4 ms·

> 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 eq

by 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.)
  - tekknik 5y ago
    > The aggregate data would be public and the underlying data points would not be. So now leaves the question, what does this report look like? > 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. Who's having these discussions? Certainly not the entirety of the political landscape is involved. This is a leftist idea, so perhaps the people on the left are having a robust discussion about wages, but the people on the right and some of the moderates (like myself) are tired of people saying they don't make enough (being self made from a poor family myself). Your idea here is yet another extension of this. You want to know what people make and own so you can determine how much tax they should pay, and if they're paying enough. I can short circuit this for you. We all know the left wants more taxes, the right wants less, and the majority of the moderates are siding with the right right now. We can safely avoid this massive headache and know the outcome desired by all parties involved. > No, this is not true. Income tax brackets are updated every year, and always have been, to account for inflation. OK you missed this one completely so I'll walk you through it a bit more. The value represented by the currency never changes. However the representation of that value does change over time and with an inflationary currency it keeps increasing. So the reason the the tax brackets and taxes are increased or updated, is because they need more money to get the same value from taxes as the previous year. With the left wanting to implement full on socialism, this will never end and we will go broke as a nation. Or put more simply, when 100% tax is implemented, and we need more, what happens then? > 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. OK? > But we should care about other countries because their experiences can inform ours. No. > 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.) So how did the US become the greatest nation prior to high taxation? How come high taxes was literally the trigger that started the rebellion? Some people have an idea that the only way to a prosperous nation is via socialism, and to those people I'd say they're brainwashed as the schools in the US have been doing for about 4 decades now. My point remains, if we continue on this path, and seek to justify further taxes we will ultimately end up with 100% income tax. And that's really the point of all of this, to implement socialism.

by whakim 5y ago

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.)
- tekknik 5y ago
  > The aggregate data would be public and the underlying data points would not be. So now leaves the question, what does this report look like? > 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. Who's having these discussions? Certainly not the entirety of the political landscape is involved. This is a leftist idea, so perhaps the people on the left are having a robust discussion about wages, but the people on the right and some of the moderates (like myself) are tired of people saying they don't make enough (being self made from a poor family myself). Your idea here is yet another extension of this. You want to know what people make and own so you can determine how much tax they should pay, and if they're paying enough. I can short circuit this for you. We all know the left wants more taxes, the right wants less, and the majority of the moderates are siding with the right right now. We can safely avoid this massive headache and know the outcome desired by all parties involved. > No, this is not true. Income tax brackets are updated every year, and always have been, to account for inflation. OK you missed this one completely so I'll walk you through it a bit more. The value represented by the currency never changes. However the representation of that value does change over time and with an inflationary currency it keeps increasing. So the reason the the tax brackets and taxes are increased or updated, is because they need more money to get the same value from taxes as the previous year. With the left wanting to implement full on socialism, this will never end and we will go broke as a nation. Or put more simply, when 100% tax is implemented, and we need more, what happens then? > 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. OK? > But we should care about other countries because their experiences can inform ours. No. > 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.) So how did the US become the greatest nation prior to high taxation? How come high taxes was literally the trigger that started the rebellion? Some people have an idea that the only way to a prosperous nation is via socialism, and to those people I'd say they're brainwashed as the schools in the US have been doing for about 4 decades now. My point remains, if we continue on this path, and seek to justify further taxes we will ultimately end up with 100% income tax. And that's really the point of all of this, to implement socialism.