5 ms·

What would you consider a more redistributive taxation policy?

by reese_john 7y ago

xena 7y ago
Tax the wealth of the rich
- Shivetya 7y ago
  you can pretty much take their wealth and still not pay the negative spending in some countries. in the US the tax system is very progressive with a large swath of the population have little to no federal tax. the truth is the the public employee pension system has been far to generous for far too long and many are counting on a bailout from Washington to keep the largess going. I will post it over and over, Illinois is a prime example of what is wrong in the public employee pension system[1]. When you have twenty three thousand retirees pulling in 100,000 per year there is a problem. Chicago is in dire situation too from both too much largess and simply kicking the debt bomb down the road [2] There is not enough wealth in the US to tax to support this level of largess and it goes by unnoticed because it was designed to not be see by the public. If the only way to fix the pension system is for them to implode it is a far better solution than to tax our way out of it because the behavior has to change. Tens of millions of Americans are counting on their 401k retirements and such and the only true source of wealth that can be taken to fix the pension systems of public employees is to go after those 401k funds. There aren't enough billionaires to take all the money from [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/illinois-100000-club-94000-six-figure-public-employees-and-retirees-cost-taxpayers-12b/#1ef8c93c481a https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/ill... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/01/10/the-problem-with-chicagos-pensions-is-that-there-is-no-low-hanging-fruit/#209ac5e05742 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/01/10/the-problem-w...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    you can pretty much take their wealth and still not pay the negative spending in some countries. in the US the tax system is very progressive with a large swath of the population have little to no federal tax. That’s only true if you believe in the fairy tale that Social Security and Medicare taxes (around 15% between you and your employer) are held in a separate account and the money doesn’t go into the general fund with all other tax revenues.
  - pytester 7y ago
    >There aren't enough billionaires to take all the money from The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in America. There's not only enough money, this is by far the fairest way to square this circle. The vast majority of that wealth is not earned.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    I guess you have to move up to the trillionaires, then. Because they own half of everything. I favor large inflation, which bankrupts the trillionaire while the working Joe keeps earning 'new money' and does ok.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    > in the US the tax system is very progressive Well that's hilarious. If the tax system in the US was truly progressive then it wouldn't have so many billionaires.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  What's your definition of "the rich"? Does it include yourself?
- cpursley 7y ago
  "Taxing the rich" and effective redistribution (and government spending in general) are two different things. In the United States, the top 1 percent of income earners pay a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3%) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5%). The bottom 50% of earners pay about 0% in income taxes. I believe this excludes capital gains. source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...

What would you consider a more redistributive taxation policy?

xena 7y ago

Tax the wealth of the rich

Shivetya 7y ago
you can pretty much take their wealth and still not pay the negative spending in some countries. in the US the tax system is very progressive with a large swath of the population have little to no federal tax. the truth is the the public employee pension system has been far to generous for far too long and many are counting on a bailout from Washington to keep the largess going. I will post it over and over, Illinois is a prime example of what is wrong in the public employee pension system[1]. When you have twenty three thousand retirees pulling in 100,000 per year there is a problem. Chicago is in dire situation too from both too much largess and simply kicking the debt bomb down the road [2] There is not enough wealth in the US to tax to support this level of largess and it goes by unnoticed because it was designed to not be see by the public. If the only way to fix the pension system is for them to implode it is a far better solution than to tax our way out of it because the behavior has to change. Tens of millions of Americans are counting on their 401k retirements and such and the only true source of wealth that can be taken to fix the pension systems of public employees is to go after those 401k funds. There aren't enough billionaires to take all the money from [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/illinois-100000-club-94000-six-figure-public-employees-and-retirees-cost-taxpayers-12b/#1ef8c93c481a https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/ill... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/01/10/the-problem-with-chicagos-pensions-is-that-there-is-no-low-hanging-fruit/#209ac5e05742 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/01/10/the-problem-w...
- scarface74 7y ago
  you can pretty much take their wealth and still not pay the negative spending in some countries. in the US the tax system is very progressive with a large swath of the population have little to no federal tax. That’s only true if you believe in the fairy tale that Social Security and Medicare taxes (around 15% between you and your employer) are held in a separate account and the money doesn’t go into the general fund with all other tax revenues.
- pytester 7y ago
  >There aren't enough billionaires to take all the money from The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in America. There's not only enough money, this is by far the fairest way to square this circle. The vast majority of that wealth is not earned.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  I guess you have to move up to the trillionaires, then. Because they own half of everything. I favor large inflation, which bankrupts the trillionaire while the working Joe keeps earning 'new money' and does ok.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  > in the US the tax system is very progressive Well that's hilarious. If the tax system in the US was truly progressive then it wouldn't have so many billionaires.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
What's your definition of "the rich"? Does it include yourself?
cpursley 7y ago
"Taxing the rich" and effective redistribution (and government spending in general) are two different things. In the United States, the top 1 percent of income earners pay a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3%) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5%). The bottom 50% of earners pay about 0% in income taxes. I believe this excludes capital gains. source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...