5 ms·

The interesting thing about big tech in that regard, is a 50% income tax rate wouldn't be enough to stop them. Big tech piles up large amounts of cash as it is

The interesting thing about big tech in that regard, is a 50% income tax rate wouldn't be enough to stop them. Big tech piles up large amounts of cash as it is and they have no idea what to do with it (other than shovel it back to shareholders). They have far beyond the margins they need to keep expanding, even with a 50% income tax. So the first thing it would do is cut into shareholder returns (less cash), their multiples would contract as investors would find them less appealing. Half of America is invested in big tech (in one form or another), and those are by far the most active voters. If they see their portfolios tank due to a huge hike in corporate income taxes, they'll promptly punish the politician/s that are responsible for it. Big tech would keep growing at 50%, so what's the alternative? 70%-80%? It's unlikely to ever have the support required to get it passed, it just plain sounds very egregious as a policy. At very high levels it comes across as: we like to punish success; and that's how it would be run against politically by the other side (Republicans).

mgaunard 5y ago
50% income tax is the standard upper echelon tax rate for individuals in the developed world.
oauea 5y ago
It's always interesting how people view taxation as punishment, as if the money just disappears into a black hole instead of being used for bettering the lives of everyone in the country. America could easily fund universal health care, which would be a massive boost to quality of life, if they taxed bigtech a bit more. Instead you have Americans refusing to go to the doctor because they're afraid of the bill.
- smus 5y ago
  The us government already could fund universal health care and chooses not too. People in the US are wary about taxation because we already have a comparable tax rate to other developed nations, with more prosperity, and yet we get comparatively far fewer public goods in return. It's a raw deal. Where's our high speed rail, our public transit, our health care, our public bathrooms? Why is that money going to Raytheon instead?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Could it? > https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789 https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305... Total Revenue is $4T, Total Spending is $6T, and > Social Security will be the biggest expense, budgeted at $1.196 trillion. It's followed by Medicare at $766 billion and Medicaid at $571 billion. That is $1.35T spent on healthcare just for old people (over 65) and poor people. And it is not even the whole amount, since most 65+ people still have to buy insurance. Even if you cut out the 5% profit margins of managed care organizations, or even 15% assuming their function is wholly unnecessary, it still seems unlikely universal health can be offered without increasing tax revenues. In 2019, total healthcare spend for all of US was $3.9T. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > That is $1.35T spent on healthcare just for old people (over 65) and poor people. Aged, blind, disabled, and poor, plus less poor children and pregnant women.
      - dllthomas 5y ago
        And notably, many of those categories have disproportionately high medical costs.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        True, but somehow still only $1.35T out of $4T total healthcare spending. The original claim by smus was that the US could pay for all healthcare, presumably without increasing taxes. I find that hard to agree with. Even if we assume we can cut 25% overhead from the $4T total, the US would still need to come up with $1.5T+ to meet $3T total healthcare spending. I do not see it happening without increasing taxes. Which may not make any effective difference other than to redudant employees of managed care organizations (MCOs) who get laid off, because presumably the premiums currently getting paid to the MCOs simply get collected as taxes.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  it's not that weird. no one talks about raising taxes for the people who would see a net benefit from more public services.

mgaunard 5y ago

50% income tax is the standard upper echelon tax rate for individuals in the developed world.

oauea 5y ago

It's always interesting how people view taxation as punishment, as if the money just disappears into a black hole instead of being used for bettering the lives of everyone in the country. America could easily fund universal health care, which would be a massive boost to quality of life, if they taxed bigtech a bit more. Instead you have Americans refusing to go to the doctor because they're afraid of the bill.

smus 5y ago
The us government already could fund universal health care and chooses not too. People in the US are wary about taxation because we already have a comparable tax rate to other developed nations, with more prosperity, and yet we get comparatively far fewer public goods in return. It's a raw deal. Where's our high speed rail, our public transit, our health care, our public bathrooms? Why is that money going to Raytheon instead?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Could it? > https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789 https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305... Total Revenue is $4T, Total Spending is $6T, and > Social Security will be the biggest expense, budgeted at $1.196 trillion. It's followed by Medicare at $766 billion and Medicaid at $571 billion. That is $1.35T spent on healthcare just for old people (over 65) and poor people. And it is not even the whole amount, since most 65+ people still have to buy insurance. Even if you cut out the 5% profit margins of managed care organizations, or even 15% assuming their function is wholly unnecessary, it still seems unlikely universal health can be offered without increasing tax revenues. In 2019, total healthcare spend for all of US was $3.9T. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That is $1.35T spent on healthcare just for old people (over 65) and poor people. Aged, blind, disabled, and poor, plus less poor children and pregnant women.
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      And notably, many of those categories have disproportionately high medical costs.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        True, but somehow still only $1.35T out of $4T total healthcare spending. The original claim by smus was that the US could pay for all healthcare, presumably without increasing taxes. I find that hard to agree with. Even if we assume we can cut 25% overhead from the $4T total, the US would still need to come up with $1.5T+ to meet $3T total healthcare spending. I do not see it happening without increasing taxes. Which may not make any effective difference other than to redudant employees of managed care organizations (MCOs) who get laid off, because presumably the premiums currently getting paid to the MCOs simply get collected as taxes.
leetcrew 5y ago
it's not that weird. no one talks about raising taxes for the people who would see a net benefit from more public services.