3 ms·

> Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. The questions

> Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. Right, but the point of this proposal is to limit that competition so governments can focus on improving lives of lower classes. I can't tell if we're in "violent agreement" or not. > how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, Or tax breaks and the rich build their own enclaves with low crime and amenities. I'm not advocating for this, on the contrary; however, this is an option that governments use to court the rich to the detriment of the rest of their citizens. > The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers. Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Or is that part of (2)?
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  > Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Depends on your definition of "rich", but probably not. First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes [1]. There are many talks about "paying fair share", but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Second, I'm afraid even if we close loopholes and collect some more money, it won't help. New York, for example, is in top 10 states by collected income tax. Yet it has shitty (and expensive!) roads, shitty subway, not-so-good state university - well, you name it. Before asking for more taxes, I'd like to see current funds used wisely. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income... [2] https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes My understanding is that we are talking about the top 0.1%, not the top 1%, at least with respect to loopholes. > but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Agreed. I’m less concerned about “what is fair” and more concerned with making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare and that corruption is minimized. As far as I can tell, this means we should tax the rich (and probably even upper middle classes including me, happily) and severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc so the very rich can’t buy our democracy.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      After quick googling I could not find any definitive info about how much taxes top 0.1% pays, but from [3] and [1] above I can assume it's a bit more than 18% of total federal income tax. > making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare Even in USA with notoriously awful healthcare system pretty much everyone does have access to healthcare. It's expensive and stuff can be improved, but if anything that should reduce public expenses, not increase them. > severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc The other side of this coin is political populism. "We'll tax all fat cat businesses to death!" - say politicians. "Oh, Yeah!" - says the crowd. "Fuck you, we quit" - say businesses. [3] https://fairtax.org/articles/income-taxes-on-the-top-0-1-percent-weren-t-much-higher-in-the-1950s https://fairtax.org/articles/income-taxes-on-the-top-0-1-per...
  - Yoric 5y ago
    For context, in my country, to be in the 1%, you only have to earn ~5x the median salary (a bit less, actually). Whether you consider this "rich", it's a lot, but not enough to enable you to make much of a difference in the big scheme of taxes.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      About the same thing for USA: $70k is median household income, $300k is top 5% threshold. Give or take.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. Right, but the point of this proposal is to limit that competition so governments can focus on improving lives of lower classes. I can't tell if we're in "violent agreement" or not. > how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, Or tax breaks and the rich build their own enclaves with low crime and amenities. I'm not advocating for this, on the contrary; however, this is an option that governments use to court the rich to the detriment of the rest of their citizens. > The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers. Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Or is that part of (2)?

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Depends on your definition of "rich", but probably not. First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes [1]. There are many talks about "paying fair share", but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Second, I'm afraid even if we close loopholes and collect some more money, it won't help. New York, for example, is in top 10 states by collected income tax. Yet it has shitty (and expensive!) roads, shitty subway, not-so-good state university - well, you name it. Before asking for more taxes, I'd like to see current funds used wisely. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income... [2] https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes My understanding is that we are talking about the top 0.1%, not the top 1%, at least with respect to loopholes. > but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Agreed. I’m less concerned about “what is fair” and more concerned with making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare and that corruption is minimized. As far as I can tell, this means we should tax the rich (and probably even upper middle classes including me, happily) and severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc so the very rich can’t buy our democracy.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    After quick googling I could not find any definitive info about how much taxes top 0.1% pays, but from [3] and [1] above I can assume it's a bit more than 18% of total federal income tax. > making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare Even in USA with notoriously awful healthcare system pretty much everyone does have access to healthcare. It's expensive and stuff can be improved, but if anything that should reduce public expenses, not increase them. > severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc The other side of this coin is political populism. "We'll tax all fat cat businesses to death!" - say politicians. "Oh, Yeah!" - says the crowd. "Fuck you, we quit" - say businesses. [3] https://fairtax.org/articles/income-taxes-on-the-top-0-1-percent-weren-t-much-higher-in-the-1950s https://fairtax.org/articles/income-taxes-on-the-top-0-1-per...
- Yoric 5y ago
  For context, in my country, to be in the 1%, you only have to earn ~5x the median salary (a bit less, actually). Whether you consider this "rich", it's a lot, but not enough to enable you to make much of a difference in the big scheme of taxes.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    About the same thing for USA: $70k is median household income, $300k is top 5% threshold. Give or take.