6 ms·

In my lifetime some sort of switch has flipped, where the people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something great

In my lifetime some sort of switch has flipped, where the people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something greater or something new, but simply on the assumption that the act of taxing people will inherently make them more equal. Is there a coherent philosophical basis for this train of thought? Is there any historical precedent that increased taxes is what we need to become equal?

patwolfe 6y ago
I'd say the current biggest problem is that the highest earners simply do not pay much in taxes through loopholes and avoidance, not that taxes need to be increased across the board. EDIT: the_gastropod's comment also under this parent is a great short summary of this issue. I second their recommendation of "Capital in the 21st Century"
- DamnYuppie 6y ago
  Are you talking about on a percentage of their income or as a percentage of the total amount of taxes paid? I believe the top 10% pay essentially 90% of all non sales taxes in US.
  - thoughtstheseus 6y ago
    By percentage of wealth.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  What do you want to do with their money though?
  - starpilot 6y ago
    Use it to live? Money lets you afford healthcare. Without that, you die. Dying is not equal to living.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    What are you suggesting? That poor people don’t need anything right now? Literally half the country can’t afford rent or housing?
    - tengbretson 6y ago
      What does that have to do with taxing the wealthy though? Do you think the $3.5 trillion spent on covid relief has any relationship whatsoever with tax revenue?
      - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
        Total billionaire net-worth in the USA is $4 trillion so 1 covid relief would fully tap them out. People are horrible at reasoning about large numbers they think these people have real money compared to the government.
        staticman2 6y ago
        Politicians are cheap to bribe with campaign contributions and political adds and that money is enough to ensure the government will do a poor job of serving the people.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It would cost approximately $216 million to do full lead remediation in Flint, Michigan. That's about 1.1% of the net worth of Jeff Bezos. I indicate this not to imply that Jeff Bezos should be solely responsible for fixing the Flint water supply, but rather to indicate that the resources are there, the problems are there, and what we lack is the will to move resources to fix public problems (be that via taxation or charity). Even problems we know will carry a larger cost moving forward... Flint is a town with a population of nearly 100,000, and a high-lead environment can basically guarantee higher costs in education, health problem remediation, and possibly crime.
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      It also points out how little money Bezos really has compared to the cost of running the country. Assuming he could get the current market price for all his Amazon shares (impossible) he could fix 100 decently sized problems in the country and be completely broke after. There are way more than 100 decently sized problem.
- fat_pikachu 6y ago
  The "loopholes" are there for a reason. They allow the government to indirectly further their policy goals without much effort e.g. tax avoidance programs for real estate investors to encourage the building of more housing, tax credits for parents to encourage people to have more children, credits for electric vehicles to encourage the development of renewables, etc.
the_gastropod 6y ago
Highly recommend reading Pikkety's "Capital in the 21st Century". The gist is this: - Historically, capital grows faster than the economy at large (generally around 5% annually) - Steep marginal tax rates help disincentivize high pay (e.g., if the top marginal rate was 90% like it was during the Eisenhower administration, a corporation would see much more of its money go to employees if it gave its lower income workers raises vs giving its exec team bonuses. The purpose of raising taxes on the über-rich isn't necessarily to generate revenue, it's to set up incentives to narrow income disparity, by forcing corporations to distribute money efficiently. - High top marginal income taxes coupled with a steeply progressive wealth tax would also disincentivize hoarding of capital, and would further "squeeze" the wealth distribution to less problematic levels.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  Another key takeaway I think is that we're just returning to the norm. The middle to late 20th century was an outlier thanks to the World Wars and all the destruction in Europe that happened because of them.
dghlsakjg 6y ago
The theory behind it has always been that taxes serve as a transfer of wealth. You tax the wealthy more and reduce taxes on the less wealthy, and/or spend that money on programs and projects that benefit the poor disproportionately. Don’t confuse how politicians sell something with the mechanism. The rhetoric changed with the rise of celebrity through wealth. ‘Soak the rich’ is a sales slogan since it’s easy to punch up, and no one has any sympathy for a guy like Bezos. The same sort of rhetoric is going on right now with lines like ‘billionaires made $2t during the pandemic’, or the headline for this article. the implication is that they actively made moves that increased the amount of dollars in their bank account by literally taking money from the poor. The reality is that they continued running their businesses according to the rules of the game and the value of their business holdings is up. In that context ‘soak the rich’ should really just be seen as a proposed rule change to the game.
standardUser 6y ago
"...people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something..." You should perhaps listen more closely. There are a wide array of programs proposed by people who are advocating for greater taxes on the wealthy. Universal healthcare, free education, a larger social safety net and investments in green energy are a few of the big line items being constantly and loudly discussed. Those programs are intended to improve the majority of people's lives. You can interpret that as "more equal" if you want.
- curiousllama 6y ago
  Tax the rich is a response to "how are you going to pay for that program?" That we hear "tax the rich" in isolation these days speaks more to the lack of the prompting question than progressives' dedication to the response.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  > Those programs are intended to improve the majority of people's lives. You can interpret that as "more equal" if you want. If tomorrow everyone was given all of those programs, but the income distribution stayed the same as it were today, would everyone go home satisfied or would they discover new things that needed providing?
  - kgin 6y ago
    It's hard to be sure 100%, but I feel like whatever the outcome, this thought experiment doesn't really yield useful information unless you're hoping for the outcome be "they don't really want healthcare, they're just faking their desire for healthcare because they want to take things away from wealthy people". I'm pretty sure the desire for healthcare isn't just a ruse. After everyone has healthcare, will there be people who desire a more-flattened society? Possibly. There are a lot of different people in the world with a lot of different ideas. But that's a separate conversation.
  - lovegoblin 6y ago
    > would they discover new things that needed providing? ...of course? These programs would (imo) make a better world, but not a perfect one. Just because you accomplish Goal #1 doesn't mean that you can't continue on to strive for Goal #2.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think it's just a corrolary of Congress's extreme slowdown in passing bills. When new programs are always part of a massive omnibus touching a thousand things, it becomes pretty hard to draw links between specific programs and specific tax increases.
jimbokun 6y ago
That didn't happen in your lifetime, progressive taxation goes back farther than that.
mempko 6y ago
Well, historically when people were most equal in the US the taxes were very high for the upper class, something like 90%. Look at post world war taxes.
sum_numpty 6y ago
Equality is a myth. There are good and shitty people across all races, genders, sexualities, etc. What we need to be focused on is equality of opportunity. Taxes are just not enough. We need far more actual health and education resources allocated to those systemically under-represented in social power. That needs to be represented in a transparent manner to all citizens. Then it's a matter of letting the chips fall where they may.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Just FYI you said "equality of opportunity" and went on to describe "equality of outcome".
  - sum_numpty 6y ago
    Yeah somewhat sloppy. Honestly that was mostly flamebait from me. Wondered if such a statement could provoke a conversation on those issues. Beliefs I hold but always trying to challenge them.

patwolfe 6y ago

I'd say the current biggest problem is that the highest earners simply do not pay much in taxes through loopholes and avoidance, not that taxes need to be increased across the board. EDIT: the_gastropod's comment also under this parent is a great short summary of this issue. I second their recommendation of "Capital in the 21st Century"

DamnYuppie 6y ago
Are you talking about on a percentage of their income or as a percentage of the total amount of taxes paid? I believe the top 10% pay essentially 90% of all non sales taxes in US.
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  By percentage of wealth.
tengbretson 6y ago
What do you want to do with their money though?
- starpilot 6y ago
  Use it to live? Money lets you afford healthcare. Without that, you die. Dying is not equal to living.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  What are you suggesting? That poor people don’t need anything right now? Literally half the country can’t afford rent or housing?
  - tengbretson 6y ago
    What does that have to do with taxing the wealthy though? Do you think the $3.5 trillion spent on covid relief has any relationship whatsoever with tax revenue?
    - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
      Total billionaire net-worth in the USA is $4 trillion so 1 covid relief would fully tap them out. People are horrible at reasoning about large numbers they think these people have real money compared to the government.
      - staticman2 6y ago
        Politicians are cheap to bribe with campaign contributions and political adds and that money is enough to ensure the government will do a poor job of serving the people.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It would cost approximately $216 million to do full lead remediation in Flint, Michigan. That's about 1.1% of the net worth of Jeff Bezos. I indicate this not to imply that Jeff Bezos should be solely responsible for fixing the Flint water supply, but rather to indicate that the resources are there, the problems are there, and what we lack is the will to move resources to fix public problems (be that via taxation or charity). Even problems we know will carry a larger cost moving forward... Flint is a town with a population of nearly 100,000, and a high-lead environment can basically guarantee higher costs in education, health problem remediation, and possibly crime.
  - tick_tock_tick 6y ago
    It also points out how little money Bezos really has compared to the cost of running the country. Assuming he could get the current market price for all his Amazon shares (impossible) he could fix 100 decently sized problems in the country and be completely broke after. There are way more than 100 decently sized problem.
fat_pikachu 6y ago
The "loopholes" are there for a reason. They allow the government to indirectly further their policy goals without much effort e.g. tax avoidance programs for real estate investors to encourage the building of more housing, tax credits for parents to encourage people to have more children, credits for electric vehicles to encourage the development of renewables, etc.

the_gastropod 6y ago

Highly recommend reading Pikkety's "Capital in the 21st Century". The gist is this: - Historically, capital grows faster than the economy at large (generally around 5% annually) - Steep marginal tax rates help disincentivize high pay (e.g., if the top marginal rate was 90% like it was during the Eisenhower administration, a corporation would see much more of its money go to employees if it gave its lower income workers raises vs giving its exec team bonuses. The purpose of raising taxes on the über-rich isn't necessarily to generate revenue, it's to set up incentives to narrow income disparity, by forcing corporations to distribute money efficiently. - High top marginal income taxes coupled with a steeply progressive wealth tax would also disincentivize hoarding of capital, and would further "squeeze" the wealth distribution to less problematic levels.

dorchadas 6y ago
Another key takeaway I think is that we're just returning to the norm. The middle to late 20th century was an outlier thanks to the World Wars and all the destruction in Europe that happened because of them.

dghlsakjg 6y ago

The theory behind it has always been that taxes serve as a transfer of wealth. You tax the wealthy more and reduce taxes on the less wealthy, and/or spend that money on programs and projects that benefit the poor disproportionately. Don’t confuse how politicians sell something with the mechanism. The rhetoric changed with the rise of celebrity through wealth. ‘Soak the rich’ is a sales slogan since it’s easy to punch up, and no one has any sympathy for a guy like Bezos. The same sort of rhetoric is going on right now with lines like ‘billionaires made $2t during the pandemic’, or the headline for this article. the implication is that they actively made moves that increased the amount of dollars in their bank account by literally taking money from the poor. The reality is that they continued running their businesses according to the rules of the game and the value of their business holdings is up. In that context ‘soak the rich’ should really just be seen as a proposed rule change to the game.

standardUser 6y ago

"...people advocating for more taxes no longer do so with an explicit intention to pay for something..." You should perhaps listen more closely. There are a wide array of programs proposed by people who are advocating for greater taxes on the wealthy. Universal healthcare, free education, a larger social safety net and investments in green energy are a few of the big line items being constantly and loudly discussed. Those programs are intended to improve the majority of people's lives. You can interpret that as "more equal" if you want.

curiousllama 6y ago
Tax the rich is a response to "how are you going to pay for that program?" That we hear "tax the rich" in isolation these days speaks more to the lack of the prompting question than progressives' dedication to the response.
tengbretson 6y ago
> Those programs are intended to improve the majority of people's lives. You can interpret that as "more equal" if you want. If tomorrow everyone was given all of those programs, but the income distribution stayed the same as it were today, would everyone go home satisfied or would they discover new things that needed providing?
- kgin 6y ago
  It's hard to be sure 100%, but I feel like whatever the outcome, this thought experiment doesn't really yield useful information unless you're hoping for the outcome be "they don't really want healthcare, they're just faking their desire for healthcare because they want to take things away from wealthy people". I'm pretty sure the desire for healthcare isn't just a ruse. After everyone has healthcare, will there be people who desire a more-flattened society? Possibly. There are a lot of different people in the world with a lot of different ideas. But that's a separate conversation.
- lovegoblin 6y ago
  > would they discover new things that needed providing? ...of course? These programs would (imo) make a better world, but not a perfect one. Just because you accomplish Goal #1 doesn't mean that you can't continue on to strive for Goal #2.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I think it's just a corrolary of Congress's extreme slowdown in passing bills. When new programs are always part of a massive omnibus touching a thousand things, it becomes pretty hard to draw links between specific programs and specific tax increases.

jimbokun 6y ago

That didn't happen in your lifetime, progressive taxation goes back farther than that.

mempko 6y ago

Well, historically when people were most equal in the US the taxes were very high for the upper class, something like 90%. Look at post world war taxes.

sum_numpty 6y ago

Equality is a myth. There are good and shitty people across all races, genders, sexualities, etc. What we need to be focused on is equality of opportunity. Taxes are just not enough. We need far more actual health and education resources allocated to those systemically under-represented in social power. That needs to be represented in a transparent manner to all citizens. Then it's a matter of letting the chips fall where they may.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Just FYI you said "equality of opportunity" and went on to describe "equality of outcome".
- sum_numpty 6y ago
  Yeah somewhat sloppy. Honestly that was mostly flamebait from me. Wondered if such a statement could provoke a conversation on those issues. Beliefs I hold but always trying to challenge them.