4 ms·

Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed b

Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.

ameister14 7y ago
Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
  - throwaway100773 7y ago
    This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Go look say the budget breakdown. 20B can't "do a lot of stuff" in a country this size.
      - ameister14 7y ago
        Just want to point out, the annual budget for national parks is 2.7 billion and TANF is under 17, so you could pay for both every national park and 3.1 million needy families with that

ameister14 7y ago

Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?

EpicEng 7y ago
Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Go look say the budget breakdown. 20B can't "do a lot of stuff" in a country this size.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      Just want to point out, the annual budget for national parks is 2.7 billion and TANF is under 17, so you could pay for both every national park and 3.1 million needy families with that