7 ms·

> and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, while close to 50% of the populatio

> and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, while close to 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes.

standardUser 7y ago
In a society where the bottom 50% have virtually no wealth and are in debt, how much do you think they should pay in taxes and how do you expect them to pay for it?
apazzolini 7y ago
Man, that 50% of the population that's able to buy things without paying sales tax is really fortunate. How do I sign up for that benefit?
- BetaDeltaAlpha 7y ago
  You could move to Oregon... ...In all seriousness, the parent comment was probably referring to the Federal Income Tax.
  - apazzolini 7y ago
    Yes, I'm aware that's what he was referring to, but it's not the entirety of the tax burden in the US, and even people who pay nothing in income tax still pay taxes. This is precisely why a flat tax disproportionally impacts lower income people.
    - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
      Unless it’s a flat tax on capital assets. I think it would be interesting to try out a model where _only_ capital assets are taxed. No sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax. It should dampen the effect of the rich getting richer only from rent collecting, while still making sure the market allocates capital to where it provides the most economic value (I.e can be turned into enough revenue to pay the tax in question)
      - apazzolini 6y ago
        I agree with a wealth tax in principle, but it's not without many difficult implementation challenges. For example, someone's entire net worth could be held in art. How do you accurately gauge its value if it hasn't been sold in two decades?
        CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        Auction it out. Highest bidder on rent gets to keep it.
        apazzolini 6y ago
        This doesn't make sense. You're now saying that the government is going to be in charge of inspecting every citizen's property and auctioning it for them? I'm as liberal as they come, and that just seems ridiculous.
        CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        Yes. Perhaps not the government though, what I have in mind is an institution representing the commons and all individuals right to it. So the income from said auctions could not be used for arbitrary government spending but only for the interest of the commons: The ones agreeing to respect the ownership deal by being non-owners of the asset in question. I imagine most of the revenue would just be payed back as a dividend. Edit: (I do not think of wealth in the form of art though. Imagine most wealth is tied up in capital assets$
      - int_19h 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
        CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        There’s a good moral argument about dividing capital into land and other assets. But I suspect that from an economical efficiency perspective that division is less interesting than between revenue and assets.
sudosysgen 7y ago
Sure, but without the bottom 50% the top 20% would not be able to make nearly as much money as they do. Progressive taxation is aware of the exploitive nature of capitalism. Just because people are being exploited doesn't mean they don't contribute, much to the contrary.
vasillevski 7y ago
You say this like it’s a good thing? This is reflective of an economic system that isn’t functioning well. All this points to is the fact that income is highly concentrated in the hands of a few, and that opportunity is very limited and unequally distributed. I’m sure that went right over your head when you proudly decided to trumpet that nugget of information. Alas, I’m sure I’m just shouting into a void of ignorance though.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  I never said it was a good thing, its merely a statistic. > opportunity is very limited and unequally distributed Sorry, I don't subscribe to this idea. I came from a blue collar family. Both parents work long hours to provide for our family. I was working when I was 12. I didn't own anything of value through HS or college. I worked several jobs to pay my way through college. I have lived a big chunk of my life below the poverty line. I didn't graduate in four years like most of my friends, but I was still able to get myself out of college, get a job and have been able to build a career out of almost nothing. "Shouting into a void of ignorance". Such prose from a person who probably was gifted a nice comfy life, trying to tell the guy who had to bust his ass for everything he has that I'm ignorant? Now that's something. Feel to take more of my fake internet points away, I don't care.
  - entropea 7y ago
    >I came from a blue collar family. Both parents work long hours to provide for our family. I was working when I was 12. I didn't own anything of value through HS or college. I worked several jobs to pay my way through college. I have lived a big chunk of my life below the poverty line. I didn't graduate in four years like most of my friends, but I was still able to get myself out of college, get a job and have been able to build a career out of almost nothing. That's completely anecdotal, but I experienced nearly the same. I agree with the above poster that opportunity is limited and unequally distributed, and I would say you and I experienced a good bit of luck....not to minimize your struggles. USA has a very low class & income mobility [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#6d40562a6a7b https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s...
karatestomp 7y ago
> 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes. Sales tax is almost 11% here. And I'm in a red-leaning purple state, not "Taxachusetts" or anything. Property tax on vehicles. FICA ("it's not a tax!" yeah OK, but it is really)
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That's because the top has looted the economy, leaving little or nothing for the rest of us. Its not a reflection on the bottom 50% at all.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  > That's because the top has looted the economy Can you explain how this happens? How does one "loot" one of the largest economies in the world?
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Monetary policy and globalism. We've got an economy built on debt. We went from a production based economy 40 years ago to a consumption based one. We exported skills. We believed that a service-based economy was sustainable in the long run. We went off the gold standard and embraced an inflationary monetary policy that punished savers. Then we built a retirement system (including state pensions) dependent on yields, which causes retirement funds to chase ever riskier asset classes. We made debt so available for so many things, like education, healthcare, real estate, etc, and we made it so artificially "cheap" that it drove up prices. We never really recovered from the 2008 real estate bubble. The Fed's answer was to buy mortgage-backed securities by the trillions, and bailed out the people responsible without punishing anyone. So we kicked the can down the road and now, this downturn is so massive that we will not be able to escape the deep financial consequences and it is going to take years to overcome this. We have nothing left to borrow against and we're in tens of trillions in debt.
    - blankface 7y ago
      Thank God for this comment The U.S. Dollar is backed by an ass whopping!
  - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    You pay people less than their cost of living, demand that the state make up the difference in food stamps and health-care subsidies, and then pocket the difference. https://www.socialeurope.eu/time-for-postcapitalism https://www.socialeurope.eu/time-for-postcapitalism
lleolin 7y ago
In that case, I would love to be handling 90% of the tax burden right now.
fallingfrog 7y ago
They pay sales tax, social security tax, and they never make anywhere near as much in wages as the value of what they produce, which is the biggest tax of all but since it’s a hidden, implicit tax, you can’t see it.
fzeroracer 7y ago
If someone making 1m/yr pays 1% in taxes and someone making 10k/yr pays 90%, the millionaire is still covering over 50% of the tax burden despite being impacted far less by the taxes on his wealth.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, Only if you only count the income taxes, and ignore other (mostly regressive) payroll, excise/sales, and other taxes at the federal and state levels.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  Including all those taxes, the top 20% still pay 66% of all taxes. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2019/04/chart-2-1555038431.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=457 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2019/04/ch...
  - GcVmvNhBsU 7y ago
    The top 20% also owns 86% of the wealth, so it seems like they are still coming out ahead.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Well, they do have all the money. Besides, the 19.9% shouldn't complain to the 80%. Rather, they should complain to the 0.1% whose lobbyists write the tax code in the first place. We can be sure they had their reasons to set up this level of progressive taxation rather than some other level.

> and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, while close to 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes.

standardUser 7y ago

In a society where the bottom 50% have virtually no wealth and are in debt, how much do you think they should pay in taxes and how do you expect them to pay for it?

apazzolini 7y ago

Man, that 50% of the population that's able to buy things without paying sales tax is really fortunate. How do I sign up for that benefit?

BetaDeltaAlpha 7y ago
You could move to Oregon... ...In all seriousness, the parent comment was probably referring to the Federal Income Tax.
- apazzolini 7y ago
  Yes, I'm aware that's what he was referring to, but it's not the entirety of the tax burden in the US, and even people who pay nothing in income tax still pay taxes. This is precisely why a flat tax disproportionally impacts lower income people.
  - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
    Unless it’s a flat tax on capital assets. I think it would be interesting to try out a model where _only_ capital assets are taxed. No sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax. It should dampen the effect of the rich getting richer only from rent collecting, while still making sure the market allocates capital to where it provides the most economic value (I.e can be turned into enough revenue to pay the tax in question)
    - apazzolini 6y ago
      I agree with a wealth tax in principle, but it's not without many difficult implementation challenges. For example, someone's entire net worth could be held in art. How do you accurately gauge its value if it hasn't been sold in two decades?
      - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        Auction it out. Highest bidder on rent gets to keep it.
        apazzolini 6y ago
        This doesn't make sense. You're now saying that the government is going to be in charge of inspecting every citizen's property and auctioning it for them? I'm as liberal as they come, and that just seems ridiculous.
        CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        Yes. Perhaps not the government though, what I have in mind is an institution representing the commons and all individuals right to it. So the income from said auctions could not be used for arbitrary government spending but only for the interest of the commons: The ones agreeing to respect the ownership deal by being non-owners of the asset in question. I imagine most of the revenue would just be payed back as a dividend. Edit: (I do not think of wealth in the form of art though. Imagine most wealth is tied up in capital assets$
    - int_19h 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
      - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        There’s a good moral argument about dividing capital into land and other assets. But I suspect that from an economical efficiency perspective that division is less interesting than between revenue and assets.

sudosysgen 7y ago

Sure, but without the bottom 50% the top 20% would not be able to make nearly as much money as they do. Progressive taxation is aware of the exploitive nature of capitalism. Just because people are being exploited doesn't mean they don't contribute, much to the contrary.

vasillevski 7y ago

You say this like it’s a good thing? This is reflective of an economic system that isn’t functioning well. All this points to is the fact that income is highly concentrated in the hands of a few, and that opportunity is very limited and unequally distributed. I’m sure that went right over your head when you proudly decided to trumpet that nugget of information. Alas, I’m sure I’m just shouting into a void of ignorance though.

at-fates-hands 7y ago
I never said it was a good thing, its merely a statistic. > opportunity is very limited and unequally distributed Sorry, I don't subscribe to this idea. I came from a blue collar family. Both parents work long hours to provide for our family. I was working when I was 12. I didn't own anything of value through HS or college. I worked several jobs to pay my way through college. I have lived a big chunk of my life below the poverty line. I didn't graduate in four years like most of my friends, but I was still able to get myself out of college, get a job and have been able to build a career out of almost nothing. "Shouting into a void of ignorance". Such prose from a person who probably was gifted a nice comfy life, trying to tell the guy who had to bust his ass for everything he has that I'm ignorant? Now that's something. Feel to take more of my fake internet points away, I don't care.
- entropea 7y ago
  >I came from a blue collar family. Both parents work long hours to provide for our family. I was working when I was 12. I didn't own anything of value through HS or college. I worked several jobs to pay my way through college. I have lived a big chunk of my life below the poverty line. I didn't graduate in four years like most of my friends, but I was still able to get myself out of college, get a job and have been able to build a career out of almost nothing. That's completely anecdotal, but I experienced nearly the same. I agree with the above poster that opportunity is limited and unequally distributed, and I would say you and I experienced a good bit of luck....not to minimize your struggles. USA has a very low class & income mobility [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#6d40562a6a7b https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s...

karatestomp 7y ago

> 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes. Sales tax is almost 11% here. And I'm in a red-leaning purple state, not "Taxachusetts" or anything. Property tax on vehicles. FICA ("it's not a tax!" yeah OK, but it is really)

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

That's because the top has looted the economy, leaving little or nothing for the rest of us. Its not a reflection on the bottom 50% at all.

at-fates-hands 7y ago
> That's because the top has looted the economy Can you explain how this happens? How does one "loot" one of the largest economies in the world?
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Monetary policy and globalism. We've got an economy built on debt. We went from a production based economy 40 years ago to a consumption based one. We exported skills. We believed that a service-based economy was sustainable in the long run. We went off the gold standard and embraced an inflationary monetary policy that punished savers. Then we built a retirement system (including state pensions) dependent on yields, which causes retirement funds to chase ever riskier asset classes. We made debt so available for so many things, like education, healthcare, real estate, etc, and we made it so artificially "cheap" that it drove up prices. We never really recovered from the 2008 real estate bubble. The Fed's answer was to buy mortgage-backed securities by the trillions, and bailed out the people responsible without punishing anyone. So we kicked the can down the road and now, this downturn is so massive that we will not be able to escape the deep financial consequences and it is going to take years to overcome this. We have nothing left to borrow against and we're in tens of trillions in debt.
  - blankface 7y ago
    Thank God for this comment The U.S. Dollar is backed by an ass whopping!
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago
  You pay people less than their cost of living, demand that the state make up the difference in food stamps and health-care subsidies, and then pocket the difference. https://www.socialeurope.eu/time-for-postcapitalism https://www.socialeurope.eu/time-for-postcapitalism

lleolin 7y ago

In that case, I would love to be handling 90% of the tax burden right now.

fallingfrog 7y ago

They pay sales tax, social security tax, and they never make anywhere near as much in wages as the value of what they produce, which is the biggest tax of all but since it’s a hidden, implicit tax, you can’t see it.

fzeroracer 7y ago

If someone making 1m/yr pays 1% in taxes and someone making 10k/yr pays 90%, the millionaire is still covering over 50% of the tax burden despite being impacted far less by the taxes on his wealth.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, Only if you only count the income taxes, and ignore other (mostly regressive) payroll, excise/sales, and other taxes at the federal and state levels.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
Including all those taxes, the top 20% still pay 66% of all taxes. https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2019/04/chart-2-1555038431.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=457 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2019/04/ch...
- GcVmvNhBsU 7y ago
  The top 20% also owns 86% of the wealth, so it seems like they are still coming out ahead.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Well, they do have all the money. Besides, the 19.9% shouldn't complain to the 80%. Rather, they should complain to the 0.1% whose lobbyists write the tax code in the first place. We can be sure they had their reasons to set up this level of progressive taxation rather than some other level.