4 ms·

You can't claim that taxation is a complex subject, yet begin by asking simplistic questions about it. Even then the concept is easy to understand, and expected

You can't claim that taxation is a complex subject, yet begin by asking simplistic questions about it. Even then the concept is easy to understand, and expected rational behavior: the wealthy evade taxes because they like money and use their considerable resources to get it done. It's a fact that has thousands of years of historical precedent.[1] It's a pattern of behavior well documented in books, documentaries, and research on the subject. It's even part of the backdrop for dramas based on historical events, like the French Revolution. It doesn't require any conspiracy, only self interest. Even then, the wealthy do have yearly economic summits where tax policy is discussed. Why would you assume it's about how to raise their own taxes instead of the opposite? > Can you provide a year-by-year (or close enough) summary of the progression of this design and how it met your stated purpose? There's a fairly good summary at Brookings.[2] > I'll add my own observation to this: No, the US tax code is not designed to benefit the wealthy. It is based on incentivizing behavior through tax breaks/credits. Yes it is. Even narrowing the focus to their personal income tax after it's loopholed through corporate tax shelters, the extremely wealthy pay have a lower tax rate than workers earning $45k.[3] Workers who make $140k pay as much into social security as the richest people on earth who also have US citizenship. What's the benefit to society having less money for shared infrastructure, and what's the benefit of rewarding people who find a way to avoid paying into that? > And, no, what they do in (country) "m" has no bearing whatsoever on what is done or should be done in any other country Eliminating the chance to learn from other nation's policy mistakes and successes is a terrible idea. [1] https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/when-governments-can-t-force-elites-to-pay-taxes-theyre-in-trouble-cd61885a33d2 https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/when-governments-can... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/funding-our-nations-priorities-reforming-the-tax-codes-advantageous-treatment-of-the-wealthy/ https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/funding-our-nations-pr... [3] https://www.propublica.org/article/you-may-be-paying-a-higher-tax-rate-than-a-billionaire https://www.propublica.org/article/you-may-be-paying-a-highe...

robomartin 5y ago
> You can't claim that taxation is a complex subject, yet begin by asking simplistic questions about it. Are you the only one identifying some of the sarcasm in my post? Good. The idea of the tax code being "designed to benefit the rich" is beyond ridiculous. This is as ridiculous as me asking a simplistic question about the origins of any part of of the rotten stinking mess this tax code has become. I'd much rather have a flat tax system with no deductions at all for anyone. I would also propose that taxing businesses is wrong. Why? Because you tax the employees of the business already. Taxing the business stinks of double taxation and removes capital that could be used for growth and to create more jobs over time. Think of it this way. Let's say ten people as a group product furniture and sell it. They make money and pay themselves salaries. They also pay taxes. However, let's pretend they can do this without forming a legal entity we call a business. The just do the work, pool the money, pay themselves salaries, pay expenses, pay taxes and life goes on. Now we come along and say: Wait a minute! You are working together to make tables. Because of that, we are going to take another 30% in taxes out of all of you. It isn't enough that each of you pay 30% in taxes, we want 30% from what remains. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, it is. At least I think so. Could be wrong.

robomartin 5y ago

> You can't claim that taxation is a complex subject, yet begin by asking simplistic questions about it. Are you the only one identifying some of the sarcasm in my post? Good. The idea of the tax code being "designed to benefit the rich" is beyond ridiculous. This is as ridiculous as me asking a simplistic question about the origins of any part of of the rotten stinking mess this tax code has become. I'd much rather have a flat tax system with no deductions at all for anyone. I would also propose that taxing businesses is wrong. Why? Because you tax the employees of the business already. Taxing the business stinks of double taxation and removes capital that could be used for growth and to create more jobs over time. Think of it this way. Let's say ten people as a group product furniture and sell it. They make money and pay themselves salaries. They also pay taxes. However, let's pretend they can do this without forming a legal entity we call a business. The just do the work, pool the money, pay themselves salaries, pay expenses, pay taxes and life goes on. Now we come along and say: Wait a minute! You are working together to make tables. Because of that, we are going to take another 30% in taxes out of all of you. It isn't enough that each of you pay 30% in taxes, we want 30% from what remains. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, it is. At least I think so. Could be wrong.