3 ms·

Nah. The author states clearly that wage earners don’t have assets other than homes. The facts are: “By the end of 2018, the 25 [wealthiest Americans] were wo

Nah. The author states clearly that wage earners don’t have assets other than homes. The facts are: “By the end of 2018, the 25 [wealthiest Americans] were worth $1.1 trillion. For comparison, it would take 14.3 million ordinary American wage earners put together to equal that same amount of wealth. The personal federal tax bill for the top 25 in 2018: $1.9 billion. The bill for the wage earners: $143 billion.”

missedthecue 5y ago
Don't think this is a useful comparison because wealth isn't taxed. Income is. If you take the top 1% of earners, they make 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the taxes.
- oblio 5y ago
  > If you take the top 1% of earners, they make 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the taxes. And that's normal. If I make $1k per year, taxing me is almost criminal, since I can barely afford to feed myself. If I make $100k per year, taxing me $20k year is kind of annoying, but manageable. I'll probably have to avoid some bigger expenses I would have made if I were not taxed at all. If I make $100m+ per year, taxing me $40m per year doesn't even change my lifestyle. It just gives me topics to bitch about at dinner time, but it doesn't change my life in any material way. The more I have, the more I can afford to give away without it impacting me or my family in any realistic way. Except for losing ego points.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    I understand the point but I question if reality works that way. No one looks at a tax bill and says "what have I got left after it?" They just look at the bottom line. And it doesn't matter if you've got a $100m in the bank or $900m - $40m is a lot of money. Avoidance is a more or less a fixed cost. It's the price of tax attorneys and Congressman. To the degree you go over that fixed cost it's going to be harder and harder to get the amount. The biggest surprise to me is always just how much the rich pay not how little.
    - sagarm 5y ago
      Diminishing marginal utility is a basic economic concept.
      - hackeraccount 5y ago
        You're correct. I know that I got a lot more utility out of the first $100 I ever made then a $100 now. I don't think mentally it tracked perfectly though - that first $100 was a lot but I knew in the larger scheme it wasn't really a lot of money and today I'll still price show to save $100 even though I know it's not a lot in terms of my income. I have no economic concept for this but I strongly suspect it's true. How about this? If you go rooting around underneath my couch cushions you'll find quarters. If you do the same for Bill Gates' couch you'll find ... Not $100 bills. Even if in respect to his entire wealth a $100 is less then nothing to Bill Gates he can still see the utility that money has in the world at large and that changes how he views it - maybe he doesn't see it the same way I do now or I did when I was 15 but he'd value it more then would be expected in relation to his over all wealth.
- CPLX 5y ago
  Depends on what you mean by how much they "make" The distinction between capital gains and wage income is heavily coded into law, but that doesn't make it a distinction that SHOULD be treated in the way that it is.

missedthecue 5y ago

Don't think this is a useful comparison because wealth isn't taxed. Income is. If you take the top 1% of earners, they make 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the taxes.

oblio 5y ago
> If you take the top 1% of earners, they make 20% of the income, but pay 38% of the taxes. And that's normal. If I make $1k per year, taxing me is almost criminal, since I can barely afford to feed myself. If I make $100k per year, taxing me $20k year is kind of annoying, but manageable. I'll probably have to avoid some bigger expenses I would have made if I were not taxed at all. If I make $100m+ per year, taxing me $40m per year doesn't even change my lifestyle. It just gives me topics to bitch about at dinner time, but it doesn't change my life in any material way. The more I have, the more I can afford to give away without it impacting me or my family in any realistic way. Except for losing ego points.
- hackeraccount 5y ago
  I understand the point but I question if reality works that way. No one looks at a tax bill and says "what have I got left after it?" They just look at the bottom line. And it doesn't matter if you've got a $100m in the bank or $900m - $40m is a lot of money. Avoidance is a more or less a fixed cost. It's the price of tax attorneys and Congressman. To the degree you go over that fixed cost it's going to be harder and harder to get the amount. The biggest surprise to me is always just how much the rich pay not how little.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Diminishing marginal utility is a basic economic concept.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      You're correct. I know that I got a lot more utility out of the first $100 I ever made then a $100 now. I don't think mentally it tracked perfectly though - that first $100 was a lot but I knew in the larger scheme it wasn't really a lot of money and today I'll still price show to save $100 even though I know it's not a lot in terms of my income. I have no economic concept for this but I strongly suspect it's true. How about this? If you go rooting around underneath my couch cushions you'll find quarters. If you do the same for Bill Gates' couch you'll find ... Not $100 bills. Even if in respect to his entire wealth a $100 is less then nothing to Bill Gates he can still see the utility that money has in the world at large and that changes how he views it - maybe he doesn't see it the same way I do now or I did when I was 15 but he'd value it more then would be expected in relation to his over all wealth.
CPLX 5y ago
Depends on what you mean by how much they "make" The distinction between capital gains and wage income is heavily coded into law, but that doesn't make it a distinction that SHOULD be treated in the way that it is.