4 ms·

Or you can apply taxes to corporations and the ultra-wealthy and drop the debt easily while expanding medicare, social security benefits, college, etc. The coun

Or you can apply taxes to corporations and the ultra-wealthy and drop the debt easily while expanding medicare, social security benefits, college, etc. The counter-point of "then all the companies will leave" seems unlikely considering the wealth of natural resources and high quality of living that the US offers. We haven't really tried fixing the wealth gap since the Great Depression, so maybe it's time to give it another go.

twoodfin 2y ago
The incidence of corporate taxes on the average American is hotly debated but it’s definitely well above 0. Confiscating 100% of the ultra wealthy’s wealth would—for any reasonable definition of “ultra wealthy”—perhaps fund the government for a year or two.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Probably like 6 months, maybe. I agree with the premise of your point.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  But if you took just one billion dollars from Jeff Bezos you could give a million dollars to every American. I've been told such things many times.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    One way to think about this silly math in reverse: Split-adjusted, Amazon IPO’d at $0.075 a share. If instead of raiding my $3 piece of Jeff’s billion, I had the good sense to give him that pittance 25 years ago, it’d be worth $7,400 today.
  - msisk6 2y ago
    I know this is in jest, but it might be the root of the problem; a lot of folks don't have a good grasp on basic math, especially with large numbers, and fall victim to this kind of thinking.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
    But if you leave $1b to Bezos, which is a pretty good retirement fund, you can give $500 to every American.
    - Danchristensen 2y ago
      [dead]
janalsncm 2y ago
> The counter-point of "then all the companies will leave" I don’t know why people don’t apply the same logic to people. The US is a highly competitive economy because of immigrants because it is a nice place to live. If that changes because of declines in living standards, it will be harder for those big companies to attract top talent in the US.
daedrdev 2y ago
I think it's more that you will have no economic growth. The 1% already pay nearly 50% of taxes, while making around 25% of the income, and raising the corporation tax lowers the income tax by a lesser amount since they often tax the same money. > We haven't really tried fixing the wealth gap since the Great Depression, so maybe it's time to give it another go. If you look at a graph of the percent of wealth held by the 1%, most of them start in 1979 to show an ever increasing trend. But if you look at a longer graph, you will see a larger U shape over the last century, with a higher peak pre-great depression than today.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > The 1% already pay nearly 50% of taxes, No, they don't. There are enough mechanisms in the tax code that many of the ultra wealthy pay nothing close to this, or anything at all. Buffet has famously complained about this.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I think the classic example is people taking out loans against their paper wealth. No taxes paid on the loan of course, and no capital gains as nothing was realized as a gain.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    It works if you ignore FICA completely (which is weird because it's like 30-40% of tax collected or something), and round 45% up to 50%. If you include FICA, it's more like the top 1% of income people pay ~30% of total tax (somewhere around there).
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      The top 1% also 'earn' >20% of all income, and hold over 30% of all wealth. The bottom 50% of Americans own less than 3% of all wealth. I really think that these figures need to start taking into account disposable income, so we can see just how fucking evil this situation really is. There's over 8 million hungry kids in the wealthiest country on the planet. Half a million families file for bankruptcy every year due to medical debt. Etc. And people are arguing in all seriousness that we need to tax corporations and the wealthy even less, quoting Thatcher and cherry-picking misleading stats. Ugh.
NickC25 2y ago
Yeah, it's quite funny that people think the corporations will just leave if you make them pay tax. They still want access to our consumers, they still want access to the talent our universities produce, they still want the stability our economy provides, they still want to transact with the currency our military backs. Tell them that if they want access to all that, they can pay their fair share of what it takes to provide all that.
nickpp 2y ago
You can do that exactly once. Because after that - you won’t have any new startups, new companies, new wealthy people, nothing. Nobody will start any venture knowing the government is greedily waiting to confiscate it all. Investors will redirect their funds to friendlier jurisdictions. And entrepreneurs will go there too. One the reasons European entrepreneurs go to the USA to start startups is exactly because the USA did not try this kind of shenanigans, while their native countries did. As Margaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money”.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  "There is no such thing as society." - Margaret Thatcher. Always odd when people quote Thatcher as if she was some kind of economic genius, rather than the architect of record unemployment, decline in manufacturing, record inequality and homelessness - all of which ought to sound familiar to Americans.
  - nickpp 2y ago
    Socialism still failed everywhere it was tried while free markets are invariably lifting nations out of poverty. Mrs Thatcher was smart enough to recognize that, no matter what her other failings were.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      It would be nice if people were more embarrassed at not knowing what the words they use actually mean. Countries with strong social safety nets, like Scandinavia, have some of the highest standards of living, longest life expectancies, and happiest populations in the world. That's Democratic socialism. Neoliberalism hasn't "lifted nations out of poverty", it's increased inequality and instability for decades. If you remove China from the stats this is startlingly clear - and China is hardly pure capitalism/a free market. And meanwhile, the planet is burning, we're losing species at extinction rates not far off asteroid levels, we've put plastic and PFAS into the entire biosphere making even rainwater unsafe to drink, etc. > Mrs Thatcher was smart enough to recognize that Thatcher increased poverty, unemployment, and inequality. Saying otherwise requires incredible delusion.
calculatte 2y ago
The actual counter-point is that history shows us the exact opposite of what you propose will happen. "Higher tax = more money for our efficient government" is incredibly simplistic and ignorant thinking. The fact is that lower tax rates actually result in higher tax revenue. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a-corporate-tax-cut/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a...
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Lowering corporate tax rates is just a race to the bottom. Look at Apple paying an effective 1% tax rate on all European profits, just because some sneaky bois in Ireland decided that would be 'good for the economy'. Was it good for Ireland? A little, though our reputation has suffered. Was it good for Irish politicians? Have no doubt. Was it good for Europe? Fuck no. Was it good? Fuck no.
  - calculatte 2y ago
    "lowering" doesn't mean having the lowest rate in a race to the bottom. Putting it back to 35% would put us as top 5 in the world. And for what? We have the data. This is a settled point. Tax revenue goes down and entire industries die and move away. Because yes, corporations will maximize their profits by any means. Folks seriously believe having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world will have a positive effect are dreaming. Don't strawman with Ireland.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > "lowering" doesn't mean having the lowest rate in a race to the bottom. The world has seen tax rates lowered in a race to the bottom. > Putting it back to 35% would put us as top 5 in the world. See above. > We have the data. This is a settled point. Tax revenue goes down and entire industries die and move away. First off, no. Empirical evidence on the impact of lowering corporate tax rates shows mixed results. Implementation is key. We've been in a well documented race to the bottom for about 50 years. We've been ignoring potential solutions like capital controls, sabotaging tax harmonization and international cooperation, and taking away the ability of the IRS to chase big fish. American industry died because corporations chose to move their manufacturing to the places that were most willing to exploit their workers, with the backing of the same corporate-sponsored politicians cutting tax rates. 'The problem with neoliberalism is that sooner or later you run out of public goods to strip mine for temporary profits.' > Folks seriously believe having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world will have a positive effect are dreaming. From 1952 to 1963 the corporate tax rate in the US was 52%, with the highest tax band set at 91%. The period and the years afterward were characterized by massive growth and decreases in inequality. You could call it the heyday of the American Dream, when upward mobility was at a peak. > Don't strawman with Ireland. Ireland illustrates the point perfectly. Apple moved there so they could pay <1% tax across all Europe in a secretive sweetheart deal, and Ireland didn't even benefit all that much. Tax harmonization put an end to it. All very relevant and not at all straw, unless you're coming in with a hard bias...

twoodfin 2y ago

The incidence of corporate taxes on the average American is hotly debated but it’s definitely well above 0. Confiscating 100% of the ultra wealthy’s wealth would—for any reasonable definition of “ultra wealthy”—perhaps fund the government for a year or two.

dgfitz 2y ago
Probably like 6 months, maybe. I agree with the premise of your point.
lupusreal 2y ago
But if you took just one billion dollars from Jeff Bezos you could give a million dollars to every American. I've been told such things many times.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  One way to think about this silly math in reverse: Split-adjusted, Amazon IPO’d at $0.075 a share. If instead of raiding my $3 piece of Jeff’s billion, I had the good sense to give him that pittance 25 years ago, it’d be worth $7,400 today.
- msisk6 2y ago
  I know this is in jest, but it might be the root of the problem; a lot of folks don't have a good grasp on basic math, especially with large numbers, and fall victim to this kind of thinking.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
  But if you leave $1b to Bezos, which is a pretty good retirement fund, you can give $500 to every American.
  - Danchristensen 2y ago
    [dead]

janalsncm 2y ago

> The counter-point of "then all the companies will leave" I don’t know why people don’t apply the same logic to people. The US is a highly competitive economy because of immigrants because it is a nice place to live. If that changes because of declines in living standards, it will be harder for those big companies to attract top talent in the US.

daedrdev 2y ago

I think it's more that you will have no economic growth. The 1% already pay nearly 50% of taxes, while making around 25% of the income, and raising the corporation tax lowers the income tax by a lesser amount since they often tax the same money. > We haven't really tried fixing the wealth gap since the Great Depression, so maybe it's time to give it another go. If you look at a graph of the percent of wealth held by the 1%, most of them start in 1979 to show an ever increasing trend. But if you look at a longer graph, you will see a larger U shape over the last century, with a higher peak pre-great depression than today.

JohnMakin 2y ago
> The 1% already pay nearly 50% of taxes, No, they don't. There are enough mechanisms in the tax code that many of the ultra wealthy pay nothing close to this, or anything at all. Buffet has famously complained about this.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I think the classic example is people taking out loans against their paper wealth. No taxes paid on the loan of course, and no capital gains as nothing was realized as a gain.
- dmoy 2y ago
  It works if you ignore FICA completely (which is weird because it's like 30-40% of tax collected or something), and round 45% up to 50%. If you include FICA, it's more like the top 1% of income people pay ~30% of total tax (somewhere around there).
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    The top 1% also 'earn' >20% of all income, and hold over 30% of all wealth. The bottom 50% of Americans own less than 3% of all wealth. I really think that these figures need to start taking into account disposable income, so we can see just how fucking evil this situation really is. There's over 8 million hungry kids in the wealthiest country on the planet. Half a million families file for bankruptcy every year due to medical debt. Etc. And people are arguing in all seriousness that we need to tax corporations and the wealthy even less, quoting Thatcher and cherry-picking misleading stats. Ugh.

NickC25 2y ago

Yeah, it's quite funny that people think the corporations will just leave if you make them pay tax. They still want access to our consumers, they still want access to the talent our universities produce, they still want the stability our economy provides, they still want to transact with the currency our military backs. Tell them that if they want access to all that, they can pay their fair share of what it takes to provide all that.

nickpp 2y ago

You can do that exactly once. Because after that - you won’t have any new startups, new companies, new wealthy people, nothing. Nobody will start any venture knowing the government is greedily waiting to confiscate it all. Investors will redirect their funds to friendlier jurisdictions. And entrepreneurs will go there too. One the reasons European entrepreneurs go to the USA to start startups is exactly because the USA did not try this kind of shenanigans, while their native countries did. As Margaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money”.

mandmandam 2y ago
"There is no such thing as society." - Margaret Thatcher. Always odd when people quote Thatcher as if she was some kind of economic genius, rather than the architect of record unemployment, decline in manufacturing, record inequality and homelessness - all of which ought to sound familiar to Americans.
- nickpp 2y ago
  Socialism still failed everywhere it was tried while free markets are invariably lifting nations out of poverty. Mrs Thatcher was smart enough to recognize that, no matter what her other failings were.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    It would be nice if people were more embarrassed at not knowing what the words they use actually mean. Countries with strong social safety nets, like Scandinavia, have some of the highest standards of living, longest life expectancies, and happiest populations in the world. That's Democratic socialism. Neoliberalism hasn't "lifted nations out of poverty", it's increased inequality and instability for decades. If you remove China from the stats this is startlingly clear - and China is hardly pure capitalism/a free market. And meanwhile, the planet is burning, we're losing species at extinction rates not far off asteroid levels, we've put plastic and PFAS into the entire biosphere making even rainwater unsafe to drink, etc. > Mrs Thatcher was smart enough to recognize that Thatcher increased poverty, unemployment, and inequality. Saying otherwise requires incredible delusion.

calculatte 2y ago

The actual counter-point is that history shows us the exact opposite of what you propose will happen. "Higher tax = more money for our efficient government" is incredibly simplistic and ignorant thinking. The fact is that lower tax rates actually result in higher tax revenue. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a-corporate-tax-cut/ https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a...

mandmandam 2y ago
Lowering corporate tax rates is just a race to the bottom. Look at Apple paying an effective 1% tax rate on all European profits, just because some sneaky bois in Ireland decided that would be 'good for the economy'. Was it good for Ireland? A little, though our reputation has suffered. Was it good for Irish politicians? Have no doubt. Was it good for Europe? Fuck no. Was it good? Fuck no.
- calculatte 2y ago
  "lowering" doesn't mean having the lowest rate in a race to the bottom. Putting it back to 35% would put us as top 5 in the world. And for what? We have the data. This is a settled point. Tax revenue goes down and entire industries die and move away. Because yes, corporations will maximize their profits by any means. Folks seriously believe having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world will have a positive effect are dreaming. Don't strawman with Ireland.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > "lowering" doesn't mean having the lowest rate in a race to the bottom. The world has seen tax rates lowered in a race to the bottom. > Putting it back to 35% would put us as top 5 in the world. See above. > We have the data. This is a settled point. Tax revenue goes down and entire industries die and move away. First off, no. Empirical evidence on the impact of lowering corporate tax rates shows mixed results. Implementation is key. We've been in a well documented race to the bottom for about 50 years. We've been ignoring potential solutions like capital controls, sabotaging tax harmonization and international cooperation, and taking away the ability of the IRS to chase big fish. American industry died because corporations chose to move their manufacturing to the places that were most willing to exploit their workers, with the backing of the same corporate-sponsored politicians cutting tax rates. 'The problem with neoliberalism is that sooner or later you run out of public goods to strip mine for temporary profits.' > Folks seriously believe having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world will have a positive effect are dreaming. From 1952 to 1963 the corporate tax rate in the US was 52%, with the highest tax band set at 91%. The period and the years afterward were characterized by massive growth and decreases in inequality. You could call it the heyday of the American Dream, when upward mobility was at a peak. > Don't strawman with Ireland. Ireland illustrates the point perfectly. Apple moved there so they could pay <1% tax across all Europe in a secretive sweetheart deal, and Ireland didn't even benefit all that much. Tax harmonization put an end to it. All very relevant and not at all straw, unless you're coming in with a hard bias...