5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- lapinot 5y ago
  I think any wealth (not income!) over something like 1M should be confiscated. :) There's no reason to have that much money and there's no way you personally have generated that wealth, most likely you just invested money early enough in something sucessful to extort money from it. This may sound provocating but it's actually quite a sound model, but which would also mean reconstructing what we mean by the economy... No capitalistic ownership (eg investment is at most a loan, you don't get propriety shares in exchange), no for-profit renting, ... And obviously funnelling all that money and economic capital to some central state isn't gonna go well so levels below and above the state need to be reinforced.
  - eloff 5y ago
    This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US and you'd have to pay me quite a lot to accept a green card. I certainly wouldn't take it if offered freely, because it comes with a major tax liability. There are nicer places in the world by a variety of metrics. So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that! Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.
    - lapinot 5y ago
      > This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique". > First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. Perhaps instead of 1M$ you'd prefer if i say "the equivalent of 100K ton of wheat at retail price"? Obviously i'm talking from the perspective of my local living standard which is west-european 500M people city. > No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US None taken, me neither. > So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that! Ok so that's the only argument of your comment. It has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal. Corporations do that. And it can be fought by taxing international transactions (which every sane economy but the EU does anyway). Yes, in the end, it becomes a frontal fight between the financial and industrial establishment and your local economy, which obviously will need some negotiation because they can hurt you, but let it be clear that without them, it would work quite well (and in reverse, in my economy, it would be quite hard to practically be capitalistic). I don't even want to eradicate capitalism, i'd just want to not mainly depend on it for living and tip the balance to a much more reasonable state. > Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out. You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point. And obviously i'm not defending dictatorship (and please note i'm not using this strawman of the numereous capitalistic dictatorship against you).
- andrepd 5y ago
  >who decides? when does it stop? Us? The people? That's how you do decisions in a democracy.

by geggam 5y ago

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.
lapinot 5y ago
I think any wealth (not income!) over something like 1M should be confiscated. :) There's no reason to have that much money and there's no way you personally have generated that wealth, most likely you just invested money early enough in something sucessful to extort money from it. This may sound provocating but it's actually quite a sound model, but which would also mean reconstructing what we mean by the economy... No capitalistic ownership (eg investment is at most a loan, you don't get propriety shares in exchange), no for-profit renting, ... And obviously funnelling all that money and economic capital to some central state isn't gonna go well so levels below and above the state need to be reinforced.
- eloff 5y ago
  This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US and you'd have to pay me quite a lot to accept a green card. I certainly wouldn't take it if offered freely, because it comes with a major tax liability. There are nicer places in the world by a variety of metrics. So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that! Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.
  - lapinot 5y ago
    > This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history. Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique". > First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. Perhaps instead of 1M$ you'd prefer if i say "the equivalent of 100K ton of wheat at retail price"? Obviously i'm talking from the perspective of my local living standard which is west-european 500M people city. > No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US None taken, me neither. > So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that! Ok so that's the only argument of your comment. It has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal. Corporations do that. And it can be fought by taxing international transactions (which every sane economy but the EU does anyway). Yes, in the end, it becomes a frontal fight between the financial and industrial establishment and your local economy, which obviously will need some negotiation because they can hurt you, but let it be clear that without them, it would work quite well (and in reverse, in my economy, it would be quite hard to practically be capitalistic). I don't even want to eradicate capitalism, i'd just want to not mainly depend on it for living and tip the balance to a much more reasonable state. > Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out. You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point. And obviously i'm not defending dictatorship (and please note i'm not using this strawman of the numereous capitalistic dictatorship against you).
andrepd 5y ago
>who decides? when does it stop? Us? The people? That's how you do decisions in a democracy.