4 ms·

But that is their hypocrisy. If you have a thousand times more than most people, nbd. If you have a thousand times more than them, then that’s an outrage.

Dylan16807 4y ago
The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Perhaps. But it doesn't help that instead of paying taxes many don't donate significantly on their own. The argument against taxes is that the government will squander it. It is, in the context of history, a solid argument. Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? (Maybe we should, but it's a complicated answer compared to upping income taxes). It's strange the Warren and her ilk could be a model for such a path, and yet refuse to do so. *Nothing* is preventing them, not even the tax code (as they could often make such donations tax deductible). But maybe they need that bigger more expensive home? The rest of us don't understand where that is.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Donating a significant fraction of their money is not a model for how higher taxes would work. At best it shows they're 110% serious, and at worst it encourages the "all welfare should be based on donations" crowd. According to this article from a couple years ago, "Elizabeth Warren and her husband have contributed about $420,000 to charity since 2008". That's not a huge percent of her income but it seems like a solid amount to me, depending on which of these wealth estimates is actually correct. So sure "nothing" is preventing them from doing more, but there's also no big pressing reason to do so. It's not like she doesn't donate at all, and if she's actually in the 99% then whatever that's enough of a donation. And Bernie's definitely in the 99% and donated a hundred thousand over the same time period. > Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? I feel like "discourage" is much too strong of a word here. Capital gains taxes could be 80% and people would still invest their money. What else are they going to do with it?

Dylan16807 4y ago

The outrage is not having that much money, it's that taxes are too low for those people. But also, those two are not that rich. The top 1% is the biggest net you could reasonably cast for "too much wealth", and they're below that $11M threshold. Another good reference point is "what would have gotten you called a millionaire around 1800-1930, before we had several decades of consistent inflation", and the answer is at least 25 million dollars today.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Perhaps. But it doesn't help that instead of paying taxes many don't donate significantly on their own. The argument against taxes is that the government will squander it. It is, in the context of history, a solid argument. Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? (Maybe we should, but it's a complicated answer compared to upping income taxes). It's strange the Warren and her ilk could be a model for such a path, and yet refuse to do so. *Nothing* is preventing them, not even the tax code (as they could often make such donations tax deductible). But maybe they need that bigger more expensive home? The rest of us don't understand where that is.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Donating a significant fraction of their money is not a model for how higher taxes would work. At best it shows they're 110% serious, and at worst it encourages the "all welfare should be based on donations" crowd. According to this article from a couple years ago, "Elizabeth Warren and her husband have contributed about $420,000 to charity since 2008". That's not a huge percent of her income but it seems like a solid amount to me, depending on which of these wealth estimates is actually correct. So sure "nothing" is preventing them from doing more, but there's also no big pressing reason to do so. It's not like she doesn't donate at all, and if she's actually in the 99% then whatever that's enough of a donation. And Bernie's definitely in the 99% and donated a hundred thousand over the same time period. > Futhermore, much of such wealth is via capital gains, not income. Are we going to discourage investing? I feel like "discourage" is much too strong of a word here. Capital gains taxes could be 80% and people would still invest their money. What else are they going to do with it?