4 ms·

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

by fiter 7y ago

hogFeast 7y ago
Yes, there is no explanation of exactly how that number (400) was chosen. Given that the US is widely acknowledged to be one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, the burden of proof required here is far higher than the article attempts.
- sweeneyrod 7y ago
  Widely known by whom? I'm not sure how that could be true even in theory; there is no universally agreed on definition of "progressive".
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > there is no universally agreed on definition of "progressive" "Progressive" is being used here as a technical term with a specific, greed-upon definition[1], not as a description for the leftist political movement that shares the term. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    Yes, there is. If you are suggesting that literally no-one has ever thought: I will compare tax systems between countries...then yes...they have done that. And yes there are lots of objective measures of progressivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Measuring_progressivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Measuring_prog... A good, brief, summary is - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/ameri... - and there is also this in the Economist which explains the issues around spending in more detail - https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-taxes-are-unusually-progressive-government-spending-is-not https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-...
    - sweeneyrod 7y ago
      > And yes there are lots of objective measures of progressivity Exactly. The US can certainly be considered particularly progressive on some measures, but not all of them. For example, see the linked article.
- wnissen 7y ago
  Probably comes from the Forbes 400 list, which has been published since 1982. Currently you need ~$2 billion in wealth to make that list. https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#123491f27e2f https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#123491f27e2f
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    I am not sure about that. Also, the Forbes list is mostly fictional. There are people who are worth vastly more than $2bn who are not on the list. There are people who probably don't have a positive net worth who are on the list. Yes, it still sounds arbitrary and suspicious. Whiff of p-hackery.
ggreer 7y ago
Annoyingly there is no source for the data in the article because the book that it is advertising doesn’t come out until next week. My guess is that the wealthiest 400 households don’t have much income to tax. Most of their wealth would be in investments, which if they hold on to long enough become taxed as long term capital gains (20% for the rich).
- fiter 7y ago
  Do you think the wealthiest 400 households have had a significant change in wealth/income makeup in the last 70 years? The article is highlighting that something has changed, and they are suggesting its tax policy not investment decisions.

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

by fiter 7y ago

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

hogFeast 7y ago

Yes, there is no explanation of exactly how that number (400) was chosen. Given that the US is widely acknowledged to be one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, the burden of proof required here is far higher than the article attempts.

sweeneyrod 7y ago
Widely known by whom? I'm not sure how that could be true even in theory; there is no universally agreed on definition of "progressive".
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > there is no universally agreed on definition of "progressive" "Progressive" is being used here as a technical term with a specific, greed-upon definition[1], not as a description for the leftist political movement that shares the term. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Yes, there is. If you are suggesting that literally no-one has ever thought: I will compare tax systems between countries...then yes...they have done that. And yes there are lots of objective measures of progressivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Measuring_progressivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#Measuring_prog... A good, brief, summary is - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/ameri... - and there is also this in the Economist which explains the issues around spending in more detail - https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-taxes-are-unusually-progressive-government-spending-is-not https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-...
  - sweeneyrod 7y ago
    > And yes there are lots of objective measures of progressivity Exactly. The US can certainly be considered particularly progressive on some measures, but not all of them. For example, see the linked article.
wnissen 7y ago
Probably comes from the Forbes 400 list, which has been published since 1982. Currently you need ~$2 billion in wealth to make that list. https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#123491f27e2f https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#123491f27e2f
- hogFeast 7y ago
  I am not sure about that. Also, the Forbes list is mostly fictional. There are people who are worth vastly more than $2bn who are not on the list. There are people who probably don't have a positive net worth who are on the list. Yes, it still sounds arbitrary and suspicious. Whiff of p-hackery.

ggreer 7y ago

Annoyingly there is no source for the data in the article because the book that it is advertising doesn’t come out until next week. My guess is that the wealthiest 400 households don’t have much income to tax. Most of their wealth would be in investments, which if they hold on to long enough become taxed as long term capital gains (20% for the rich).

fiter 7y ago
Do you think the wealthiest 400 households have had a significant change in wealth/income makeup in the last 70 years? The article is highlighting that something has changed, and they are suggesting its tax policy not investment decisions.