4 ms·
It is an argument against treating the rich like a piñata you can smack to fix your budgetary issues. A tax increase argument on any part of society should be
by SllX 2y ago
It is an argument against treating the rich like a piñata you can smack to fix your budgetary issues.
A tax increase argument on any part of society should be centered around what you are hoping to do with those taxes: reduce borrowing, pay down public debts, increase public services (I should specify: public services which are worth the government keeping people on payroll to perform as a public service). Taxes aren’t an equalizer, they’re a government revenue stream. They’re not always even the best government revenue stream to cover every service, some can be fee-for-service, some can be covered by tariffs.
- jncfhnb 2y agoOk. Reduce borrowing. Done. The rich benefit disproportionately from societal structures. The bulk of market driven capital gains should be collected for the benefit of society. Equalizing need not come into the dialogue.
- SllX 2y agoSure—and as of 2018, I’m a little out of the loop on anything more recent, the top 1% in the US paid about 40% of US taxes—but have you considered also reducing borrowing, spending and services and then adjusting tax rates across the board down once we’ve gotten our debts down to a more manageable level?
- jncfhnb 2y agoYeah you are out of the loop because that doesn’t matter for shit. The 1% does not contribute proportionately to their benefit.
- SllX 2y agoIf you’ve got a more up to date figure, enlighten me: how much of the tax revenue from any of the past few years came from the top 1%? The way taxes get talked about every year changes, but there’s usually an emphasis on effective tax rates for individuals rather than absolute dollars lawfully collected. In terms of benefits, if we’re talking what the Federal budget gets spent on, the largest amounts are usually Social Security and Medicare, but this is non-discretionary (although it still matters!) and discretionary spending is typically topped by HHS and the Military (although not necessarily in that order). I don’t recall what #3 usually is, but I’m pretty sure it’s usually Education. There was also the CARES act, so that might throw some of this off. So, go on then, flesh out your argument.
- jncfhnb 2y ago40% is fine. It just doesn’t matter. The rich benefit disproportionately from societal structure that enforces protections for the rich and restrictions on the poor. The rich do fuck all to benefit from the average growth rate of the market compounding their wealth. Those gains should go foremost to society.
- SllX 2y agoOkay, so it is an equalizing factor for you?