3 ms·

> What does that have to do with anything? I literally have no idea what you're trying to imply. It means that government budget can be eventually consistent,

by bhupy 5y ago

> What does that have to do with anything? I literally have no idea what you're trying to imply. It means that government budget can be eventually consistent, unlike our personal budgets. Wealth is a leading indicator of income, and we all know that the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy will eventually pay taxes once they liquidate their wealth. When that happens, they will pay more in taxes than you or I, especially once you factor in inflation (which is one of the reasons why the long-term cap gains tax rate is so low to begin with, everywhere around the world). Realistically, the government is already spending the money it expects to receive in eventual income tax collections from the ultra-wealthy. The best-faith attack on wealth is mostly around concentration of power, rather than tax revenue or even "fairness" relative to the middle class (the US has by far the most progressive taxation in the developed world[1][2][3]). [1] https://opportunitywa.org/u-s-federal-income-tax-structure-most-progressive-in-the-world-more-than-offsets-regressively-of-state-local-taxes/ https://opportunitywa.org/u-s-federal-income-tax-structure-m... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fed... [3] https://faculty.washington.edu/vmenaldo/Inequality%20Research/European%20Welfare%20State%20Taxes%20more%20regressive%20-%20WSJ%202019.pdf https://faculty.washington.edu/vmenaldo/Inequality%20Researc...

andrepd 5y ago
> and we all know that the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy will eventually pay taxes once they liquidate their wealth I can't tell if you're serious, I mean it. Can you explain why you say this?
- bhupy 5y ago
  Because we tax income, rather than wealth? This is true for most of the OECD. None of this has changed, and it's true for any ultra-wealthy person who wishes to actually consume against their wealth. By definition, the ultra-wealthy defer their consumption for the sake of investment. If they never ever choose to liquidate their wealth, then it's little more than a life high score. One can certainly consume right now by taking on a collateralized loan against their wealth, but even if one were to do that, the loan would need to eventually be repaid. For this to happen, some gain would have to be realized somewhere. That money isn't free. No matter what, that wealth is eventually taxed. A relevant response to an earlier ProPublica piece: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/propublicas-bombshell-bullshit-tax https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/propublicas-bombshel... As for the Roth IRA, the whole point was to extend the power of deferred consumption to the ordinary person (response to this specific ProPublica piece: https://twitter.com/cundillcapital/status/1408090682401693705 https://twitter.com/cundillcapital/status/140809068240169370...) And just a side note: generally assume that I'm being serious. I try to be as earnest as possible on this forum. Going in with this assumption for anyone on here is best for its general health.

by bhupy 5y ago

andrepd 5y ago

> and we all know that the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy will eventually pay taxes once they liquidate their wealth I can't tell if you're serious, I mean it. Can you explain why you say this?

bhupy 5y ago
Because we tax income, rather than wealth? This is true for most of the OECD. None of this has changed, and it's true for any ultra-wealthy person who wishes to actually consume against their wealth. By definition, the ultra-wealthy defer their consumption for the sake of investment. If they never ever choose to liquidate their wealth, then it's little more than a life high score. One can certainly consume right now by taking on a collateralized loan against their wealth, but even if one were to do that, the loan would need to eventually be repaid. For this to happen, some gain would have to be realized somewhere. That money isn't free. No matter what, that wealth is eventually taxed. A relevant response to an earlier ProPublica piece: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/propublicas-bombshell-bullshit-tax https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/propublicas-bombshel... As for the Roth IRA, the whole point was to extend the power of deferred consumption to the ordinary person (response to this specific ProPublica piece: https://twitter.com/cundillcapital/status/1408090682401693705 https://twitter.com/cundillcapital/status/140809068240169370...) And just a side note: generally assume that I'm being serious. I try to be as earnest as possible on this forum. Going in with this assumption for anyone on here is best for its general health.