4 ms·

cool, this will run the government for.. (checks watch) almost 2 hours! news flash, folks, every billionaire in the USA, combined, has a combined net worth of

cool, this will run the government for.. (checks watch) almost 2 hours! news flash, folks, every billionaire in the USA, combined, has a combined net worth of about 5 trillion dollars. making billionaires not exist by confiscating all of their wealth (and crashing the stock market in the process) would fund the government for around nine months. not saying that the ultra-wealthy shouldn't pay their fair share, but we only have 2 real choices: dramatically cut spending and/or dramatically increase productivity/gdp. raising taxes is just window dressing and mostly just hurts people who have a w2 income.

anonzzzies 2y ago
But billionaires do not pay their fair share; you don't need to raise anything and just get from them the same % as from others. The fact that they can legally avoid paying them is a problem. And sure, maybe it's a drip in the bucket, still doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
- jerkstate 2y ago
  ok, but at least admit that it's social policy, not fiscal policy, and won't do anything to balance the budget.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    Yes, I agree. A lot of things are needed to fix the actual budget/debt issues. Not sure if anyone has solutions for that; must be a popular research topic.
    - jerkstate 2y ago
      we only have 2 real choices: dramatically cut spending and/or dramatically increase productivity/gdp
  - Frieren 2y ago
    > won't do anything to balance the budget. Many goverment expenses come from corruption, from expensive payments for health care (that exists because billionaires put money into politicians pockets, to overspending in the military that also come from kickbacks, etc.). So, reducing the numbers of billionaires reduces corruption and overspending. (And even what is spend can be done so more efficiently, money going to teachers and nurses instead of profits for big corporations). Cutting on corruption has a big impact into goverment spending. Billionaires and inequality increase corruption, as there is easy money used to bribe politicians. End one and the other follows.
    - jerkstate 2y ago
      do you have any sources you can cite for this?
      - Frieren 2y ago
        -https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corruption https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corr... VI. Conclusions and Implications In summary, income inequality is likely to be a significant and no less important determinant of corruption than economic development (and thus many other variables for that matter). ... Inequality increases corruption, which in turn deters investment and growth.
        jerkstate 2y ago
        “Correlation is not causation” The paper shows that wealth inequality and corruption are correlated, and pontificates that maybe reducing inequality with wealth redistribution might reduce corruption, but offers no evidence that this is the case. Your chain of reasoning is not really supported by the paper.
- leobg 2y ago
  If your tub is leaking, it would be wiser to focus on fixing the leak before you focus on tapping new sources.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    New sources? These people are evading taxes. My tub is leaking and the water source is clogged. If I want a bath, I have to fix both.
Frieren 2y ago
If I stopped paying my taxes my goverment will not even notice. It cannot run on my money alone for even seconds. Is that an argument for me to not pay my taxes? > (and crashing the stock market in the process) Some scaremongering there for a straw man's argument that you made up. Put thieves, tax avoidance is theft, into prison. Getting the money back is not enough. Society needs justice, and people stealing from everybody should not only pay their fair share but also be punished when they steal from society.
- MilnerRoute 2y ago
  Here's a graph of America's national debt. Its rate of increase clearly starts spiking...right after the Bush tax cuts. https://www.statista.com/chart/28393/us-public-debt/ https://www.statista.com/chart/28393/us-public-debt/ I think it's indisputable that tax policy has an impact on a government's health. Yes, that's not exactly the same thing as prosecutable tax avoidance. But my sense is the real problem here is quasi-legal tax avoidance, and that this small $1.3 billion figure is just hinting at how easily more taxes could be recovered with less lenient tax policies. (As well as better-funded enforcement officers...) But that gets dangerously close to also saying, "let's raise the tax rates on millionaires (not just billionaires) back to where it was a few years ago..." And let's be honest: that's why we're having this discussion. Government spending is bad and part of the problem, according to one side - with taxes just a way of enabling it. There's been a lot of words devoted to extolling the values of lower taxes in creating jobs and innovation. So I think at some point, people just start rooting for tax avoidance.
  - jerkstate 2y ago
    legal tax avoidance has nothing to do with the $1.3b discussed in this article. I'm all for collecting legal taxes - but I'm against pretending like we can fund the budget with any reasonable tax policy. i'm trying to make the point that if we try to fund the bloated budget at the current gdp, it won't (just) be the super-wealthy who suffer, it will be the people who can't retire, the people whose kids still need scholarships and loans for colleges, the workhorses of the economy, the middle class.
croes 2y ago
That's not how economy works. If all that money is spend the receivers pay taxes and spend the rest and that receivers also pay taxes and spend the rest and so on and on. All these tax money is once again spend and the circle continues. Economy is about flow not sum.
- alecco 2y ago
  Business needs to profit to exist in the long run. If costs are above revenue it has to close eventually. The bigger components of costs are usually payroll and tax. And a part of payroll also goes to government systems. This is why high tax countries have terrible GDP. Unless a good part of the tax goes to subsidize companies in some way. And subsidies are very hard to do right and most likely bring corruption into government.
  - croes 2y ago
    Scandinavian countries have high taxes and a high GDP, same is still true for Germany. Many low tax countries have terrible GDP too, so it's not the tax. And businesses needs customers. More middle class customers support more businesses than few billionaires. If you spread the wealth it benefits the economy and helps creating new businesses. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, Netflix etc. don't satisfy a need of billionaires. So you either can hope a billionaire founds a useful company or give wealth back to the people and let the market do the choosing.
    - alecco 2y ago
      Please read the last sentence of my comment.
      - croes 2y ago
        I'm not talking about subsidies.

anonzzzies 2y ago

But billionaires do not pay their fair share; you don't need to raise anything and just get from them the same % as from others. The fact that they can legally avoid paying them is a problem. And sure, maybe it's a drip in the bucket, still doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

jerkstate 2y ago
ok, but at least admit that it's social policy, not fiscal policy, and won't do anything to balance the budget.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Yes, I agree. A lot of things are needed to fix the actual budget/debt issues. Not sure if anyone has solutions for that; must be a popular research topic.
  - jerkstate 2y ago
    we only have 2 real choices: dramatically cut spending and/or dramatically increase productivity/gdp
- Frieren 2y ago
  > won't do anything to balance the budget. Many goverment expenses come from corruption, from expensive payments for health care (that exists because billionaires put money into politicians pockets, to overspending in the military that also come from kickbacks, etc.). So, reducing the numbers of billionaires reduces corruption and overspending. (And even what is spend can be done so more efficiently, money going to teachers and nurses instead of profits for big corporations). Cutting on corruption has a big impact into goverment spending. Billionaires and inequality increase corruption, as there is easy money used to bribe politicians. End one and the other follows.
  - jerkstate 2y ago
    do you have any sources you can cite for this?
    - Frieren 2y ago
      -https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corruption https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corr... VI. Conclusions and Implications In summary, income inequality is likely to be a significant and no less important determinant of corruption than economic development (and thus many other variables for that matter). ... Inequality increases corruption, which in turn deters investment and growth.
      - jerkstate 2y ago
        “Correlation is not causation” The paper shows that wealth inequality and corruption are correlated, and pontificates that maybe reducing inequality with wealth redistribution might reduce corruption, but offers no evidence that this is the case. Your chain of reasoning is not really supported by the paper.
leobg 2y ago
If your tub is leaking, it would be wiser to focus on fixing the leak before you focus on tapping new sources.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  New sources? These people are evading taxes. My tub is leaking and the water source is clogged. If I want a bath, I have to fix both.

Frieren 2y ago

If I stopped paying my taxes my goverment will not even notice. It cannot run on my money alone for even seconds. Is that an argument for me to not pay my taxes? > (and crashing the stock market in the process) Some scaremongering there for a straw man's argument that you made up. Put thieves, tax avoidance is theft, into prison. Getting the money back is not enough. Society needs justice, and people stealing from everybody should not only pay their fair share but also be punished when they steal from society.

MilnerRoute 2y ago
Here's a graph of America's national debt. Its rate of increase clearly starts spiking...right after the Bush tax cuts. https://www.statista.com/chart/28393/us-public-debt/ https://www.statista.com/chart/28393/us-public-debt/ I think it's indisputable that tax policy has an impact on a government's health. Yes, that's not exactly the same thing as prosecutable tax avoidance. But my sense is the real problem here is quasi-legal tax avoidance, and that this small $1.3 billion figure is just hinting at how easily more taxes could be recovered with less lenient tax policies. (As well as better-funded enforcement officers...) But that gets dangerously close to also saying, "let's raise the tax rates on millionaires (not just billionaires) back to where it was a few years ago..." And let's be honest: that's why we're having this discussion. Government spending is bad and part of the problem, according to one side - with taxes just a way of enabling it. There's been a lot of words devoted to extolling the values of lower taxes in creating jobs and innovation. So I think at some point, people just start rooting for tax avoidance.
- jerkstate 2y ago
  legal tax avoidance has nothing to do with the $1.3b discussed in this article. I'm all for collecting legal taxes - but I'm against pretending like we can fund the budget with any reasonable tax policy. i'm trying to make the point that if we try to fund the bloated budget at the current gdp, it won't (just) be the super-wealthy who suffer, it will be the people who can't retire, the people whose kids still need scholarships and loans for colleges, the workhorses of the economy, the middle class.

croes 2y ago

That's not how economy works. If all that money is spend the receivers pay taxes and spend the rest and that receivers also pay taxes and spend the rest and so on and on. All these tax money is once again spend and the circle continues. Economy is about flow not sum.

alecco 2y ago
Business needs to profit to exist in the long run. If costs are above revenue it has to close eventually. The bigger components of costs are usually payroll and tax. And a part of payroll also goes to government systems. This is why high tax countries have terrible GDP. Unless a good part of the tax goes to subsidize companies in some way. And subsidies are very hard to do right and most likely bring corruption into government.
- croes 2y ago
  Scandinavian countries have high taxes and a high GDP, same is still true for Germany. Many low tax countries have terrible GDP too, so it's not the tax. And businesses needs customers. More middle class customers support more businesses than few billionaires. If you spread the wealth it benefits the economy and helps creating new businesses. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, Netflix etc. don't satisfy a need of billionaires. So you either can hope a billionaire founds a useful company or give wealth back to the people and let the market do the choosing.
  - alecco 2y ago
    Please read the last sentence of my comment.
    - croes 2y ago
      I'm not talking about subsidies.