5 ms·

It wouldn’t matter, IF they paid some appropriate tax level. But they don’t. So it does matter.

by mickjagger 5y ago

garmaine 5y ago
Taxes are progressive, so they do pay more taxes than the 99%.
- 988747 5y ago
  Really appreciate the sarcasm :)
- lm28469 5y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-americans-including-bezos-musk-and-buffett-paid-federal-income-taxes-equaling-just-34-of-401-billion-in-new-wealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=58caeb857fe1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-...
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Tax deferral is not tax avoidance. If Elon Musk gets a loan backed by his Tesla shares to diversify his holdings, that isn't actually a "tax free" cash out. The tax is just deferred to if/when the bank margin calls the loan, or he dies, etc. But the taxes do get paid, eventually. These Forbes articles and such conflate different issues and really confuse this point.
- willis936 5y ago
  Have you not read the news this week or anytime since 2016?
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Facts: https://www.thebalance.com/what-the-average-american-pays-in-taxes-4768594 https://www.thebalance.com/what-the-average-american-pays-in... "According to the Tax Foundation's review of 2018 tax returns, the latest year for which data is available, the top 1% paid an average income tax rate of about 25.4%." To pay an average income tax rate of 25.4% in 2018 would require an income of $165,000/yr. That would put you in the top 2%. And this is completely ignoring deductions, credits, etc. which proportionally help lower income tax brackets more due to cutoffs and phase outs. 98% of Americans have a lower average income tax rate than the top 1%, even under conservative assumptions. ----- I suggest looking up facts and doing some fermi calculations yourself instead of blindly believing what you read in the news.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Take away their write-offs, off shore accounts, and the discussion can begin.
- asmithmd1 5y ago
  Mitt Romney pointed out that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Ultra high income individuals may pay more In dollars, but since much of their income is passive, they pay at a lower rate.
- sumedh 5y ago
  Why does Warrent Buffett say that "There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won"
  - kazen44 5y ago
    has class warfare ever truly ended?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  That's untrue. At some point, the richer you get, the less tax you pay for every additional $ you earn (because capital gains are usually less taxed than wages). Also, past a certain level of income, 100% of the extra revenues is invested (not spent) so there's no VAT. The rich borrow against their wealth, too. I'm in Europe so I can't speak of the US but the more rich I get, the less I pay tax compared to my coworkers relative to my situation (I'll be earning more from stock on which I'm paying far less tax than an extra income from work). Also, every €10K of annual gift I get from my (living) parents are not taxed at all (idem for the first €100K from any living parent). Whereas any poor child who expect €10K at their parent's death would have to pay 5% of tax (and more for each upper tier). I'm getting hundreds of €K year over years and not paying 1€ of tax. Most of these gift are in stocks and neither me or my parent pay any tax on the realized gains (since it's gifted, they're no realization...). Also, my parents can lend me €500K at 0% (which they themselves borrow from banks at negligible rate). It is legal but so corrupt, I don't see how the rich can't further distancing themselves from the rest of society.
  - WA 5y ago
    Which country is that? Because as a German, I can't follow entirely. Capital gains: 25 %, less than wages, check. Extra revenue invested (in stocks), hence no VAT: doesn't matter if you invest or keep the cash. You pay only VAT if you buy stuff. > The rich borrow against their wealth, too. Well, if they invest the money they borrow, they make more money and pay less tax, ok. > Also, every €10K of annual gift I get from my (living) parents are not taxed at all (idem for the first €100K from any living parent). Whereas any poor child who expect €10K at their parent's death would have to pay 5% of tax (and more for each upper tier). Not sure what you mean by that. The first €400K of an inheritance is tax free for children. > I'm getting hundreds of €K year over years and not paying 1€ of tax. Most of these gift are in stocks and neither me or my parent pay any tax on the realized gains (since it's gifted, they're no realization...) I don't follow. If you are gifted stocks directly and you sell them, you gotta pay tax on the gains. If you don't sell, you don't realize gains, but you also can't use the money. If you receive dividends, you have to pay tax on capital gains. > Also, my parents can lend me €500K at 0% (which they themselves borrow from banks at negligible rate). But how do your parents get a loan from a bank at negligible rates if it isn't for buying a house or so? Fees for buying stocks on margin are usually higher (and then you could borrow them yourself).
zarkov99 5y ago
They? Wouldn't many here qualify?
madengr 5y ago
That’s why Biden wants $600 bank transactions reported to the IRS, so he can tax the rich, more.
traveler01 5y ago
The biggest mistake that people make is thinking that taxing the rich will actually fix anything. These people are very rich because they control stuff. They control the services, everything you NEED to pay for. The more you tax them, the more they will charge YOU for these services.
- mickjagger 5y ago
  It’s not about fixing things. It’s about the fact that it’s ok for people to be very rich, as long as they pay their fair share. If they don’t pay their fair share then there’s good reason to argue there shouldn’t be ultra wealthy people. Then they’re just exploitative leeches on society. I find it really hard to understand why the rich don’t make it easier on themselves by being responsible members of society instead of relentlessly focusing on keeping poor people poor. Pay some taxes, contribute to roads and schools and hospitals.
  - oathofsolitude 5y ago
    > I find it really hard to understand why the rich don’t make it easier on themselves by being responsible members of society instead of relentlessly focusing on keeping poor people poor. unlimited greed
  - kazen44 5y ago
    prior to the end of the cold war, and especially prior to world war 2, this was kind of the deal between old money in europe and the socialists.. Otherwise the masses would seize the wealth of the aristrocracy by force, which usually leads to civil war.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  If they could charge more, they'd already be charging more.
  - topaz0 5y ago
    Seconding this. The idea that rich people have a target (after-tax) income and will charge whatever it takes to hit that income is absurd. The target is infinite, and they are already doing everything in their power to make their income as large as possible under current conditions. The fact that their income ever got so large is an indication that they already have too much power to increase their income at the expense of others (not least by convincing a share of the population that their wealth/income is inevitable and/or a necessary condition for the prosperity of others).
kmlx 5y ago
the top 1% pay 40% of all the income tax that the US government gets. the top 5% pay 60%: https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/FBIP-SOCIAL-04.jpg https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/FBIP-SOCIAL-0... should they pay more than 40%? i do not know the answer to this question. a lot of people say yes because even if they pay the majority of taxes, they pay less in percentage points off their income. others say that they're paying more than their fair share (60% of taxes for just 5% of earners).
- mybrid 5y ago
  Tax is only on income, not wealth.
  - Asdrubalini 5y ago
    That’s by design.
    - jason0597 5y ago
      Then it's time to change the design, no?
- darthrupert 5y ago
  Yes, they most obviously should, in case their paying the actual tax percentage would cause that to happen. We can place this question in a different way: should nations keep taking more and more debt so that the richest 0-10% don't have to pay their taxes?
- consp 5y ago
  Except for most of the top, taxable income is not the main source of revenue. So they pay that amount on paper for the statistics, not in practice.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

It wouldn’t matter, IF they paid some appropriate tax level. But they don’t. So it does matter.

garmaine 5y ago

Taxes are progressive, so they do pay more taxes than the 99%.

988747 5y ago
Really appreciate the sarcasm :)
lm28469 5y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-americans-including-bezos-musk-and-buffett-paid-federal-income-taxes-equaling-just-34-of-401-billion-in-new-wealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=58caeb857fe1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-...
- garmaine 5y ago
  Tax deferral is not tax avoidance. If Elon Musk gets a loan backed by his Tesla shares to diversify his holdings, that isn't actually a "tax free" cash out. The tax is just deferred to if/when the bank margin calls the loan, or he dies, etc. But the taxes do get paid, eventually. These Forbes articles and such conflate different issues and really confuse this point.
willis936 5y ago
Have you not read the news this week or anytime since 2016?
- garmaine 5y ago
  Facts: https://www.thebalance.com/what-the-average-american-pays-in-taxes-4768594 https://www.thebalance.com/what-the-average-american-pays-in... "According to the Tax Foundation's review of 2018 tax returns, the latest year for which data is available, the top 1% paid an average income tax rate of about 25.4%." To pay an average income tax rate of 25.4% in 2018 would require an income of $165,000/yr. That would put you in the top 2%. And this is completely ignoring deductions, credits, etc. which proportionally help lower income tax brackets more due to cutoffs and phase outs. 98% of Americans have a lower average income tax rate than the top 1%, even under conservative assumptions. ----- I suggest looking up facts and doing some fermi calculations yourself instead of blindly believing what you read in the news.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Take away their write-offs, off shore accounts, and the discussion can begin.
asmithmd1 5y ago
Mitt Romney pointed out that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Ultra high income individuals may pay more In dollars, but since much of their income is passive, they pay at a lower rate.
sumedh 5y ago
Why does Warrent Buffett say that "There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won"
- kazen44 5y ago
  has class warfare ever truly ended?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
That's untrue. At some point, the richer you get, the less tax you pay for every additional $ you earn (because capital gains are usually less taxed than wages). Also, past a certain level of income, 100% of the extra revenues is invested (not spent) so there's no VAT. The rich borrow against their wealth, too. I'm in Europe so I can't speak of the US but the more rich I get, the less I pay tax compared to my coworkers relative to my situation (I'll be earning more from stock on which I'm paying far less tax than an extra income from work). Also, every €10K of annual gift I get from my (living) parents are not taxed at all (idem for the first €100K from any living parent). Whereas any poor child who expect €10K at their parent's death would have to pay 5% of tax (and more for each upper tier). I'm getting hundreds of €K year over years and not paying 1€ of tax. Most of these gift are in stocks and neither me or my parent pay any tax on the realized gains (since it's gifted, they're no realization...). Also, my parents can lend me €500K at 0% (which they themselves borrow from banks at negligible rate). It is legal but so corrupt, I don't see how the rich can't further distancing themselves from the rest of society.
- WA 5y ago
  Which country is that? Because as a German, I can't follow entirely. Capital gains: 25 %, less than wages, check. Extra revenue invested (in stocks), hence no VAT: doesn't matter if you invest or keep the cash. You pay only VAT if you buy stuff. > The rich borrow against their wealth, too. Well, if they invest the money they borrow, they make more money and pay less tax, ok. > Also, every €10K of annual gift I get from my (living) parents are not taxed at all (idem for the first €100K from any living parent). Whereas any poor child who expect €10K at their parent's death would have to pay 5% of tax (and more for each upper tier). Not sure what you mean by that. The first €400K of an inheritance is tax free for children. > I'm getting hundreds of €K year over years and not paying 1€ of tax. Most of these gift are in stocks and neither me or my parent pay any tax on the realized gains (since it's gifted, they're no realization...) I don't follow. If you are gifted stocks directly and you sell them, you gotta pay tax on the gains. If you don't sell, you don't realize gains, but you also can't use the money. If you receive dividends, you have to pay tax on capital gains. > Also, my parents can lend me €500K at 0% (which they themselves borrow from banks at negligible rate). But how do your parents get a loan from a bank at negligible rates if it isn't for buying a house or so? Fees for buying stocks on margin are usually higher (and then you could borrow them yourself).

zarkov99 5y ago

They? Wouldn't many here qualify?

madengr 5y ago

That’s why Biden wants $600 bank transactions reported to the IRS, so he can tax the rich, more.

traveler01 5y ago

The biggest mistake that people make is thinking that taxing the rich will actually fix anything. These people are very rich because they control stuff. They control the services, everything you NEED to pay for. The more you tax them, the more they will charge YOU for these services.

mickjagger 5y ago
It’s not about fixing things. It’s about the fact that it’s ok for people to be very rich, as long as they pay their fair share. If they don’t pay their fair share then there’s good reason to argue there shouldn’t be ultra wealthy people. Then they’re just exploitative leeches on society. I find it really hard to understand why the rich don’t make it easier on themselves by being responsible members of society instead of relentlessly focusing on keeping poor people poor. Pay some taxes, contribute to roads and schools and hospitals.
- oathofsolitude 5y ago
  > I find it really hard to understand why the rich don’t make it easier on themselves by being responsible members of society instead of relentlessly focusing on keeping poor people poor. unlimited greed
- kazen44 5y ago
  prior to the end of the cold war, and especially prior to world war 2, this was kind of the deal between old money in europe and the socialists.. Otherwise the masses would seize the wealth of the aristrocracy by force, which usually leads to civil war.
thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
If they could charge more, they'd already be charging more.
- topaz0 5y ago
  Seconding this. The idea that rich people have a target (after-tax) income and will charge whatever it takes to hit that income is absurd. The target is infinite, and they are already doing everything in their power to make their income as large as possible under current conditions. The fact that their income ever got so large is an indication that they already have too much power to increase their income at the expense of others (not least by convincing a share of the population that their wealth/income is inevitable and/or a necessary condition for the prosperity of others).

kmlx 5y ago

the top 1% pay 40% of all the income tax that the US government gets. the top 5% pay 60%: https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/FBIP-SOCIAL-04.jpg https://www.dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/FBIP-SOCIAL-0... should they pay more than 40%? i do not know the answer to this question. a lot of people say yes because even if they pay the majority of taxes, they pay less in percentage points off their income. others say that they're paying more than their fair share (60% of taxes for just 5% of earners).

mybrid 5y ago
Tax is only on income, not wealth.
- Asdrubalini 5y ago
  That’s by design.
  - jason0597 5y ago
    Then it's time to change the design, no?
darthrupert 5y ago
Yes, they most obviously should, in case their paying the actual tax percentage would cause that to happen. We can place this question in a different way: should nations keep taking more and more debt so that the richest 0-10% don't have to pay their taxes?
consp 5y ago
Except for most of the top, taxable income is not the main source of revenue. So they pay that amount on paper for the statistics, not in practice.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]