8 ms·

You’ll never see rich people argue for a wealth tax, but they sure as hell will parade demanding that we raise taxes on income of the service class.

hanniabu 5y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted
- TAForObvReasons 5y ago
  Rich != Wealthy. "Rich" tends to refer to people who are generating lots of cash, oftentimes through labor (like doctors or lawyers or athletes). "Wealthy" tends to refer to people who own lots of assets and generate cash through asset appreciation/sales and real property. Wealthy people will push for income taxes while trying to eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes. This conversation came up years ago when Bill Gates Sr tried to push for income taxes in Washington state and critics pointed out that it would not affect wealthy people.
  - devmunchies 5y ago
    yes, this is why people calling states with no income tax as a "regressive" tax structure seems like a psyop. Income tax taxes people who work for a living. Property + capital gains tax both tax assets appreciation and rent seekers (unless the investment is a high risk venture into a startup or something ambitious).
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      Maybe, but they are less regressive. States without income taxes usually rely on sales or excise taxes. In a “high tax” state like New York, poor people don’t pay income tax nor sales tax on food or clothing. (A significant expense) Usually high tax pressure is from property tax. In a state like South Carolina, you have income tax, but property taxes are very low. They make up for that by taxing food, which results in higher taxation for poor and elderly people.
      - devmunchies 5y ago
        Los Angeles has slightly higher sales tax[1] than king county (Seattle) Washington[2] Yet Washington is "regressive" since it doesn't have income tax. Los Angeles would actually be more "regressive" by this metric. This is why i think its a psyop. Somebody wants the lower and middle classes to fight. 1: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx 2: https://kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20County%20Revenues/King%20County%20Sales%20Tax.aspx https://kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20County...
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    There is a third category of people who are resource rich. People who owe oil wells, mines, some farms, etc. Because of consolidation and the unique governance structure of the US, these folks are enormously powerful today.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I didn't downvote, but the comment did confuse me as it's an oddly specific complaint. If indeed there are lots of very wealthy people who are calling for higher income taxes on high earners (and I personally didn't think that was something so common as to be a stereotype) then that's hardly the worst thing they're doing. It comes across as someone who really doesn't like taxes, probably because they've listened to too much propaganda generated by very wealthy people who have a vested interest in taxes being seen as a universally bad thing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
macintux 5y ago
Never, eh? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/bill-gates-taxes-on-rich-should-be-much-higher-but-capitalism-works.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/bill-gates-taxes-on-rich-sho... https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-to-pay-for-covid-19-recovery https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-wealthy-who-argue-that-they-should-be-paying-higher-taxes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-weal...
- the_optimist 5y ago
  None of these are calls for wealth taxes. These are calls for income taxes. This is called “pulling up the ladder.”
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    At least two of the articles specifically mention increasing non-income taxes to tax wealth specifically. It seems likely the third one does too, since it's specifically about inherited wealth, but I didn't see a specific reference either way at a glance.
  - macintux 5y ago
    Bill is calling for higher capital gains and inheritance taxes, so not income taxes anyway. The ‘Millionaires for Humanity’ don’t specify what taxes they’d like to see raised, but they emphasize they want it on themselves. And from the third article: > Several members, including Molly Munger, the daughter of Charlie Munger, the longtime vice-chairman of Warren Buffett’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, have spoken in favor of a wealth tax.
javert 5y ago
Which raises a subsequent question: Why does the middle class clamor to raise taxes on the rich, which won't appreciably benefit themselves, when they could instead push to lower taxes on themselves, which will benefit themselves? Maybe different in Europe, but in the USA tax increases do not find their way back to benefits for the public. I mean unless by "public" you mean the next country we want to "liberate" and bring "democracy" to...
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Anecdotal... my peers (upper middle-class in the US) generally realize the taxes they pay fund all the stuff we rely upon to stay upper middle-class. Good public schools, roads, etc. We just want the rich to pay their fair share too. Or, if you're a jaded cynic, the rich are mostly just greedy sociopaths. They want to minimize their own tax burden and give zero fucks about the betterment of society. They got theirs, screw everybody else.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes. Maybe $5,000 per year.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes A significant share of road and school funding comes from the federal government, which doesn’t levy property taxes. Another significant chunk usually comes from the State, which in many states does not rely on property taxes.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Ok, but even adding in federal and state contributions we’re talking about a fraction of all govt spending.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
gaoshan 5y ago
In fact they will use media, culture, religion and politics to get sufficient numbers of the service class, as you call it, to do that for them.
eloff 5y ago
That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more. Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders. Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the government is not sufficiently competent ( now or in the future) to implement it correctly and it does more harm than good. It's very easy to drive capital offshore and take the potential investment and job creation with it.
- geggam 5y ago
  > Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. Given the fact the top 1% hold 43% of the global wealth I think they aren't paying their fair share... There is no need for someone to have 100 billion dollars they an struggle by with 10 billion easy enough .. or even 1 billion https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/top-1-percent-of-households-own-43-percent-of-global-wealth-42134 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/top-1-percent-of-household...
  - eloff 5y ago
    Don't compare global wealth to share of US taxes. That makes no sense.
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    so what's fair? 50%? 60? who decides? when does it stop?
    - Tarsul 5y ago
      we should look at the big picture not just the percentages that those people are taxed at the end. Because in many cases the leading question is: How come they earn so much more than every one else? Is it through sheer talent and grit or is there something else going on? Inheritance, structures that benefit those with capital over those who labor, connections with the right people etc. etc. And after analyzing all that coming back to the question whether someone should earn 10.000 as much as another person who works the same hours? Should someone earn billions in a year and then use it for moon shots like going to mars? Is that what the society needs or can afford right now? Maybe. But for as long as there are people who work 40 hours a week and cannot afford a healthy life (e.g. having no trouble coming up with emergency money, dont have to commute 2h just to get to their minimum wage job etc.), there certainly is a structural problem going on. This structural problem can only be solved if - and that's the most important point - wealth is shared more equally. Meaning taxation (and all the structures that lead to income) has to take more from those who earn more and give to those who cannot give more. Well, that's if we want to live in a social society, if not forget what I said.
fit2rule 5y ago
If we taxed expenditure, rather than revenue, they wouldn't have a chance to hide a damn thing.

hanniabu 5y ago

No idea why you're being downvoted

TAForObvReasons 5y ago
Rich != Wealthy. "Rich" tends to refer to people who are generating lots of cash, oftentimes through labor (like doctors or lawyers or athletes). "Wealthy" tends to refer to people who own lots of assets and generate cash through asset appreciation/sales and real property. Wealthy people will push for income taxes while trying to eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes. This conversation came up years ago when Bill Gates Sr tried to push for income taxes in Washington state and critics pointed out that it would not affect wealthy people.
- devmunchies 5y ago
  yes, this is why people calling states with no income tax as a "regressive" tax structure seems like a psyop. Income tax taxes people who work for a living. Property + capital gains tax both tax assets appreciation and rent seekers (unless the investment is a high risk venture into a startup or something ambitious).
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Maybe, but they are less regressive. States without income taxes usually rely on sales or excise taxes. In a “high tax” state like New York, poor people don’t pay income tax nor sales tax on food or clothing. (A significant expense) Usually high tax pressure is from property tax. In a state like South Carolina, you have income tax, but property taxes are very low. They make up for that by taxing food, which results in higher taxation for poor and elderly people.
    - devmunchies 5y ago
      Los Angeles has slightly higher sales tax[1] than king county (Seattle) Washington[2] Yet Washington is "regressive" since it doesn't have income tax. Los Angeles would actually be more "regressive" by this metric. This is why i think its a psyop. Somebody wants the lower and middle classes to fight. 1: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx 2: https://kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20County%20Revenues/King%20County%20Sales%20Tax.aspx https://kingcounty.gov/independent/forecasting/King%20County...
- Spooky23 5y ago
  There is a third category of people who are resource rich. People who owe oil wells, mines, some farms, etc. Because of consolidation and the unique governance structure of the US, these folks are enormously powerful today.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I didn't downvote, but the comment did confuse me as it's an oddly specific complaint. If indeed there are lots of very wealthy people who are calling for higher income taxes on high earners (and I personally didn't think that was something so common as to be a stereotype) then that's hardly the worst thing they're doing. It comes across as someone who really doesn't like taxes, probably because they've listened to too much propaganda generated by very wealthy people who have a vested interest in taxes being seen as a universally bad thing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

macintux 5y ago

Never, eh? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/bill-gates-taxes-on-rich-should-be-much-higher-but-capitalism-works.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/bill-gates-taxes-on-rich-sho... https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-to-pay-for-covid-19-recovery https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jul/13/super-rich-call... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-wealthy-who-argue-that-they-should-be-paying-higher-taxes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-weal...

the_optimist 5y ago
None of these are calls for wealth taxes. These are calls for income taxes. This is called “pulling up the ladder.”
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  At least two of the articles specifically mention increasing non-income taxes to tax wealth specifically. It seems likely the third one does too, since it's specifically about inherited wealth, but I didn't see a specific reference either way at a glance.
- macintux 5y ago
  Bill is calling for higher capital gains and inheritance taxes, so not income taxes anyway. The ‘Millionaires for Humanity’ don’t specify what taxes they’d like to see raised, but they emphasize they want it on themselves. And from the third article: > Several members, including Molly Munger, the daughter of Charlie Munger, the longtime vice-chairman of Warren Buffett’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, have spoken in favor of a wealth tax.

javert 5y ago

Which raises a subsequent question: Why does the middle class clamor to raise taxes on the rich, which won't appreciably benefit themselves, when they could instead push to lower taxes on themselves, which will benefit themselves? Maybe different in Europe, but in the USA tax increases do not find their way back to benefits for the public. I mean unless by "public" you mean the next country we want to "liberate" and bring "democracy" to...

alistairSH 5y ago
Anecdotal... my peers (upper middle-class in the US) generally realize the taxes they pay fund all the stuff we rely upon to stay upper middle-class. Good public schools, roads, etc. We just want the rich to pay their fair share too. Or, if you're a jaded cynic, the rich are mostly just greedy sociopaths. They want to minimize their own tax burden and give zero fucks about the betterment of society. They got theirs, screw everybody else.
- refurb 5y ago
  Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes. Maybe $5,000 per year.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Roads and schools is always a cop out because that’s typically funded through property taxes A significant share of road and school funding comes from the federal government, which doesn’t levy property taxes. Another significant chunk usually comes from the State, which in many states does not rely on property taxes.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Ok, but even adding in federal and state contributions we’re talking about a fraction of all govt spending.
  - alistairSH 5y ago

gaoshan 5y ago

In fact they will use media, culture, religion and politics to get sufficient numbers of the service class, as you call it, to do that for them.

eloff 5y ago

That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more. Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders. Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the government is not sufficiently competent ( now or in the future) to implement it correctly and it does more harm than good. It's very easy to drive capital offshore and take the potential investment and job creation with it.

geggam 5y ago
> Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily. Given the fact the top 1% hold 43% of the global wealth I think they aren't paying their fair share... There is no need for someone to have 100 billion dollars they an struggle by with 10 billion easy enough .. or even 1 billion https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/top-1-percent-of-households-own-43-percent-of-global-wealth-42134 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/top-1-percent-of-household...
- eloff 5y ago
  Don't compare global wealth to share of US taxes. That makes no sense.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  so what's fair? 50%? 60? who decides? when does it stop?
  - Tarsul 5y ago
    we should look at the big picture not just the percentages that those people are taxed at the end. Because in many cases the leading question is: How come they earn so much more than every one else? Is it through sheer talent and grit or is there something else going on? Inheritance, structures that benefit those with capital over those who labor, connections with the right people etc. etc. And after analyzing all that coming back to the question whether someone should earn 10.000 as much as another person who works the same hours? Should someone earn billions in a year and then use it for moon shots like going to mars? Is that what the society needs or can afford right now? Maybe. But for as long as there are people who work 40 hours a week and cannot afford a healthy life (e.g. having no trouble coming up with emergency money, dont have to commute 2h just to get to their minimum wage job etc.), there certainly is a structural problem going on. This structural problem can only be solved if - and that's the most important point - wealth is shared more equally. Meaning taxation (and all the structures that lead to income) has to take more from those who earn more and give to those who cannot give more. Well, that's if we want to live in a social society, if not forget what I said.

fit2rule 5y ago

If we taxed expenditure, rather than revenue, they wouldn't have a chance to hide a damn thing.