3 ms·

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 wa

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.
  - Arnt 3y ago
    It's always been like that. Well, as long as we've had assets. Money is just a way to assess the value of assets. The assets are real, the assessment is more or less a matter of opinion, and opinion changes.

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.
- Arnt 3y ago
  It's always been like that. Well, as long as we've had assets. Money is just a way to assess the value of assets. The assets are real, the assessment is more or less a matter of opinion, and opinion changes.