3 ms·

I do think billionares are undertaxed, but mostly because they can easily get around the tax system itself. The personal wealth comparison seems flawed though b

I do think billionares are undertaxed, but mostly because they can easily get around the tax system itself. The personal wealth comparison seems flawed though because it's treating wealth as if it's just bank accounts of cash and we're discussing how much everyone has to spend on consumption. But at even millionaire levels of wealth most of it is in real estate and ownership of companies. And at that point disallowing certain levels of wealth just means you can't have your business grow above a certain size and still keep it, or keep your family's real estate if the market has grown substantially around you. Fixing the tax system either at the base or with a progressive wealth tax as a hack on top may be a better solution.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
> I do think billionares are undertaxed How does politicians profiting from them solve anything.
- Jochim 4y ago
  I like roads and schools.
  - whatthesmack 4y ago
    Everybody does. But--speaking from the US perspective--most taxes don't go to those things.
    - davidcuddeback 4y ago
      > Everybody does. Then we're in agreement that taxes are a necessity. Can we also agree that taxes should be collected fairly (even if we might disagree on what a fair balance might be)?
    - Jochim 4y ago
      The manner in which those taxes are distributed is a choice made by a person. Convince your countrymen to vote for people who will direct taxes towards those things. While not an easy feat, the way things are today are not the way they must be tomorrow.
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    I went to a tax funded school, I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone, just a place where more effort was spent holding people back than lifting people up. By building systems where teachers are not held accountable for output of their work you just have a broken system that doesn't help anyone. Roads are a very small amount of tax money, not worth mentioning.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      I've had the experience of both tax funded and private schooling. Without the tax funded school I, and the vast majority of my peers there, likely wouldn't be literate or numerate. I wouldn't have been in a position to win the lottery of a private school bursary. The quality of the teachers at the the private school was certainly a little better but the worst were about as bad as any public school and the best not much better. The main difference was simply the level of funding. > By building systems where teachers are not held accountable for output of their work you just have a broken system that doesn't help anyone. I've found that teachers are the biggest critics of these systems. Rather it's the general public and administrators that have decided the role of the teacher is to do little more than act out a pre-defined curriculum with zero individual agency. In such an arrangement there's no individual output to judge. Those choices aren't a feature of tax funded schooling. They're administrative/societal decisions to structure schooling in a particular way. It does not follow that schools must be structured this way if funded through taxes. > Roads are a very small amount of tax money, not worth mentioning. On a state level they're roughly ~6% of total expenditure. 3% greater than policing or prisons and only 3% lower than healthcare or education. Total expenditure >$200 billion total in 2019[0]. I don't think I've ever met a person who believes their roads to be particularly well maintained, which would point to a much larger figure being required to adequately maintain the infrastructure. It should also be noted that the $200b figure is pre-infrastructure bill. [0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
- davidcuddeback 4y ago
  I'm surprised this has to be explained, but taxes aren't paid to politicians. You're not likely to get a good answer when your question is not founded in good faith.
  - whatthesmack 4y ago
    Practically, though, politicians determine how, when, where, and why the money is spent. Just because it sits in a bank they don't directly control doesn't mean they don't determine the fate of those collected taxes.
    - davidcuddeback 4y ago
      Is that substantially different for taxes collected from billionaires vs taxes collected from ordinary people? If not, I don't see how this is relevant to discussing billionaires being undertaxed. It's shifting a conversation about the fairness of the tax system into a discussion about general problems with the tax system. If there are reasons to lower taxes, that should be applied to every equitably. My comment that you replied to is calling out whywhywhywhy's comment as bad faith because it's conflating tax collection with corruption, but says nothing that's specific to taxing billionaires. Your comment also doesn't say anything regarding taxing billionaires specifically.
Jochim 4y ago
> you can't have your business grow above a certain size I don't think any business should be allowed to grow above a certain size. I believe it's a massive net negative for society. I'd support a taxation system that prevents such an occurrence or nationalisation where the service is vital and economies of scale are beneficial. When they reach a certain size businesses begin to distort the functioning of the free market. At this scale their sudden downfall would destabilise large sections of the economy. Therefore profit is siphoned into private hands until such an event whereupon society foots the bill. A network of smaller businesses precludes this from happening. Any failure that affects enough of them to cause the same level destabilisation is likely to be a societal issue rather than mismanagement and would therefore be more deserving of public funds. Smaller businesses also have less influence over politics.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

> I do think billionares are undertaxed How does politicians profiting from them solve anything.

Jochim 4y ago
I like roads and schools.
- whatthesmack 4y ago
  Everybody does. But--speaking from the US perspective--most taxes don't go to those things.
  - davidcuddeback 4y ago
    > Everybody does. Then we're in agreement that taxes are a necessity. Can we also agree that taxes should be collected fairly (even if we might disagree on what a fair balance might be)?
  - Jochim 4y ago
    The manner in which those taxes are distributed is a choice made by a person. Convince your countrymen to vote for people who will direct taxes towards those things. While not an easy feat, the way things are today are not the way they must be tomorrow.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  I went to a tax funded school, I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone, just a place where more effort was spent holding people back than lifting people up. By building systems where teachers are not held accountable for output of their work you just have a broken system that doesn't help anyone. Roads are a very small amount of tax money, not worth mentioning.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    I've had the experience of both tax funded and private schooling. Without the tax funded school I, and the vast majority of my peers there, likely wouldn't be literate or numerate. I wouldn't have been in a position to win the lottery of a private school bursary. The quality of the teachers at the the private school was certainly a little better but the worst were about as bad as any public school and the best not much better. The main difference was simply the level of funding. > By building systems where teachers are not held accountable for output of their work you just have a broken system that doesn't help anyone. I've found that teachers are the biggest critics of these systems. Rather it's the general public and administrators that have decided the role of the teacher is to do little more than act out a pre-defined curriculum with zero individual agency. In such an arrangement there's no individual output to judge. Those choices aren't a feature of tax funded schooling. They're administrative/societal decisions to structure schooling in a particular way. It does not follow that schools must be structured this way if funded through taxes. > Roads are a very small amount of tax money, not worth mentioning. On a state level they're roughly ~6% of total expenditure. 3% greater than policing or prisons and only 3% lower than healthcare or education. Total expenditure >$200 billion total in 2019[0]. I don't think I've ever met a person who believes their roads to be particularly well maintained, which would point to a much larger figure being required to adequately maintain the infrastructure. It should also be noted that the $200b figure is pre-infrastructure bill. [0] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
davidcuddeback 4y ago
I'm surprised this has to be explained, but taxes aren't paid to politicians. You're not likely to get a good answer when your question is not founded in good faith.
- whatthesmack 4y ago
  Practically, though, politicians determine how, when, where, and why the money is spent. Just because it sits in a bank they don't directly control doesn't mean they don't determine the fate of those collected taxes.
  - davidcuddeback 4y ago
    Is that substantially different for taxes collected from billionaires vs taxes collected from ordinary people? If not, I don't see how this is relevant to discussing billionaires being undertaxed. It's shifting a conversation about the fairness of the tax system into a discussion about general problems with the tax system. If there are reasons to lower taxes, that should be applied to every equitably. My comment that you replied to is calling out whywhywhywhy's comment as bad faith because it's conflating tax collection with corruption, but says nothing that's specific to taxing billionaires. Your comment also doesn't say anything regarding taxing billionaires specifically.

Jochim 4y ago

> you can't have your business grow above a certain size I don't think any business should be allowed to grow above a certain size. I believe it's a massive net negative for society. I'd support a taxation system that prevents such an occurrence or nationalisation where the service is vital and economies of scale are beneficial. When they reach a certain size businesses begin to distort the functioning of the free market. At this scale their sudden downfall would destabilise large sections of the economy. Therefore profit is siphoned into private hands until such an event whereupon society foots the bill. A network of smaller businesses precludes this from happening. Any failure that affects enough of them to cause the same level destabilisation is likely to be a societal issue rather than mismanagement and would therefore be more deserving of public funds. Smaller businesses also have less influence over politics.