3 ms·

> 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
    Im not going to debate LVT over the internet today. If we arent talking about dollar subsidies, then anything can be claimed. I think this just collapses into the first case where the purpose of taxes being equality. Unpaid labor/service value is just the rationale.
selfmodruntime 2y ago
Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? The top 10% are not the top 1%. By taxing successful people at very high rates, you're just widening the gap even more. I know that this opinion is disregarded as a conspiracy by some, but I see the very real effect of it where I live (in Germany). We have a large part of the populace who do not see value in Work because we accidentally created equality of outcome by not raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket for decades. I'm not kidding. There exist multiple showcases that show there to be just a tiny difference in net income anywhere between 3k and 5k Eur before tax, if you're a single earner with a family of two in any large city.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? Two points here, I guess: 1) The nice thing about compounding growth is that it just doesn't care about individual or personal anything. People who start with more get more, and they get it faster without them even doing anything. 2) Executives are standing on the backs of the people doing the actual labor. Children of rich families are born on top of mountains of money. Let's not pretend like their success is entirely personal. Unless maybe you want to eliminate inheritance and trusts? If we can entirely eliminate inheritance and trusts, that would probably go a very long way. > raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket Feel free to put another bracket to differentiate 10% and 1% if you want. That's entirely orthogonal.
  - selfmodruntime 2y ago
    1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over again? 2) Not all success has to be personal. You can and should profit from the wealth that your parents accumulated. I am fine with taxing the obscenely rich and with eliminating their insane schemes to circumvent the tax code. They should pay their fair share. The entire reason I originally answered you is that it's not entirely orthogonal, and keeping the distinction here is incredibly important. Being within the top 10% currently puts you into the 160K a year range. That is not rich. This is your ordinary handyman and his wive, doctors, lawyers, engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. These people are hardworking and in the process of accumulating wealth, for them and hopefully their children. Grouping them with the ultra rich and demanding their taxes to be raised any further is unfair.

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
  Im not going to debate LVT over the internet today. If we arent talking about dollar subsidies, then anything can be claimed. I think this just collapses into the first case where the purpose of taxes being equality. Unpaid labor/service value is just the rationale.

selfmodruntime 2y ago

Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? The top 10% are not the top 1%. By taxing successful people at very high rates, you're just widening the gap even more. I know that this opinion is disregarded as a conspiracy by some, but I see the very real effect of it where I live (in Germany). We have a large part of the populace who do not see value in Work because we accidentally created equality of outcome by not raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket for decades. I'm not kidding. There exist multiple showcases that show there to be just a tiny difference in net income anywhere between 3k and 5k Eur before tax, if you're a single earner with a family of two in any large city.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Or maybe we could collectively get back to the concept of individual responsibility and personal success? Two points here, I guess: 1) The nice thing about compounding growth is that it just doesn't care about individual or personal anything. People who start with more get more, and they get it faster without them even doing anything. 2) Executives are standing on the backs of the people doing the actual labor. Children of rich families are born on top of mountains of money. Let's not pretend like their success is entirely personal. Unless maybe you want to eliminate inheritance and trusts? If we can entirely eliminate inheritance and trusts, that would probably go a very long way. > raising the wage limit needed to hit the highest tax bracket Feel free to put another bracket to differentiate 10% and 1% if you want. That's entirely orthogonal.
- selfmodruntime 2y ago
  1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over again? 2) Not all success has to be personal. You can and should profit from the wealth that your parents accumulated. I am fine with taxing the obscenely rich and with eliminating their insane schemes to circumvent the tax code. They should pay their fair share. The entire reason I originally answered you is that it's not entirely orthogonal, and keeping the distinction here is incredibly important. Being within the top 10% currently puts you into the 160K a year range. That is not rich. This is your ordinary handyman and his wive, doctors, lawyers, engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. These people are hardworking and in the process of accumulating wealth, for them and hopefully their children. Grouping them with the ultra rich and demanding their taxes to be raised any further is unfair.