5 ms·

> I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. It could work similarly to income taxes - where the public is able to look at

> I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. It could work similarly to income taxes - where the public is able to look at robust aggregate data, the IRS is able to collect taxes as necessary, and central banks are able to make good monetary policy based on real data. OK, what will this do? Nothing. > For the vast majority of wealth that the vast majority of people own (property and financial assets), nothing would be required because (as I mentioned above) there already exist reporting mechanisms for those types of assets. Again, it sounds like you’ve changed nothing. > Why do you think progressive taxes are a failure? Taxes used to be much more progressive during a period of much higher growth (1950-1980). Over the last 40 years we've gradually made the tax system more regressive by lowering rates and inserting more and more loopholes (which primarily benefit the wealthy) For a few reasons, including the left constantly saying they’ve failed and they don’t have enough money. Another reason is income tax was originally meant for the wealthy, then inflation caught up. With an inflationary currency taxes implemented for the rich only will eventually apply to all, as income tax does today but didn’t before. Not to mention the massive overhead to process all of this data, we literally picked the most complicated way to do this.

whakim 5y ago
> OK, what will this do? Nothing. It will do several things. First of all, having robust publicly available aggregate data will spur better debate about the equitable distribution of wealth. Second, it will allow the IRS to easily collect wealth taxes should congress authorize those. Third, it will enable Central Banks to make better decisions - right now we're flying mostly blind, so to speak. > For a few reasons, including the left constantly saying they’ve failed and they don’t have enough money. I don't think "the left" is saying that income taxes have failed. I think "the left" is saying that income taxes are no longer as progressive as they once were for a number of reasons: (1) top tax rates are much lower than they once were; (2) income and capital gains are taxed differently; the low (and flat) rate of capital gains taxes mean that the wealthy pay effectively lower tax rates; (3) the huge number of loopholes introduced into the tax code predominantly help the wealthy and make the overall income tax regime more regressive than it would otherwise be. I think the left also argues that income isn't the most accurate measure of an individual's capacity to pay taxes. > Another reason is income tax was originally meant for the wealthy. This is simply not true. Income taxes were introduced by most developed countries in the first half of the 20th century as (1) a check on inequality; (2) a reasonable way to expand the tax receipts of the federal government from something like 10% of national income to the 40+% of national income that countries require in order to invest in anything but purely regalian state functions. It has little to do with inflation, and tax brackets are constantly adjusted for inflation in every country that has implemented one. On the other hand, income taxes are progressive so by design they hit the wealthy harder (and always have done). > Not to mention the massive overhead to process all of this data, we literally picked the most complicated way to do this. The IRS budget is very small. That point aside, progressive taxes are meant to tax people according to their ability to pay. A flat tax can never accomplish that. Most progressive taxes fall under three categories: wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes. You need to collect a certain amount of data for all of them.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > First of all, having robust publicly available aggregate data > I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. Which one is it? Public or not? > I don't think "the left" is saying that income taxes have failed. I think "the left" is saying that income taxes are no longer as progressive as they once were for a number of reasons Yes, which I alluded to. Now tell me, when will this end? As I said, we have an inflationary currency, so of course todays taxes will not be enough in the future. Which is why this system is a joke to me. Why are you surprised the taxes are not enough anymore? > This is simply not true. Income taxes were introduced by most developed countries in the first half of the 20th century as (1) a check on inequality; (2) a reasonable way to expand the tax receipts of the federal government from something like 10% of national income to the 40+% of national income that countries require in order to invest in anything but purely regalian state functions. It has little to do with inflation, and tax brackets are constantly adjusted for inflation in every country that has implemented one. On the other hand, income taxes are progressive so by design they hit the wealthy harder (and always have done). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in_the_United_States#First_income_tax_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in... The first income tax applied to those making more than $600/yr, which means the poor didn't pay. Today, the poor still pays, as that limit was never updated to the new "wealthy" level. Also because the left wanted a larger taxable base, for more $$$$. Please avoid "other countries" as we're talking about the US and I have no clue or care about other countries tax codes or history. > That point aside, progressive taxes are meant to tax people according to their ability to pay. A flat tax can never accomplish that. How so? If you tax everybody at the same low rate, say 15%, then every can pay? Whatever the minimum bracket is in the current system, use that. This will result in less tax revenue, which is why the left hates this system. Another way to put all of this, if you want Obamacare, lets open up those medical records to the public so we can decide if: a) we can afford you being on it b) if your conditions are correctable
  - whakim 5y ago
    > Which one is it? Public or not? The aggregate data would be public and the underlying data points would not be. Just in the same way it's possible to have a robust discussion of income equality but I can't look up how much money my neighbor earns. > Yes, which I alluded to. Now tell me, when will this end? As I said, we have an inflationary currency, so of course todays taxes will not be enough in the future. Which is why this system is a joke to me. Why are you surprised the taxes are not enough anymore? No, this is not true. Income tax brackets are updated every year, and always have been, to account for inflation. > The first income tax applied to those making more than $600/yr, which means the poor didn't pay. Today, the poor still pays, as that limit was never updated to the new "wealthy" level. Also because the left wanted a larger taxable base, for more $$$$. The 19th-century income tax only lasted a few years, was not particularly progressive, raised very little revenue, and generally bears little to no resemblance to our current income tax. The income tax we have today dates to the early 20th century. > Please avoid "other countries" as we're talking about the US and I have no clue or care about other countries tax codes or history. But we should care about other countries because their experiences can inform ours. > How so? If you tax everybody at the same low rate, say 15%, then every can pay? Whatever the minimum bracket is in the current system, use that. This will result in less tax revenue, which is why the left hates this system. If you want to construct a modern state, you need progressive taxation to raise the 40-70% of national income a year in tax revenue (all "developed" modern states do this. Places like India and South Africa don't, which explains a lot...). If you believe we should go back to a 19th-century state which collects low taxes and does little redistribution, (1) inequality would balloon; and (2) I've got bad news for you, because most people in the United States support significantly more progressive taxation. (Not to mention that the United States would quickly fall behind the rest of the world due to lack of investment in education, which is one of the primary drivers of productivity growth.)

whakim 5y ago

> OK, what will this do? Nothing. It will do several things. First of all, having robust publicly available aggregate data will spur better debate about the equitable distribution of wealth. Second, it will allow the IRS to easily collect wealth taxes should congress authorize those. Third, it will enable Central Banks to make better decisions - right now we're flying mostly blind, so to speak. > For a few reasons, including the left constantly saying they’ve failed and they don’t have enough money. I don't think "the left" is saying that income taxes have failed. I think "the left" is saying that income taxes are no longer as progressive as they once were for a number of reasons: (1) top tax rates are much lower than they once were; (2) income and capital gains are taxed differently; the low (and flat) rate of capital gains taxes mean that the wealthy pay effectively lower tax rates; (3) the huge number of loopholes introduced into the tax code predominantly help the wealthy and make the overall income tax regime more regressive than it would otherwise be. I think the left also argues that income isn't the most accurate measure of an individual's capacity to pay taxes. > Another reason is income tax was originally meant for the wealthy. This is simply not true. Income taxes were introduced by most developed countries in the first half of the 20th century as (1) a check on inequality; (2) a reasonable way to expand the tax receipts of the federal government from something like 10% of national income to the 40+% of national income that countries require in order to invest in anything but purely regalian state functions. It has little to do with inflation, and tax brackets are constantly adjusted for inflation in every country that has implemented one. On the other hand, income taxes are progressive so by design they hit the wealthy harder (and always have done). > Not to mention the massive overhead to process all of this data, we literally picked the most complicated way to do this. The IRS budget is very small. That point aside, progressive taxes are meant to tax people according to their ability to pay. A flat tax can never accomplish that. Most progressive taxes fall under three categories: wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes. You need to collect a certain amount of data for all of them.

tekknik 5y ago
> First of all, having robust publicly available aggregate data > I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. Which one is it? Public or not? > I don't think "the left" is saying that income taxes have failed. I think "the left" is saying that income taxes are no longer as progressive as they once were for a number of reasons Yes, which I alluded to. Now tell me, when will this end? As I said, we have an inflationary currency, so of course todays taxes will not be enough in the future. Which is why this system is a joke to me. Why are you surprised the taxes are not enough anymore? > This is simply not true. Income taxes were introduced by most developed countries in the first half of the 20th century as (1) a check on inequality; (2) a reasonable way to expand the tax receipts of the federal government from something like 10% of national income to the 40+% of national income that countries require in order to invest in anything but purely regalian state functions. It has little to do with inflation, and tax brackets are constantly adjusted for inflation in every country that has implemented one. On the other hand, income taxes are progressive so by design they hit the wealthy harder (and always have done). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in_the_United_States#First_income_tax_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in... The first income tax applied to those making more than $600/yr, which means the poor didn't pay. Today, the poor still pays, as that limit was never updated to the new "wealthy" level. Also because the left wanted a larger taxable base, for more $$$$. Please avoid "other countries" as we're talking about the US and I have no clue or care about other countries tax codes or history. > That point aside, progressive taxes are meant to tax people according to their ability to pay. A flat tax can never accomplish that. How so? If you tax everybody at the same low rate, say 15%, then every can pay? Whatever the minimum bracket is in the current system, use that. This will result in less tax revenue, which is why the left hates this system. Another way to put all of this, if you want Obamacare, lets open up those medical records to the public so we can decide if: a) we can afford you being on it b) if your conditions are correctable
- whakim 5y ago
  > Which one is it? Public or not? The aggregate data would be public and the underlying data points would not be. Just in the same way it's possible to have a robust discussion of income equality but I can't look up how much money my neighbor earns. > Yes, which I alluded to. Now tell me, when will this end? As I said, we have an inflationary currency, so of course todays taxes will not be enough in the future. Which is why this system is a joke to me. Why are you surprised the taxes are not enough anymore? No, this is not true. Income tax brackets are updated every year, and always have been, to account for inflation. > The first income tax applied to those making more than $600/yr, which means the poor didn't pay. Today, the poor still pays, as that limit was never updated to the new "wealthy" level. Also because the left wanted a larger taxable base, for more $$$$. The 19th-century income tax only lasted a few years, was not particularly progressive, raised very little revenue, and generally bears little to no resemblance to our current income tax. The income tax we have today dates to the early 20th century. > Please avoid "other countries" as we're talking about the US and I have no clue or care about other countries tax codes or history. But we should care about other countries because their experiences can inform ours. > How so? If you tax everybody at the same low rate, say 15%, then every can pay? Whatever the minimum bracket is in the current system, use that. This will result in less tax revenue, which is why the left hates this system. If you want to construct a modern state, you need progressive taxation to raise the 40-70% of national income a year in tax revenue (all "developed" modern states do this. Places like India and South Africa don't, which explains a lot...). If you believe we should go back to a 19th-century state which collects low taxes and does little redistribution, (1) inequality would balloon; and (2) I've got bad news for you, because most people in the United States support significantly more progressive taxation. (Not to mention that the United States would quickly fall behind the rest of the world due to lack of investment in education, which is one of the primary drivers of productivity growth.)