3 ms·

I'm fine with returning to the system of high corporate income taxes, disbursing surplus to investors via dividends, high corporate R&D budgets, pensions, livin

I'm fine with returning to the system of high corporate income taxes, disbursing surplus to investors via dividends, high corporate R&D budgets, pensions, living wages, typical executive to janitor compensation ratio somewhere around 40:1, sustained productivity booms, and whatever other beneficial outcomes we got from the the last keynesian regime. I'm ambivalent about capital gains taxes on individual investors. The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever) and ratchet the tax rate as necessary. I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation. Squint and it looks like a VAT. It makes perfect sense to me that most every transaction should be taxed. That's kinda the point.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever) and ratchet the tax rate as necessary. High tax rates on the super rich are kind of this political pablum, where everybody buys into the idea of it because the thinking is Zuckerberg is going to pay all the taxes and then you won't have to, but it doesn't really solve anything. Zuckerberg is never going to spend that much money on consumption. Not even 10% of it. Not even 1% of it. How could you even do that? You only need so much food, so many houses and jets. The problem is that his wealth gives him control over "Meta" and therefore everyone. But that's the same problem even if he's only the CEO. It has little to do with what percentage of the company he owns; somebody's got to be the CEO. The actual problem is that the company's too big. You can't fix that with individual income tax rates. And if you try, the amount of resources that will get poured into tax avoidance will just eat you alive. I mean it already does. Billionaires already shield most of their wealth from taxation whatsoever, so what does it matter the rate? Fix the thing that causes billionaires to exist, namely market concentration that causes the founder of the winning company to be a billionaire instead of there being a thousand competing companies whose founders are all millionaires. > I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation. Squint and it looks like a VAT. This is completely the opposite of VAT. The whole point of VAT is that it isn't double taxation -- if a business buys wholesale for $80 and sells retail for $100, they only have to collect VAT on the $20 difference and not the whole $100, because the wholesale seller already collected it on the $80. To do otherwise creates a massive incentive for vertical integration because if the wholesaler buys the retailer outright they wouldn't have to pay it twice. And so it is with corporate dividends.
- specialist 5y ago
  I have no opinion on the capital gains tax rate (for individuals). Just that it's dynamically adjusted as needed to meet a defined policy goal. Like reducing inequity. The never ending tug of war drives me nuts. I get that rhetoric about taxes is more about campaigns than policy. And I don't know that capital gains rax rate is even the most important parameter. So while I'm totally fine with repeated radical cachectomies, I'm also fine with simply rolling back GWB & Trump tax breaks, or Warren's 2% wealth tax. Whatever works. I can't recall previously disagreeing with anything you've written. So I'm pretty sure I misunderstood your point about double taxation.
bsder 5y ago
VAT would actually be better. It would also solve a lot of the weird "inventory taxation" issues in the US.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever) and ratchet the tax rate as necessary. High tax rates on the super rich are kind of this political pablum, where everybody buys into the idea of it because the thinking is Zuckerberg is going to pay all the taxes and then you won't have to, but it doesn't really solve anything. Zuckerberg is never going to spend that much money on consumption. Not even 10% of it. Not even 1% of it. How could you even do that? You only need so much food, so many houses and jets. The problem is that his wealth gives him control over "Meta" and therefore everyone. But that's the same problem even if he's only the CEO. It has little to do with what percentage of the company he owns; somebody's got to be the CEO. The actual problem is that the company's too big. You can't fix that with individual income tax rates. And if you try, the amount of resources that will get poured into tax avoidance will just eat you alive. I mean it already does. Billionaires already shield most of their wealth from taxation whatsoever, so what does it matter the rate? Fix the thing that causes billionaires to exist, namely market concentration that causes the founder of the winning company to be a billionaire instead of there being a thousand competing companies whose founders are all millionaires. > I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation. Squint and it looks like a VAT. This is completely the opposite of VAT. The whole point of VAT is that it isn't double taxation -- if a business buys wholesale for $80 and sells retail for $100, they only have to collect VAT on the $20 difference and not the whole $100, because the wholesale seller already collected it on the $80. To do otherwise creates a massive incentive for vertical integration because if the wholesaler buys the retailer outright they wouldn't have to pay it twice. And so it is with corporate dividends.

specialist 5y ago
I have no opinion on the capital gains tax rate (for individuals). Just that it's dynamically adjusted as needed to meet a defined policy goal. Like reducing inequity. The never ending tug of war drives me nuts. I get that rhetoric about taxes is more about campaigns than policy. And I don't know that capital gains rax rate is even the most important parameter. So while I'm totally fine with repeated radical cachectomies, I'm also fine with simply rolling back GWB & Trump tax breaks, or Warren's 2% wealth tax. Whatever works. I can't recall previously disagreeing with anything you've written. So I'm pretty sure I misunderstood your point about double taxation.

bsder 5y ago

VAT would actually be better. It would also solve a lot of the weird "inventory taxation" issues in the US.