5 ms·

There is no "the" problem. You identify one problem to exclusion of the very real, salient problem that the average taxpayer sees the wealthy as not paying thei

There is no "the" problem. You identify one problem to exclusion of the very real, salient problem that the average taxpayer sees the wealthy as not paying their fair share.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I wonder how that perception problem can be tackled? The top 1% of people pay 45% of federal income taxes. The top 10% of people pay 75%. Rates are already highly progressive. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20income%20taxes,policy%20during%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in....
- rhelz 2y ago
  // The top 10% of people pay 75% // 75% of what? Income tax? Very misleading--there is more than one way to make money, and those in the top 10% are probably not making most of their money via income. Warren Buffet famously said his secretary has a higher tax rate than he does. // I wonder how that perception problem can be tackled? // The best way would be an even distribution of wealth. The top 1% own half. The other 99% share the other half. You can quote any statistic you'd like, but when 1% own half, the other 99% are not going to think they have a perception problem.
  - timcavel 2y ago
    [dead]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I said "income tax" in the sentence before the one you quoted.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > The top 10% of people pay 75% Well they own more wealth than the entire bottom 90%, so it seems like they're still underpaying.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I guess that highlights the fundamental disconnect, which is around what the point of taxes even is. If the point is simply to tax people until you have a more egalitarian society, then obviously it is too low. If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use, and subsidizing everyone else by a huge margin.
    - ddoolin 2y ago
      I don't think there is a disconnect here. Have taxes ever been pay-for-what-you-use? I don't think so. I'd go so far as to call estimating one's use of public goods/services a practical impossibility. Say you cracked the code though and you realize 50% of the population makes less in a year, total, than they use in public goods/services, what then? There is no disconnect because that is simply not now and never has been how taxes have worked.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        It isnt that radical and is how taxes worked for broad swaths of history. Income taxes in the US essentially didnt exist before the 1920's. Many taxes are still collected on a use basis today. Simple examples are toll roads, gas taxes, permit fees, ect. SSI is closer to a use tax, but has some redistribution built in. Many cities fund infrastructure using parcel taxes, which approach per capita use taxes as well given that hey are paid by home owners, or often passed on to renters.
    - Rury 2y ago
      > If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use Not if their wealth is being subsidized by everyone else and not via their own labor, as in that case, they are using the services of others and underpaying for it. And this goes for anyone, regardless of their amount of wealth.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
- thatcat 2y ago
  It's interesting how everyone wants to go back to the 50's america with functioning infrastructure and all that, but no one wants to pay the 90% tax that lead up to that. Also consider that payroll tax has become an increasing portion of what is collected, health insurance is now required to be paid by the individual regardless of health status, and auto insurance is now required for all drivers. These are effectively regressive taxes on the general population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#Income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_Uni...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >It's interesting how everyone wants to go back to the 50's america with functioning infrastructure and all that, but no one wants to pay the 90% tax that lead up to that combined State+ federal taxes look to be on par with 1950s levels. It also ignores the fact that the inflation controlled GDP has gone up 4.5X since then too. The government is rolling in 4X the cash as the 50's, but cant build a fraction of the infrastructure. >Also consider that payroll tax has become an increasing portion of what is collected, health insurance is now required to be paid by the individual regardless of health status, and auto insurance is now required for all drivers. These are effectively regressive taxes on the general population. Payroll, health, and auto insurance aren't regressive taxes, they are flat taxes and slightly progressive taxes. High earners still subsidize low earners for SSI. auto and health are flat.
    - thatcat 2y ago
      Net GDP normalized graph looks the same right? However, my point was that the origin of the income has shifted significantly. Parent says 45% progressive tax is high, it's not - it's half as progressive as it was in the 50s before including other societal changes that effectively serve as a regressive tax.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >Net GDP normalized graph looks the same right? My first point is to question if %GDP is the right framework to even think about this, rather than dollars. >However, my point was that the origin of the income has shifted significantly. I dont think it has. Income taxes seem to be within a percent or so of 1950 values, but payroll taxes have increased massively. This means income tax revenue is pretty similar as a % of GDP, and massively increased in real dollars. >Parent says 45% progressive tax is high, it's not - it's half as progressive as it was in the 50s before including other societal changes that effectively serve as a regressive tax. Thats not evident from the data. You would have to look at actual breakdown of federal revenues from income group, not just the tax brackets. It could be that taxes were far more flat/regressive in the 1950s (e.g. to 1,10% paid a much smaller share. Table 5 of this link goes back to the 80s, and shows the fraction paid by the top 10% earners increase from 32% to 52% in the last 40 years. That is a huge progressive taxation swing. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20income%20taxes,policy%20during%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  The Tax Foundation... Founded by the Chairman and CFO of General Motors, and the President of Exxon to ostensibly "improve lives through tax policy research" but has in its 86 years of existence NOT ONCE supported: - increasing individual taxes - increasing business taxes (actively the opposite) - the existence of excise taxes - the existence of tax credits and generally argues for "significantly smaller" government, "significantly smaller" budgets and such. While it describes itself as non-partisan, it is generally rated: - heavily business-friendly - conservative - center-right to right I am shocked that such an organization, founded by "titans of industry" would claim that we need to tax the wealthy far less and tax the corporations they own and run far less. Entirely shocked.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Do you think the numbers are fake?
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      I think the numbers are intentionally deceptive. Billionaires aren't generally billionaires because of their salaried jobs. There are trusts and corporations and all manner of entities that "absorb" the majority of their income. Like Peter Thiel's tax-free $5B Roth IRA account. If every person in Houston deposited the maximum they were allowed into their account, it wouldn't equal what self-dealing and obfuscation allowed Thiel to deposit (how many people have share portfolios that they control AND control the valuation thereof). The Tax Foundation knows that the 1% doesn't have all their income captured under "Elon Musk, SSN XYZ" when he files his tax return. But they still like to paint it as such, because it advances their talking points. Like a sibling said, when you look at the wealth controlled and earned, pointing to just the total paid is garbage, because there's no proportion. "Oh, they paid 1.5 times more than [demographic]" means very little when they control 70x the wealth of that other demographic. Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mythrwy 2y ago
Here is the problem. Even if you taxed "rich people" harder, say tax all billionaires at 90%, there isn't enough to cover what is being spent and it's not even close. For instance, there is approximately 5 trillion currently held by billionaires in the US. That, coincidentally, is approximately 1 year of current federal spending. Then the following year you have no more billionaires to harvest as it took them many decades to get the money. On the other hand you have people who say "well, the federal government needs to stop spending so much" (and this does make sense at the same level "tax the rich more does "). But the problem with removing, or even substantially reducing, federal deficit spending is the resulting giant black hole would economically collapse many things in the short term at least. I don't know that there are easy answers for the problems the US finds itself in at the moment. Probably some sort of financial reset at some point, which is unlikely to be either clean or painless.
- rhelz 2y ago
  During the Clinton administration, they (1) raised taxes, and (2) eliminated the budget deficit. In fact, we had budget surpluses. Personally, I was shocked. I thought for sure the increase in taxes would push an already wobbly economy into deep depression. What happened instead is that---after the Government stopped hovering up all the money available to lend--interest rates decreased, and people both had to and could lend their money to actually productive businesses. It was boom city after that. There is no unsolvable debt problem. If we couldn't repay our debt, people would stop buying our bonds. And the solution is so simple. Raise the taxes until interest rates are low enough to trigger an investment boom.
  - mythrwy 2y ago
    They eliminated the budget deficit during the Clinton years on the backs of the Reagan 80s boom and the end of the cold war. It was a unique time. Also, we did not spend nearly as much back then and it was easier to do. It didn't last very long and soon we were to Bush 2 spending and massive deficits again. Every subsequent administration has dug the hole deeper to the point we spent 140 billion in June alone on federal debt interest payments. Who will you raise taxes on? The "Rich"? (see my other comment, it's not enough money), the "middle class" who are being squeezed silly by inflation at the moment? I don't know that they can shoulder much increase without big upheaval. I agree no problem is unsolvable, but that doesn't mean the problem will be solved gracefully. I suspect a new order of things economically is how it works out in the end, and what that looks like and when it occurs I do not know.

There is no "the" problem. You identify one problem to exclusion of the very real, salient problem that the average taxpayer sees the wealthy as not paying their fair share.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I wonder how that perception problem can be tackled? The top 1% of people pay 45% of federal income taxes. The top 10% of people pay 75%. Rates are already highly progressive. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20income%20taxes,policy%20during%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in....

rhelz 2y ago
// The top 10% of people pay 75% // 75% of what? Income tax? Very misleading--there is more than one way to make money, and those in the top 10% are probably not making most of their money via income. Warren Buffet famously said his secretary has a higher tax rate than he does. // I wonder how that perception problem can be tackled? // The best way would be an even distribution of wealth. The top 1% own half. The other 99% share the other half. You can quote any statistic you'd like, but when 1% own half, the other 99% are not going to think they have a perception problem.
- timcavel 2y ago
  [dead]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I said "income tax" in the sentence before the one you quoted.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> The top 10% of people pay 75% Well they own more wealth than the entire bottom 90%, so it seems like they're still underpaying.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I guess that highlights the fundamental disconnect, which is around what the point of taxes even is. If the point is simply to tax people until you have a more egalitarian society, then obviously it is too low. If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use, and subsidizing everyone else by a huge margin.
  - ddoolin 2y ago
    I don't think there is a disconnect here. Have taxes ever been pay-for-what-you-use? I don't think so. I'd go so far as to call estimating one's use of public goods/services a practical impossibility. Say you cracked the code though and you realize 50% of the population makes less in a year, total, than they use in public goods/services, what then? There is no disconnect because that is simply not now and never has been how taxes have worked.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      It isnt that radical and is how taxes worked for broad swaths of history. Income taxes in the US essentially didnt exist before the 1920's. Many taxes are still collected on a use basis today. Simple examples are toll roads, gas taxes, permit fees, ect. SSI is closer to a use tax, but has some redistribution built in. Many cities fund infrastructure using parcel taxes, which approach per capita use taxes as well given that hey are paid by home owners, or often passed on to renters.
  - Rury 2y ago
    > If the point is to pay for services that people use, the rich are far exceeding the cost of services they use Not if their wealth is being subsidized by everyone else and not via their own labor, as in that case, they are using the services of others and underpaying for it. And this goes for anyone, regardless of their amount of wealth.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
thatcat 2y ago
It's interesting how everyone wants to go back to the 50's america with functioning infrastructure and all that, but no one wants to pay the 90% tax that lead up to that. Also consider that payroll tax has become an increasing portion of what is collected, health insurance is now required to be paid by the individual regardless of health status, and auto insurance is now required for all drivers. These are effectively regressive taxes on the general population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#Income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_Uni...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >It's interesting how everyone wants to go back to the 50's america with functioning infrastructure and all that, but no one wants to pay the 90% tax that lead up to that combined State+ federal taxes look to be on par with 1950s levels. It also ignores the fact that the inflation controlled GDP has gone up 4.5X since then too. The government is rolling in 4X the cash as the 50's, but cant build a fraction of the infrastructure. >Also consider that payroll tax has become an increasing portion of what is collected, health insurance is now required to be paid by the individual regardless of health status, and auto insurance is now required for all drivers. These are effectively regressive taxes on the general population. Payroll, health, and auto insurance aren't regressive taxes, they are flat taxes and slightly progressive taxes. High earners still subsidize low earners for SSI. auto and health are flat.
  - thatcat 2y ago
    Net GDP normalized graph looks the same right? However, my point was that the origin of the income has shifted significantly. Parent says 45% progressive tax is high, it's not - it's half as progressive as it was in the 50s before including other societal changes that effectively serve as a regressive tax.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >Net GDP normalized graph looks the same right? My first point is to question if %GDP is the right framework to even think about this, rather than dollars. >However, my point was that the origin of the income has shifted significantly. I dont think it has. Income taxes seem to be within a percent or so of 1950 values, but payroll taxes have increased massively. This means income tax revenue is pretty similar as a % of GDP, and massively increased in real dollars. >Parent says 45% progressive tax is high, it's not - it's half as progressive as it was in the 50s before including other societal changes that effectively serve as a regressive tax. Thats not evident from the data. You would have to look at actual breakdown of federal revenues from income group, not just the tax brackets. It could be that taxes were far more flat/regressive in the 1950s (e.g. to 1,10% paid a much smaller share. Table 5 of this link goes back to the 80s, and shows the fraction paid by the top 10% earners increase from 32% to 52% in the last 40 years. That is a huge progressive taxation swing. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20income%20taxes,policy%20during%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
FireBeyond 2y ago
The Tax Foundation... Founded by the Chairman and CFO of General Motors, and the President of Exxon to ostensibly "improve lives through tax policy research" but has in its 86 years of existence NOT ONCE supported: - increasing individual taxes - increasing business taxes (actively the opposite) - the existence of excise taxes - the existence of tax credits and generally argues for "significantly smaller" government, "significantly smaller" budgets and such. While it describes itself as non-partisan, it is generally rated: - heavily business-friendly - conservative - center-right to right I am shocked that such an organization, founded by "titans of industry" would claim that we need to tax the wealthy far less and tax the corporations they own and run far less. Entirely shocked.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Do you think the numbers are fake?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    I think the numbers are intentionally deceptive. Billionaires aren't generally billionaires because of their salaried jobs. There are trusts and corporations and all manner of entities that "absorb" the majority of their income. Like Peter Thiel's tax-free $5B Roth IRA account. If every person in Houston deposited the maximum they were allowed into their account, it wouldn't equal what self-dealing and obfuscation allowed Thiel to deposit (how many people have share portfolios that they control AND control the valuation thereof). The Tax Foundation knows that the 1% doesn't have all their income captured under "Elon Musk, SSN XYZ" when he files his tax return. But they still like to paint it as such, because it advances their talking points. Like a sibling said, when you look at the wealth controlled and earned, pointing to just the total paid is garbage, because there's no proportion. "Oh, they paid 1.5 times more than [demographic]" means very little when they control 70x the wealth of that other demographic. Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mythrwy 2y ago

Here is the problem. Even if you taxed "rich people" harder, say tax all billionaires at 90%, there isn't enough to cover what is being spent and it's not even close. For instance, there is approximately 5 trillion currently held by billionaires in the US. That, coincidentally, is approximately 1 year of current federal spending. Then the following year you have no more billionaires to harvest as it took them many decades to get the money. On the other hand you have people who say "well, the federal government needs to stop spending so much" (and this does make sense at the same level "tax the rich more does "). But the problem with removing, or even substantially reducing, federal deficit spending is the resulting giant black hole would economically collapse many things in the short term at least. I don't know that there are easy answers for the problems the US finds itself in at the moment. Probably some sort of financial reset at some point, which is unlikely to be either clean or painless.

rhelz 2y ago
During the Clinton administration, they (1) raised taxes, and (2) eliminated the budget deficit. In fact, we had budget surpluses. Personally, I was shocked. I thought for sure the increase in taxes would push an already wobbly economy into deep depression. What happened instead is that---after the Government stopped hovering up all the money available to lend--interest rates decreased, and people both had to and could lend their money to actually productive businesses. It was boom city after that. There is no unsolvable debt problem. If we couldn't repay our debt, people would stop buying our bonds. And the solution is so simple. Raise the taxes until interest rates are low enough to trigger an investment boom.
- mythrwy 2y ago
  They eliminated the budget deficit during the Clinton years on the backs of the Reagan 80s boom and the end of the cold war. It was a unique time. Also, we did not spend nearly as much back then and it was easier to do. It didn't last very long and soon we were to Bush 2 spending and massive deficits again. Every subsequent administration has dug the hole deeper to the point we spent 140 billion in June alone on federal debt interest payments. Who will you raise taxes on? The "Rich"? (see my other comment, it's not enough money), the "middle class" who are being squeezed silly by inflation at the moment? I don't know that they can shoulder much increase without big upheaval. I agree no problem is unsolvable, but that doesn't mean the problem will be solved gracefully. I suspect a new order of things economically is how it works out in the end, and what that looks like and when it occurs I do not know.