5 ms·

I hope this is the beginning of the pendulum swinging back towards a more sustainable tax regime. A lot of people forget - or pretend to forget - in the "golden

by sho 3y ago

I hope this is the beginning of the pendulum swinging back towards a more sustainable tax regime. A lot of people forget - or pretend to forget - in the "golden age" of america's great works, the top tax rate was above 90%! And somehow all that innovation and wealth creation still managed to happen (and is now all beginning to fall apart). I'm not advocating for a return to those levels, but right now the truly rich effectively pay no tax at all,basically a result of regulatory capture at the individual level. Hopefully, this is the first step in that finally beginning to swing back in the other direction.

inglor_cz 3y ago
Tax rates are meaningless signalling to low-information voters. The real devil is always in the loopholes. In practice, American tycoons never paid 90 per cent taxes, not even half of that.
- joe__f 3y ago
  Then start funding more regulatory bodies to close loopholes
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    You're missing the point. Saying that once upon a time taxes were 90% and it was fine is wrong because there were ways round it. Therefore there is no historical evidence that this level of taxation would be a good idea.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      Therefore there is no historical evidence of anything.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        I don't understand the point behind your statement.
    - joe__f 3y ago
      Oh, you are correct I did miss the point thank you. It would be great to have correct data on how much taxes are actually paid in practise during this period. (And, to increase funding for regulatory bodies to close tax loopholes)
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        If your own point is that it's good to have historical evidence before we annihilate the motivation of anyone trying anything particularly risky in the name of creating a better product or service, then is closing those loopholes and raising tax to 90% the best idea? It's child's play to think of what would happen if we spent more money on cleaning buses, for example, but what won't be invented or improved if we do this? What's the downside?
        jojojaf 3y ago
        I'm not advocating any specific high-end wealth tax rate, but I think at the moment they are very low. I think it would be interesting and relevant to future policy making to have historical data about which such tax rates have worked in the past. Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world, and as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I've reread my post that you responded to and when OP says 'tax rates are meaningless signaling to low income voters because no one pays these rates', my response is 'taxes should be better enforced so that people do indeed pay the stated rates'.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world This is a problematic statement. Wealth inequality is not a huge problem. If we removed all the billionaires, people who are currently starving or unable to get clean water would still be in the same situation. Getting the base level of human condition up is the important thing, and it generally occurs much more in systems that are not trying to crush people who create vast amounts of value. > as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I don't see why this is the case. If you let people take more risks and try more things, with commensurate value exchange to the value they provide, then more things will appear. That's just normal. You can see it in the small even - if teams are allowed to fail and succeed by taking risks, then they will take some risks. If they are never rewarded for succeeding, or even punished for succeeding, then they will never try.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > In practice, American tycoons never paid 90 per cent taxes at least they had to go down from 90% now they start from 37%...
- smolder 3y ago
  That's interesting. I'd like to see how the "real tax rate" for each bracket has changed over time, if there were any way to arrive at such a number. It'd be difficult to fairly account for all the accounting tricks/loopholes, subsidies, and quid-pro-quo to arrive at some net burden comparable between time periods.
  - tim333 3y ago
    It's complicated because it varied a lot by the situation of the taxpayer. Like multinational wealth is harder to tax than stuff physically located in one country.
- epups 3y ago
  While this is a good point, evidence suggests that the tycoons did pay much more than they currently do on taxes, about 45% in the 50s and 60s: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-.... If we aim for 90 and get 45, I think that's much better than aiming for 27 and getting 0 as we have today. It also seems that this was the time where many loopholes were invented. I think it would be easier to find a way to deal with those loopholes than trying to find that money elsewhere in society as we currently do.
ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
Yeah its insane to me that people are unaware of this or ignore this. I also don't get how the average person can defend the existence of the ultra wealthy.
- pojzon 3y ago
  Whistleblowers released so many papers about the topic by now half of super rich should be in jail with 50yrs sentences for a tax fraud. Issue is - our politics are on rich ppl payroll. Nothing will change till we make any lobbing illegal with very bad consequences for both parties.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- latexr 3y ago
  > I also don't get how the average person can defend the existence of the ultra wealthy. Because they think they will be one some day. They have been sold the myth that with enough hard work you can “pull yourself by your boot straps” and will be the next billionaire. So better defend them now, that will be you in a couple of years. Never mind that the biggest indicator of your own wealth is generational. As George Carlin said: “they call it The American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it”.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Funny you should cite George Carlin, a child of poor Irish immigrants who ended up rich and famous.
    - soco 3y ago
      How many children of poor Irish immigrants ended up rich and famous? As a percentage maybe? And from how many can you find quotable words?
      - 3y ago
FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
> I'm not advocating for a return to those levels It worked in the past without any significant drawbacks for society (i guess the rich person losing 90% to taxes might grumble a bit), so there is no reason not to do it again.
FrankyHollywood 3y ago
I once read that the actual goal was to have a maximum income of 1 million dollar a year, and the 90% was a compromise. A quick search doesn't give me the source of this, anyone knows a reliable source?
readthenotes1 3y ago
The 90% was mostly for show. There were an incredible amount of loopholes and tax Havens, etc. I do not believe for one minute that people with enough money to be taxed heavily don't have enough money to dodge the taxes. I do not believe it because it seems they do it even in lower tax regimes.

by sho 3y ago

inglor_cz 3y ago

Tax rates are meaningless signalling to low-information voters. The real devil is always in the loopholes. In practice, American tycoons never paid 90 per cent taxes, not even half of that.

joe__f 3y ago
Then start funding more regulatory bodies to close loopholes
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You're missing the point. Saying that once upon a time taxes were 90% and it was fine is wrong because there were ways round it. Therefore there is no historical evidence that this level of taxation would be a good idea.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    Therefore there is no historical evidence of anything.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I don't understand the point behind your statement.
  - joe__f 3y ago
    Oh, you are correct I did miss the point thank you. It would be great to have correct data on how much taxes are actually paid in practise during this period. (And, to increase funding for regulatory bodies to close tax loopholes)
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      If your own point is that it's good to have historical evidence before we annihilate the motivation of anyone trying anything particularly risky in the name of creating a better product or service, then is closing those loopholes and raising tax to 90% the best idea? It's child's play to think of what would happen if we spent more money on cleaning buses, for example, but what won't be invented or improved if we do this? What's the downside?
      - jojojaf 3y ago
        I'm not advocating any specific high-end wealth tax rate, but I think at the moment they are very low. I think it would be interesting and relevant to future policy making to have historical data about which such tax rates have worked in the past. Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world, and as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I've reread my post that you responded to and when OP says 'tax rates are meaningless signaling to low income voters because no one pays these rates', my response is 'taxes should be better enforced so that people do indeed pay the stated rates'.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Wealth inequality is currently a huge problem in the world This is a problematic statement. Wealth inequality is not a huge problem. If we removed all the billionaires, people who are currently starving or unable to get clean water would still be in the same situation. Getting the base level of human condition up is the important thing, and it generally occurs much more in systems that are not trying to crush people who create vast amounts of value. > as far as I can see any kind of arguments against tackling it such as 'we'll miss out on innovation' are capitalist propaganda. This is why it would be good to have accurate historical data to respond to these kind of arguments. I don't see why this is the case. If you let people take more risks and try more things, with commensurate value exchange to the value they provide, then more things will appear. That's just normal. You can see it in the small even - if teams are allowed to fail and succeed by taking risks, then they will take some risks. If they are never rewarded for succeeding, or even punished for succeeding, then they will never try.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> In practice, American tycoons never paid 90 per cent taxes at least they had to go down from 90% now they start from 37%...
smolder 3y ago
That's interesting. I'd like to see how the "real tax rate" for each bracket has changed over time, if there were any way to arrive at such a number. It'd be difficult to fairly account for all the accounting tricks/loopholes, subsidies, and quid-pro-quo to arrive at some net burden comparable between time periods.
- tim333 3y ago
  It's complicated because it varied a lot by the situation of the taxpayer. Like multinational wealth is harder to tax than stuff physically located in one country.
epups 3y ago
While this is a good point, evidence suggests that the tycoons did pay much more than they currently do on taxes, about 45% in the 50s and 60s: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-20190129-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nocera-tax-avoidance-.... If we aim for 90 and get 45, I think that's much better than aiming for 27 and getting 0 as we have today. It also seems that this was the time where many loopholes were invented. I think it would be easier to find a way to deal with those loopholes than trying to find that money elsewhere in society as we currently do.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

Yeah its insane to me that people are unaware of this or ignore this. I also don't get how the average person can defend the existence of the ultra wealthy.

pojzon 3y ago
Whistleblowers released so many papers about the topic by now half of super rich should be in jail with 50yrs sentences for a tax fraud. Issue is - our politics are on rich ppl payroll. Nothing will change till we make any lobbing illegal with very bad consequences for both parties.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
latexr 3y ago
> I also don't get how the average person can defend the existence of the ultra wealthy. Because they think they will be one some day. They have been sold the myth that with enough hard work you can “pull yourself by your boot straps” and will be the next billionaire. So better defend them now, that will be you in a couple of years. Never mind that the biggest indicator of your own wealth is generational. As George Carlin said: “they call it The American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it”.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Funny you should cite George Carlin, a child of poor Irish immigrants who ended up rich and famous.
  - soco 3y ago
    How many children of poor Irish immigrants ended up rich and famous? As a percentage maybe? And from how many can you find quotable words?
    - 3y ago

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago

> I'm not advocating for a return to those levels It worked in the past without any significant drawbacks for society (i guess the rich person losing 90% to taxes might grumble a bit), so there is no reason not to do it again.

FrankyHollywood 3y ago

I once read that the actual goal was to have a maximum income of 1 million dollar a year, and the 90% was a compromise. A quick search doesn't give me the source of this, anyone knows a reliable source?

readthenotes1 3y ago

The 90% was mostly for show. There were an incredible amount of loopholes and tax Havens, etc. I do not believe for one minute that people with enough money to be taxed heavily don't have enough money to dodge the taxes. I do not believe it because it seems they do it even in lower tax regimes.