proportion of their money), millions are going to emerge out of poverty? Seems to me that it'll basically end up with the increasing wealth inequality we're already seeing, except 10-fold. > (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue) Ah, there's the truth. Heaven forbid somebody else pay less (as a proportion of their money) than you, even though it affects them far, far more. Flat taxes hurt the poor and will do nothing but increase inequality.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > It's an expression in English. The expression is “by virtue of” not “becauase of the virtue of”. I don't know that most English speakers would recognize the latter as a mangled attempt at the former rather than having the normal meaning of the individual words.

splintercell 8y ago

Well I think 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

RhysU 8y ago
I see your 640K and raise you Manhattan.

tptacek 8y ago

If you believe that, why do you believe a percentage tax is reasonable in the first place? Shouldn't it be an absolute flat number of dollars taken from each citizen (or, perhaps, a percentage with an absolute cap), recognizing that regardless of how many dollars you generate, the services you're obtaining from the government don't scale with that revenue?

larrywright 8y ago
I think that’s a different definition of fair than I was using. I think that logically what you are saying (perhaps sarcastically) is correct - the fairest of all taxes would be a flat amount. I don’t think that’s necessarily the goal here. So perhaps I should restate my comment as “A fairer tax is a flat tax”. Ultimately, I think that the tax structure that AOC is proposing is punitive. If you’re successful, we will punish you for that success. I am not anywhere near a tax bracket that would be impacted by her proposal. I don’t really expect to be in my lifetime. But I don’t think it’s fair to punish someone for achieving success in life. Everyone should pay their fair share, but a flat percent-based tax already does that. One other idea that I like (although haven’t studied enough to determine its feasibility), is to do away with the income tax altogether (or make it very low) and tax consumption. Exempt the necessities of life, like food, but everything else has a national sales tax applied to it. This has the nice benefit of rewarding people for saving rather than spending.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 8y ago
  A private equity partner who makes $10,000,000 a year and pays 30% on it pays $3,000,000 to the government. A custodian who makes $50,000 a year and pays 30% on it pays $15,000, just 0.05% of what the investor does --- the investor pays 200x more than the custodian, simply for being more successful. By your logic, how could a flat 30% tax (really, a percentage tax set at any level) possibly not be "punitive"?
  - 8y ago