5 ms·

Step 1: Fire the army of accountants they no doubt have to find every little tax trick and loophole to reduce the taxes they pay now. Step 2: Send in extra. Wh

Step 1: Fire the army of accountants they no doubt have to find every little tax trick and loophole to reduce the taxes they pay now. Step 2: Send in extra. Whatever they believe the rate should be. The IRS won't complain.

Upvoter33 7y ago
This doesn't solve the problem generally. The goal is to get ALL such folks to pay up, not just the volunteers.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  So they aren't volunteering, they want to force other people to pay. And perhaps give themselves a moat by making it harder for the competition or newcomers. Great. So much for their altruism.
  - zapita 7y ago
    I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of the super-rich?
    - Loughla 7y ago
      This is an argument against taxing the super rich that I just have never understood. Don't tax the mega-rich, because I will be that one day, and it is a disincentive for me to work hard if I can only be a billionaire instead of a multi-billionaire. I just don't get it.
      - brobdingnagians 7y ago
        Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that a tax against billionaires tends to increase the culture around "taxing more" and leaks out to taxing their corporations or subtly changing the structure of the market so that the incumbent corporation can handle it just fine, but newer ones have a difficult time getting to the point where they can compete. I'm never going to be in the mega-rich basket, and frankly, I don't want to be. But a lot of them are very good at subtle PR and lobbying to change things that benefit themselves even while making it look like they are doing something opposite. I don't trust them, especially when they are doing something that looks "against their interests" when they've never seemed to do that before in either their public or personal lives. Here's a simple example of what I mean. The billionaires pushing this tend to have certain political ideas and tend to be active in politics. If they give just their money, then they have limited political effect. But if they can get _all_ billionaire's taxed and then lobby to use _that_ money to further their political ends (including for things those other billionaires don't agree with), they can amplify the power they have to make their pet social policies. I'm not interested in helping them do that.
  - empath75 7y ago
    > So they aren't volunteering, they want to force other people to pay. That's sort of how government works. Taxes are not voluntary.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > they want to force other people to pay And, in fact, they know how this will play out: 1. Demand that “the rich” pay “their fare share” 2. “The rich” becomes anybody who earns more than basic subsistence income 3. “Their fare share” becomes whatever leaves just enough to get by 4. The actual rich create more loopholes so that only the middle 80% are actually impacted by these new tax hikes.
- jerf 7y ago
  And I will pay much more attention to them if they put money behind their words and, say, donate a billion each to the Treasury right now. Otherwise, I'm going to assume they're publicly saying this and privately continuing to avoid taxation, because this is a cheap way to look virtuous and look like the good guys while in fact being quite confident nothing is going to happen to them.
ericd 7y ago
They presumably don't want to be the only rich people carrying the extra tax burden.
shaki-dora 7y ago
It says tax us, not tax me. The difference is the core principle of taxation: very few people would voluntarily pay 30% of income or so, but a clear majority supports the requirement for everyone, including themselves, to do so. Put another way: taxation is one cooperative solution to a prisoners' dilemma.
skybrian 7y ago
This advice is basically "be stupid with your money". If other rich people aren't going to pay in as well, you can almost certainly do more good by donating to effective charities.
ArcanianArcher 7y ago
That would only affect those who want to pay extra. The goal is to force everyone like them to pay more in taxes.
frobozz 7y ago
The government cannot make long-term plans to spend the income received from arbitrary donations like this. Charities handle it by encouraging people to make regular donations and by conducting campaigns to raise money for specific purposes. Extra money received by the tax office might help to pay down some existing debt or some other one-off expenditure, but it cannot be used to make ongoing improvements to public services. However, I would not be surprised if they have to keep extra money aside, possibly for years, in case of a claim for a refund (or at least keep a budget line for it, which amounts to the same thing).
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  If government spending were limited by revenue, that would be a reasonable argument.

Upvoter33 7y ago

This doesn't solve the problem generally. The goal is to get ALL such folks to pay up, not just the volunteers.

brobdingnagians 7y ago
So they aren't volunteering, they want to force other people to pay. And perhaps give themselves a moat by making it harder for the competition or newcomers. Great. So much for their altruism.
- zapita 7y ago
  I’m curious what you mean by “making it harder for the competition or newcomers”. How exactly would they achieve that by lobbying for more effective taxation of the super-rich?
  - Loughla 7y ago
    This is an argument against taxing the super rich that I just have never understood. Don't tax the mega-rich, because I will be that one day, and it is a disincentive for me to work hard if I can only be a billionaire instead of a multi-billionaire. I just don't get it.
    - brobdingnagians 7y ago
      Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that a tax against billionaires tends to increase the culture around "taxing more" and leaks out to taxing their corporations or subtly changing the structure of the market so that the incumbent corporation can handle it just fine, but newer ones have a difficult time getting to the point where they can compete. I'm never going to be in the mega-rich basket, and frankly, I don't want to be. But a lot of them are very good at subtle PR and lobbying to change things that benefit themselves even while making it look like they are doing something opposite. I don't trust them, especially when they are doing something that looks "against their interests" when they've never seemed to do that before in either their public or personal lives. Here's a simple example of what I mean. The billionaires pushing this tend to have certain political ideas and tend to be active in politics. If they give just their money, then they have limited political effect. But if they can get _all_ billionaire's taxed and then lobby to use _that_ money to further their political ends (including for things those other billionaires don't agree with), they can amplify the power they have to make their pet social policies. I'm not interested in helping them do that.
- empath75 7y ago
  > So they aren't volunteering, they want to force other people to pay. That's sort of how government works. Taxes are not voluntary.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > they want to force other people to pay And, in fact, they know how this will play out: 1. Demand that “the rich” pay “their fare share” 2. “The rich” becomes anybody who earns more than basic subsistence income 3. “Their fare share” becomes whatever leaves just enough to get by 4. The actual rich create more loopholes so that only the middle 80% are actually impacted by these new tax hikes.
jerf 7y ago
And I will pay much more attention to them if they put money behind their words and, say, donate a billion each to the Treasury right now. Otherwise, I'm going to assume they're publicly saying this and privately continuing to avoid taxation, because this is a cheap way to look virtuous and look like the good guys while in fact being quite confident nothing is going to happen to them.

ericd 7y ago

They presumably don't want to be the only rich people carrying the extra tax burden.

shaki-dora 7y ago

It says tax us, not tax me. The difference is the core principle of taxation: very few people would voluntarily pay 30% of income or so, but a clear majority supports the requirement for everyone, including themselves, to do so. Put another way: taxation is one cooperative solution to a prisoners' dilemma.

skybrian 7y ago

This advice is basically "be stupid with your money". If other rich people aren't going to pay in as well, you can almost certainly do more good by donating to effective charities.

ArcanianArcher 7y ago

That would only affect those who want to pay extra. The goal is to force everyone like them to pay more in taxes.

frobozz 7y ago

The government cannot make long-term plans to spend the income received from arbitrary donations like this. Charities handle it by encouraging people to make regular donations and by conducting campaigns to raise money for specific purposes. Extra money received by the tax office might help to pay down some existing debt or some other one-off expenditure, but it cannot be used to make ongoing improvements to public services. However, I would not be surprised if they have to keep extra money aside, possibly for years, in case of a claim for a refund (or at least keep a budget line for it, which amounts to the same thing).

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
If government spending were limited by revenue, that would be a reasonable argument.