5 ms·

You’re discounting this position based strictly on the fact that the taxes aren’t collected from the company, but companies are made of individuals, both those

You’re discounting this position based strictly on the fact that the taxes aren’t collected from the company, but companies are made of individuals, both those that work there and those that own shares in the company. They feel the burden of taxes elsewhere. Today, the top 5% of taxpayers pay 60% of federal income taxes. The top 20% will pay 87%.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago
I'm also discounting this position based on the fact that the prime directive of government is not efficiency. Do you have a source for your numbers?
- malandrew 6y ago
  It's pretty trivial to find many references with a quick Google search, but here you go: https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    It's not on me to find sources for your numbers. Besides, doing a trivial, quick Google search comes up with a few links to anti-tax lobby groups (such as the one you provided). However, a slightly less trivial, slightly less quick look at the topic reveals that the figures in the anti-tax lobby group reports do not include capital gains, or really anything outside of federal income. It doesn't even include payroll tax. A few sources, admittedly biased the other way: - https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/where-do-federal-t... - https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-tim... - https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-paid-less-taxes-than-working-class-wealth-gap-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-paid-l...
    - malandrew 6y ago
      Well if you read what I wrote, I didn't say that they fund 60%/87% of federal revenue. I said they pay 60%/87% of income taxes. Since payroll is proportional to income, that's even more federal revenue that is indirectly levied on the labor of the top 5% and 20%. Once you include capital gains taxes, the top 5% and top 20% cover even more of federal revenue. The only portion of capital gains that isn't personal capital gains is corporate capital gains. A sizable amount of non-individual capital gains are hedge funds and retirement accounts, which once again are mostly funded by many people in the top 5% and 20%. Any way you slice it, it's largely the top 5% to top 20% of so funding much of the operating costs of USA Inc. Everyone in the bottom 50% gets a 50% say while paying a mere 3% of income taxes and probably even less in taxes once you include all sources of federal revenue.
SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
If we want to talk about individuals, the top wealthiest individuals pay less in taxes proportional to their individual wealth now than they did in the 1980s and 1970s. It seems weird to want to pivot to individuals being taxed and then comment on how much those individuals pay as a group, and not look at whether or not individuals being taxed are being taxed at a fair rate over time.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > If we want to talk about individuals, the top wealthiest individuals pay less in taxes proportional to their individual wealth now than they did in the 1980s and 1970s. Yes, and if you look at my other comments here, I'm in favor of all individuals, regardless of wealth paying the exact same in taxes via a flat tax on consumption. Whatever the flat tax percent is, it should be paid by everyone equally in proportion to their consumption.
  - blunte 6y ago
    That is tricky to implement. What consumption counts for tax purposes? Should luxury items be taxed higher? For example, poor people have no choice but to eat, and their food costs won't be that much lower than a rich person's food costs (assuming artificially that everyone cooked at home). Therefore, because rich and poor people will eat about the same amount of food, and the cost will be "about" the same, then the amount of tax paid will be about the same. But as a percentage of the person's income, the poor person will have a drastically higher burden of taxation. And even if consumption tax proponents were willing to allow for luxury item tax rates, rich people would always have a way around it. For example, would renting an item be taxed the same as buying it? Or what if instead I receive access to my Ferrari as a perk of working for my hedge fund? The poor guy who buys the $2,000 used junker will have to pay consumption tax, but I won't. For every rule there are probably multiple loopholes. And even if a fair system could be devised, it would never see the light of day because you could never get enough people to agree on what that system would be. All of this is just pointless thought experimentation anyway; the current corporate-political structure likes the current system much better than they would like any radically different system. Therefore, nothing significant is going to change.

i_haz_rabies 6y ago

I'm also discounting this position based on the fact that the prime directive of government is not efficiency. Do you have a source for your numbers?

malandrew 6y ago
It's pretty trivial to find many references with a quick Google search, but here you go: https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  It's not on me to find sources for your numbers. Besides, doing a trivial, quick Google search comes up with a few links to anti-tax lobby groups (such as the one you provided). However, a slightly less trivial, slightly less quick look at the topic reveals that the figures in the anti-tax lobby group reports do not include capital gains, or really anything outside of federal income. It doesn't even include payroll tax. A few sources, admittedly biased the other way: - https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/where-do-federal-t... - https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-tim... - https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-paid-less-taxes-than-working-class-wealth-gap-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-paid-l...
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Well if you read what I wrote, I didn't say that they fund 60%/87% of federal revenue. I said they pay 60%/87% of income taxes. Since payroll is proportional to income, that's even more federal revenue that is indirectly levied on the labor of the top 5% and 20%. Once you include capital gains taxes, the top 5% and top 20% cover even more of federal revenue. The only portion of capital gains that isn't personal capital gains is corporate capital gains. A sizable amount of non-individual capital gains are hedge funds and retirement accounts, which once again are mostly funded by many people in the top 5% and 20%. Any way you slice it, it's largely the top 5% to top 20% of so funding much of the operating costs of USA Inc. Everyone in the bottom 50% gets a 50% say while paying a mere 3% of income taxes and probably even less in taxes once you include all sources of federal revenue.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago

If we want to talk about individuals, the top wealthiest individuals pay less in taxes proportional to their individual wealth now than they did in the 1980s and 1970s. It seems weird to want to pivot to individuals being taxed and then comment on how much those individuals pay as a group, and not look at whether or not individuals being taxed are being taxed at a fair rate over time.

malandrew 6y ago
> If we want to talk about individuals, the top wealthiest individuals pay less in taxes proportional to their individual wealth now than they did in the 1980s and 1970s. Yes, and if you look at my other comments here, I'm in favor of all individuals, regardless of wealth paying the exact same in taxes via a flat tax on consumption. Whatever the flat tax percent is, it should be paid by everyone equally in proportion to their consumption.
- blunte 6y ago
  That is tricky to implement. What consumption counts for tax purposes? Should luxury items be taxed higher? For example, poor people have no choice but to eat, and their food costs won't be that much lower than a rich person's food costs (assuming artificially that everyone cooked at home). Therefore, because rich and poor people will eat about the same amount of food, and the cost will be "about" the same, then the amount of tax paid will be about the same. But as a percentage of the person's income, the poor person will have a drastically higher burden of taxation. And even if consumption tax proponents were willing to allow for luxury item tax rates, rich people would always have a way around it. For example, would renting an item be taxed the same as buying it? Or what if instead I receive access to my Ferrari as a perk of working for my hedge fund? The poor guy who buys the $2,000 used junker will have to pay consumption tax, but I won't. For every rule there are probably multiple loopholes. And even if a fair system could be devised, it would never see the light of day because you could never get enough people to agree on what that system would be. All of this is just pointless thought experimentation anyway; the current corporate-political structure likes the current system much better than they would like any radically different system. Therefore, nothing significant is going to change.