4 ms·

Our tax system is broken, we don’t have enough taxes on the top end and too much on the bottom end. Compared to the “golden age” (if you were a white man) of th

Our tax system is broken, we don’t have enough taxes on the top end and too much on the bottom end. Compared to the “golden age” (if you were a white man) of the middle class, the 1950s, the effective tax rate for corporations has dropped massively while income taxes have grown.

thfuran 3y ago
Sure, but no tax policy is going to bring back the economic situation of the US in the '50s.
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  Maybe another war?
  - thfuran 3y ago
    I think we're much too deep into globalization for another world war to be anything but economically disastrous even if it's all overseas.
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      I used to believe that but the same arguments were made about WW1 before it happened. Russia still invaded Ukraine despite the west threatening to make it economically disastrous. I think this economic dependency argument is quite weak. War will happen if those starting it think they can come out better off. For the USA/West that has meant keeping any wars away from their domestic economies, but that might not be true for other players who could spark off a global war.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        I'm not saying WWWIII can't happen. I'm saying that if it happened now, it wouldn't be good for the US economy.
        jemmyw 3y ago
        You're right, I misread your comment slightly. I'm not sure we can say... if it's a conventional war then it's bound to be bad economically during war time, but there was a massive bounce for the US after WW2, could the same happen again?
- voisin 3y ago
  How do we know what will happen if we empower the vast majority of the population to have economic access to take risks, like starting businesses? When people are kept at the margin and financially unstable, that certainly has a major chilling effect on the economy.
hitpointdrew 3y ago
You should review the tax code, instead of parroting talking points. The top 5% already pay the vast majority of the tax dollars.
- locopati 3y ago
  because the top 5% have the vast majority of the money... meanwhile their effective tax rate is lower than the bottom 50% (at the least) and they are audited way less than those with less money and have to jump through fewer hoops for their benefits (what the rich refer to as handouts or entitlements when it comes to poor people)
  - Arnt 3y ago
    By "dollars" people often mean cash. That which the top 5% has is largely assets, not cash. The king of my country is an stark example of the difference. Real estate is more valuable the closer it is to the castle, and the king owns the castle, which is in the very middle of the most valuable area. It's never been sold, so its value can only be estimated. Estimating from its location, it's vastly valuable, from which follows that the king is very rich and should pay a lot in taxes, right? Or you could say that it's not saleable, so what the king has is a leaky old building with high maintenance costs and negligible utility, negative value, and from that follows that the king shouldn't pay anything in taxes (well, disregarding his other property in order to simplify the argument). Most of the top 5% have this issue, of course not as starkly as in the case of a king. Taxing assets is tricky. Thinking of assets as though they were cash muddles teh issue, and makes it more difficult to find fair tax rules.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      It always weirds me out to think that most of "wealth" nowadays is "virtual". You have stock valuation, you have property valuation. Which we tell is gone or lost when prices drop, but where did it really come from in first place? Exactly same thing just got value higher... There is some base line there, but property is good example. Value drops for reasons outside damage or wear, was the wealth there in first place then? There is always some bottom like replacement value if there is still desire. But overall it is rather weird situation foten.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thfuran 3y ago

Sure, but no tax policy is going to bring back the economic situation of the US in the '50s.

sam_lowry_ 3y ago
Maybe another war?
- thfuran 3y ago
  I think we're much too deep into globalization for another world war to be anything but economically disastrous even if it's all overseas.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    I used to believe that but the same arguments were made about WW1 before it happened. Russia still invaded Ukraine despite the west threatening to make it economically disastrous. I think this economic dependency argument is quite weak. War will happen if those starting it think they can come out better off. For the USA/West that has meant keeping any wars away from their domestic economies, but that might not be true for other players who could spark off a global war.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      I'm not saying WWWIII can't happen. I'm saying that if it happened now, it wouldn't be good for the US economy.
      - jemmyw 3y ago
        You're right, I misread your comment slightly. I'm not sure we can say... if it's a conventional war then it's bound to be bad economically during war time, but there was a massive bounce for the US after WW2, could the same happen again?
voisin 3y ago
How do we know what will happen if we empower the vast majority of the population to have economic access to take risks, like starting businesses? When people are kept at the margin and financially unstable, that certainly has a major chilling effect on the economy.

hitpointdrew 3y ago

You should review the tax code, instead of parroting talking points. The top 5% already pay the vast majority of the tax dollars.

locopati 3y ago
because the top 5% have the vast majority of the money... meanwhile their effective tax rate is lower than the bottom 50% (at the least) and they are audited way less than those with less money and have to jump through fewer hoops for their benefits (what the rich refer to as handouts or entitlements when it comes to poor people)
- Arnt 3y ago
  By "dollars" people often mean cash. That which the top 5% has is largely assets, not cash. The king of my country is an stark example of the difference. Real estate is more valuable the closer it is to the castle, and the king owns the castle, which is in the very middle of the most valuable area. It's never been sold, so its value can only be estimated. Estimating from its location, it's vastly valuable, from which follows that the king is very rich and should pay a lot in taxes, right? Or you could say that it's not saleable, so what the king has is a leaky old building with high maintenance costs and negligible utility, negative value, and from that follows that the king shouldn't pay anything in taxes (well, disregarding his other property in order to simplify the argument). Most of the top 5% have this issue, of course not as starkly as in the case of a king. Taxing assets is tricky. Thinking of assets as though they were cash muddles teh issue, and makes it more difficult to find fair tax rules.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    It always weirds me out to think that most of "wealth" nowadays is "virtual". You have stock valuation, you have property valuation. Which we tell is gone or lost when prices drop, but where did it really come from in first place? Exactly same thing just got value higher... There is some base line there, but property is good example. Value drops for reasons outside damage or wear, was the wealth there in first place then? There is always some bottom like replacement value if there is still desire. But overall it is rather weird situation foten.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]