10 ms·

Yes, yes and yes. People are sometimes surprise why people who has a lot of money seem to be left-leaning and support things like higher taxation. First, it is

Yes, yes and yes. People are sometimes surprise why people who has a lot of money seem to be left-leaning and support things like higher taxation. First, it is never a concern for them. If they need, they offshore their money or pay lawyers who know tricks or start some foundation to pass money through it. Something that people from middle class are not able to afford. The other reason is that making difficult for members of middle class to accumulate wealth secures their own business, they are effectively killing the growth of potential competitors. In the longer perspective this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy. Middle class is important for the society since those are people who have time to engage themselves into public affairs, they don't have to spend all their time trying to earn money. In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. As a result they give work to a lot of people who are down the social ladder. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. So thousands of Jones are given job to much more people than single Mark Zuckerberg (obviously I am talking about Zuckerberg as a person, not his company). That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible. They give work to a lot of people, they drag them up. That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation".

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea This seems to relate to marginal income tax rates, not corporate taxes. >and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation". They don’t have to. Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions.
- klausjensen 6y ago
  > Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions. Simply? In a global world economy? There is nothing simple about it.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If you eliminate deductions, you end up with a gross receipts tax rather than an income/profit tax system. There’s nothing at all simple about switching from one to the other. (Grocery stores in particular would be extremely hard-hit and a lot of us rely on them to survive. The wheels would come off quickly if not carefully thought though.)
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Grocery stores would raise prices. What is the issue? If the issue is it affecting poorer people adversely, then that should be addressed by making them less poor, e.g. the government giving them money.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Grocery chains that were more vertically integrated would handily outcompete independent grocers who had more intermediate steps in their supply chain, each of which was taxed on their B2B revenue. Whole Foods could conceivably become the equivalent of a discount grocery by virtue of such integration, after Amazon bought up farms and distribution channels.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        That’s a good point I had not considered.
      - bzbarsky 6y ago
        This is also why a VAT is theoretically better than a sales tax, in my opinion: it removes the incentive to vertically integrate to avoid the transaction tax....
qubit000 6y ago
"... this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy." One could argue that the US is already an Oligarchy or more accurately an 'Oligarchic Plutocracy' which has accomplished all of the above.
- extradesgo 6y ago
  Who is disagreeing? It’s far more difficult to argue the i verse.
  - js8 6y ago
    Anybody who refers to USA as "democracy"? There is a lot of politicians and even ordinary people who say that. Even I would refer to USA as democratic, but there is lot of evidence that the democratic component is pretty weak.
js8 6y ago
I find comments like this confusing. It seems that you agree with leftists that equality is important value. But then you say: > all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation" Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem? Why cannot you say, "putting conmen in prison" in the end means "smart conmen will avoid prison". It's this moral defeatism that gets me. Sure, there will be people who do immoral deeds and avoid being caught, but how are we better off by not trying to catch anyone? It's even in the open, that the large corporations pay little taxes, everybody is a witness to that. You (as a society) can change that system if you want.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I can't speak for the other person, but I think I have a similar perspective. I don't like big corporations, I think many smaller businesses are better. For one, if only a couple companies exist then you don't have many choices. For another, working as, what previous generations might've called a wage slave, feels very soul crushing. I think society would be freer and people would be happier working for smaller companies that they owned and had bigger impacts in. On top of all that, a few big companies means concentrated power and that means a few rich folks can leverage their power to political ends to get more riches and more power etc. "Tax the rich" sounds kind of like a good idea at first but then you take into account the point about how the rich have lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Rich people and companies already figure out how to subvert tax laws. Why wouldn't they figure out how to subvert the new laws they are clamoring for too? Put another way, is Bezos supporting this law because he wants to be worth less? I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting. Let's bring legal cases on all the questionable tax strategies big companies are engaging in. Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me. It seems more likely they'll dodge the increase and smaller companies will get hit with it.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust." In theory I am all for it but on the other hand what would be the allowed size? I can hardly imagine mom and pop shop producing Lithium Ion cells, starting foundry etc, etc. This measure could put country to severe disadvantage against any other that does not implement same measures. To be more practical and keep competitive edge internationally I'd just milk big companies by way of taxes and make sure there are no loopholes and perks like foreign earning exceptions etc. And outlaw political corporate lobbying.
odiroot 6y ago
Your post really resonates well with me. I wondered many times in my life, how do you effectively tax actual rich people without squashing the middle class? Many EU states seem to get this very wrong.
- rusk 6y ago
  Can you name any that do?
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich. Programs that encourage entrepreneurship, safety nets, lower taxes, etc. I think we should also consider reducing immigration and free trade to benefit labor in country.
  - toomanybeersies 6y ago
    > I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich I agree in principle, but reducing immigration and restricting free trade aren't policies that make the poor rich; they're policies that benefit those in possession of scarce resources at a cost to the rest of society. Take steel tariffs for instance. They benefit the steelworkers, at the cost of every domestic industry that consumes steel. The entire economy pays to support an otherwise unprofitable industry. Reducing immigration won't magically increase the supply of skilled workers. There aren't masses of unskilled poor who aren't going to college due to immigration putting downwards pressure on skilled wages. They aren't going to college because they lack the resources and opportunity.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I’m pro trade and pro immigration, but the argument on the other side is if you open up both, labor in the US now has to compete on a global arena rather than being somewhat protected via isolationist policies.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
EMM_386 6y ago
> In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible. This seems like a false narrative to me. For example, the policies Biden is putting forward tax household income at those above $400,000 annually and above, which is firmly in the 1%. This isn't your plumber or single babysitter. In addition, they are discussing a minimum corporate tax rate and closing loopholes so that corporations and individuals can't pay 0% in income taxes, which is what many are paying now.
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  > which is firmly in the 1% If the numbers at https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen... are correct, the "top 1%" household income threshold in the US in 2020 is $53lk. $400k is closer to the "top 2%" level. More importantly, these numbers like "400k" tend to not be inflation adjusted (e.g. the cutoffs for the net investment tax and the additional medicare tax are not, cutoffs for phaseouts of the child tax credit are not, etc). And income percentiles grow faster than inflation. Looking at that same data table, it looks like the percentile boundaries grew 6%+ year over year from 2019 to 2020. If that's not a fluke caused by the pandemic in some way, then in 10 years you expect something like 1.79x growth in the cutoff numbers, which would put $400k at about the "top 8%" level at that point. Is it possible that your idea of what level is "firmly in the 1%" is just a few years out of date?
  - EMM_386 6y ago
    I shouldn't have even included the "top 1%". That's an unfortunate flash point for veering any policy discussions off the rails. Take the raw numbers. Yearly household income of $400,000 is not gong to affect the baby sitter or local contract plumber. I stand by my assertion that the OPs comment was attempting to distort the narrative. Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.
pydry 6y ago
I'm pretty sure Bezos doesn't like this idea all that much, but it's the price of getting on board with Biden's infrastructure plan. He probably views it as an investment. Amazon has a keener interest than most in ensuring road maintenance is done properly and if that means a small increase to his tax bill he's probably ok with it. He also desperately needs to score some progressive points. His reputation is getting trashed rn. I'm sure that factored in to his decision. I'm skeptical of the notion that he wants this to keep competitors down.
- peytn 6y ago
  The guy who says “your margin is my opportunity” doesn’t want to influence taxes on the margins of others to keep competitors down? Instead he cares about road maintenance funded specifically through corporate tax hikes? Why wouldn’t he just advocate for road maintenance? Edit: whoops, I didn’t read his actual statement. Tricked by CNN! Still, I’m a little skeptical of ascribing motivations to people like Bezos that aren’t in line with his past actions, but instead are in line with my personal politics, which is why I’m skeptical.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Did you think lobbying is just asking for goodies and offering nothing in return?
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
This isn't corporate taxes.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea This seems to relate to marginal income tax rates, not corporate taxes. >and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation". They don’t have to. Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions.

klausjensen 6y ago
> Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions. Simply? In a global world economy? There is nothing simple about it.
sokoloff 6y ago
If you eliminate deductions, you end up with a gross receipts tax rather than an income/profit tax system. There’s nothing at all simple about switching from one to the other. (Grocery stores in particular would be extremely hard-hit and a lot of us rely on them to survive. The wheels would come off quickly if not carefully thought though.)
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Grocery stores would raise prices. What is the issue? If the issue is it affecting poorer people adversely, then that should be addressed by making them less poor, e.g. the government giving them money.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Grocery chains that were more vertically integrated would handily outcompete independent grocers who had more intermediate steps in their supply chain, each of which was taxed on their B2B revenue. Whole Foods could conceivably become the equivalent of a discount grocery by virtue of such integration, after Amazon bought up farms and distribution channels.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That’s a good point I had not considered.
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      This is also why a VAT is theoretically better than a sales tax, in my opinion: it removes the incentive to vertically integrate to avoid the transaction tax....

qubit000 6y ago

"... this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy." One could argue that the US is already an Oligarchy or more accurately an 'Oligarchic Plutocracy' which has accomplished all of the above.

extradesgo 6y ago
Who is disagreeing? It’s far more difficult to argue the i verse.
- js8 6y ago
  Anybody who refers to USA as "democracy"? There is a lot of politicians and even ordinary people who say that. Even I would refer to USA as democratic, but there is lot of evidence that the democratic component is pretty weak.

js8 6y ago

I find comments like this confusing. It seems that you agree with leftists that equality is important value. But then you say: > all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation" Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem? Why cannot you say, "putting conmen in prison" in the end means "smart conmen will avoid prison". It's this moral defeatism that gets me. Sure, there will be people who do immoral deeds and avoid being caught, but how are we better off by not trying to catch anyone? It's even in the open, that the large corporations pay little taxes, everybody is a witness to that. You (as a society) can change that system if you want.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I can't speak for the other person, but I think I have a similar perspective. I don't like big corporations, I think many smaller businesses are better. For one, if only a couple companies exist then you don't have many choices. For another, working as, what previous generations might've called a wage slave, feels very soul crushing. I think society would be freer and people would be happier working for smaller companies that they owned and had bigger impacts in. On top of all that, a few big companies means concentrated power and that means a few rich folks can leverage their power to political ends to get more riches and more power etc. "Tax the rich" sounds kind of like a good idea at first but then you take into account the point about how the rich have lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Rich people and companies already figure out how to subvert tax laws. Why wouldn't they figure out how to subvert the new laws they are clamoring for too? Put another way, is Bezos supporting this law because he wants to be worth less? I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting. Let's bring legal cases on all the questionable tax strategies big companies are engaging in. Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me. It seems more likely they'll dodge the increase and smaller companies will get hit with it.
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust." In theory I am all for it but on the other hand what would be the allowed size? I can hardly imagine mom and pop shop producing Lithium Ion cells, starting foundry etc, etc. This measure could put country to severe disadvantage against any other that does not implement same measures. To be more practical and keep competitive edge internationally I'd just milk big companies by way of taxes and make sure there are no loopholes and perks like foreign earning exceptions etc. And outlaw political corporate lobbying.

odiroot 6y ago

Your post really resonates well with me. I wondered many times in my life, how do you effectively tax actual rich people without squashing the middle class? Many EU states seem to get this very wrong.

rusk 6y ago
Can you name any that do?
ALittleLight 6y ago
I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich. Programs that encourage entrepreneurship, safety nets, lower taxes, etc. I think we should also consider reducing immigration and free trade to benefit labor in country.
- toomanybeersies 6y ago
  > I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich I agree in principle, but reducing immigration and restricting free trade aren't policies that make the poor rich; they're policies that benefit those in possession of scarce resources at a cost to the rest of society. Take steel tariffs for instance. They benefit the steelworkers, at the cost of every domestic industry that consumes steel. The entire economy pays to support an otherwise unprofitable industry. Reducing immigration won't magically increase the supply of skilled workers. There aren't masses of unskilled poor who aren't going to college due to immigration putting downwards pressure on skilled wages. They aren't going to college because they lack the resources and opportunity.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I’m pro trade and pro immigration, but the argument on the other side is if you open up both, labor in the US now has to compete on a global arena rather than being somewhat protected via isolationist policies.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago

EMM_386 6y ago

> In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible. This seems like a false narrative to me. For example, the policies Biden is putting forward tax household income at those above $400,000 annually and above, which is firmly in the 1%. This isn't your plumber or single babysitter. In addition, they are discussing a minimum corporate tax rate and closing loopholes so that corporations and individuals can't pay 0% in income taxes, which is what many are paying now.

bzbarsky 6y ago
> which is firmly in the 1% If the numbers at https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen... are correct, the "top 1%" household income threshold in the US in 2020 is $53lk. $400k is closer to the "top 2%" level. More importantly, these numbers like "400k" tend to not be inflation adjusted (e.g. the cutoffs for the net investment tax and the additional medicare tax are not, cutoffs for phaseouts of the child tax credit are not, etc). And income percentiles grow faster than inflation. Looking at that same data table, it looks like the percentile boundaries grew 6%+ year over year from 2019 to 2020. If that's not a fluke caused by the pandemic in some way, then in 10 years you expect something like 1.79x growth in the cutoff numbers, which would put $400k at about the "top 8%" level at that point. Is it possible that your idea of what level is "firmly in the 1%" is just a few years out of date?
- EMM_386 6y ago
  I shouldn't have even included the "top 1%". That's an unfortunate flash point for veering any policy discussions off the rails. Take the raw numbers. Yearly household income of $400,000 is not gong to affect the baby sitter or local contract plumber. I stand by my assertion that the OPs comment was attempting to distort the narrative. Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.

pydry 6y ago

I'm pretty sure Bezos doesn't like this idea all that much, but it's the price of getting on board with Biden's infrastructure plan. He probably views it as an investment. Amazon has a keener interest than most in ensuring road maintenance is done properly and if that means a small increase to his tax bill he's probably ok with it. He also desperately needs to score some progressive points. His reputation is getting trashed rn. I'm sure that factored in to his decision. I'm skeptical of the notion that he wants this to keep competitors down.

peytn 6y ago
The guy who says “your margin is my opportunity” doesn’t want to influence taxes on the margins of others to keep competitors down? Instead he cares about road maintenance funded specifically through corporate tax hikes? Why wouldn’t he just advocate for road maintenance? Edit: whoops, I didn’t read his actual statement. Tricked by CNN! Still, I’m a little skeptical of ascribing motivations to people like Bezos that aren’t in line with his past actions, but instead are in line with my personal politics, which is why I’m skeptical.
- pydry 6y ago
  Did you think lobbying is just asking for goodies and offering nothing in return?

Mauricebranagh 6y ago

This isn't corporate taxes.