3 ms·

How to tax the rich

3 points by prostoalex 8y ago

sarcasmatwork 8y ago
OP, did you read this, or just the title? Link = pay wall. Not helpful! Taxing the rich tho is not a good idea because they will GO ELSEWHERE! Anyone got a link that is not a paywall?
- detaro 8y ago
  No paywall here? (maybe ublock stops it?)
  - sarcasmatwork 8y ago
    Just adblock+ .. Goes straight to forcing me to pay. Maybe because corp nets?
- nabla9 8y ago
  https://outline.com/55xZSe https://outline.com/55xZSe
  - sarcasmatwork 8y ago
    Thank you!
nabla9 8y ago
The _effecitve_ marginal tax rate for the poor can be much higher than it is for the rich. > the effective marginal tax rate when a person moves from the bottom to the middle quintile is 1 - (15.4-12.9)/(12.6-2.2), or 76 percent. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal-tax-rate.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal... If you believe in basic economic concepts like: 1) people react to incentives, 2) diminishing marginal utility of income, or that 3) perceived fairness is important for the functioning of the society, you should look at the effective marginal tax levels in different income categories and at least even it out and maybe add more to the richest. Another way to increase taxes and level the playing field would be to remove loopholes in taxation with sweeping taxing reform. Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals, Warren's proposal would probably generate even more income than $2.75 trillion over decade. Almost all economists agree, that the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property. All taxation has some negative effects but property tax has least harm and would be net positive. From this perspective Sanders has the best proposal, but Warren's is also good.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  > Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals US economy has a non-negligible percentage of workers that are subject to windfall distributions - relatively low income for a long period and one excessively large payout upon success of some project. Book writers, movie industry, professional sports players, engineers at pre-IPO startups, real estate developers and everybody's favorites - hedge fund managers. It's unrealistic to expect them to continue enjoying the same level of income every year, for many it's simply a one-time chance at retirement money. Excessive taxation on such income without accounting for the previous (and future) years of low or no income seems unfair and will likely stall many long-term ventures. We could also introduce a 99.9% tax on Powerball winnings, but what does that do to the long-term health of the lottery? > the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property In an economy where large shareholders of Apple are subject to such tax (through their US residency) but large shareholders of Samsung (who happen to be Korea residents) are not, aren't you providing a leg up to any foreign money? (The actual companies are irrelevant, could be Ford and Toyota, or Boeing and Airbus.) Foreign entrepreneurs based in Singapore or Monaco have more spare cash to fund and operate their companies and invest in R&D. In the long-haul does that make the US economy stronger? Another issue is high-wealth but low-margin businesses. A family-owned supermarket chain might bring a wealth of >$50 mil, but their annual earnings on that might not be that outrageous. Under Warren's plan, they would effectively have to part with 2% of the supermarkets each year, not having enough cash on hands to pay the wealth tax bill. Is it a net win for the economy?
known 8y ago
http://archive.fo/RiTLT http://archive.fo/RiTLT

3 points by prostoalex 8y ago

OP, did you read this, or just the title? Link = pay wall. Not helpful! Taxing the rich tho is not a good idea because they will GO ELSEWHERE! Anyone got a link that is not a paywall?

detaro 8y ago
No paywall here? (maybe ublock stops it?)
- sarcasmatwork 8y ago
  Just adblock+ .. Goes straight to forcing me to pay. Maybe because corp nets?
nabla9 8y ago
https://outline.com/55xZSe https://outline.com/55xZSe
- sarcasmatwork 8y ago
  Thank you!

nabla9 8y ago

The _effecitve_ marginal tax rate for the poor can be much higher than it is for the rich. > the effective marginal tax rate when a person moves from the bottom to the middle quintile is 1 - (15.4-12.9)/(12.6-2.2), or 76 percent. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal-tax-rate.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-effective-marginal... If you believe in basic economic concepts like: 1) people react to incentives, 2) diminishing marginal utility of income, or that 3) perceived fairness is important for the functioning of the society, you should look at the effective marginal tax levels in different income categories and at least even it out and maybe add more to the richest. Another way to increase taxes and level the playing field would be to remove loopholes in taxation with sweeping taxing reform. Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals, Warren's proposal would probably generate even more income than $2.75 trillion over decade. Almost all economists agree, that the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property. All taxation has some negative effects but property tax has least harm and would be net positive. From this perspective Sanders has the best proposal, but Warren's is also good.

prostoalex 8y ago
> Combined with higher marginal tax rate for very high income individuals US economy has a non-negligible percentage of workers that are subject to windfall distributions - relatively low income for a long period and one excessively large payout upon success of some project. Book writers, movie industry, professional sports players, engineers at pre-IPO startups, real estate developers and everybody's favorites - hedge fund managers. It's unrealistic to expect them to continue enjoying the same level of income every year, for many it's simply a one-time chance at retirement money. Excessive taxation on such income without accounting for the previous (and future) years of low or no income seems unfair and will likely stall many long-term ventures. We could also introduce a 99.9% tax on Powerball winnings, but what does that do to the long-term health of the lottery? > the best way to tax the rich is taxing the land and property In an economy where large shareholders of Apple are subject to such tax (through their US residency) but large shareholders of Samsung (who happen to be Korea residents) are not, aren't you providing a leg up to any foreign money? (The actual companies are irrelevant, could be Ford and Toyota, or Boeing and Airbus.) Foreign entrepreneurs based in Singapore or Monaco have more spare cash to fund and operate their companies and invest in R&D. In the long-haul does that make the US economy stronger? Another issue is high-wealth but low-margin businesses. A family-owned supermarket chain might bring a wealth of >$50 mil, but their annual earnings on that might not be that outrageous. Under Warren's plan, they would effectively have to part with 2% of the supermarkets each year, not having enough cash on hands to pay the wealth tax bill. Is it a net win for the economy?

known 8y ago

http://archive.fo/RiTLT http://archive.fo/RiTLT