4 ms·

I offer up that we collect unpaid taxes ($250B). Then we increase the highest tax bracket to 90%. Then we get a progressive capital gains tax. That should pay o

I offer up that we collect unpaid taxes ($250B). Then we increase the highest tax bracket to 90%. Then we get a progressive capital gains tax. That should pay out trillions.

Applejinx 2y ago
You wouldn't need to go nearly that hard. 50%, or 25%, would still be a giant budget-balancer.
- skellington 2y ago
  It always amazes me that we are on this super hardcore capitalist site 'hacker news' and yet so few people here know how income works at the highest levels. Super high earners don't earn W2 income. It's mostly long term cap gains or gains in tax advantaged accounts. A 90% tax would just encourage them to never sell their stock and to borrow against it instead.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    I agree, ultra-rich capital gains taxation should shift towards being mark-to-market. The step-up basis for irrevocable trusts, and all the other games that make sense for $100MM+ net worth people, need to be eliminated.
    - skellington 2y ago
      This is incredibly dumb. What happens when the stock market is up one year and down the next? What happens when you force them all to sell and there is not enough liquidity to support current prices so the act of selling hammers the value? You are just saying "let's slowing take equity away from founders" so we can throw it away into wasteful gov. spending.
      - sunshowers 2y ago
        All of that sounds like it gets us closer to my goal of less inequality in society and away from fake inflated valuations. It's great!
        skellington 2y ago
        "Your goals"...hilarious. I guess it's your world and we're all just living in it. But seriously, inequality is a complex issue, just 'let's soak the rich' is a dumb take and won't solve anything. But social safety nets, estate taxes, single-payer fed health insurance, etc.. might be interesting as well as other ways to approach this. For example, maybe corporate tax rate should be ZERO, but some percentage of profits (let's say 25%) should be paid as dividend to employees.
        sunshowers 2y ago
        I think we should soak the rich as a matter of principle, regardless of any effects on the budget etc. It should simply not be the case that some people have wildly more power than others, and money is how we express power in a capitalist society. I believe the things I believe because I think they're the best things to believe (acknowledging my imperfect knowledge, potential for errors, etc). If I thought something else was better than what I believe, I would update my beliefs towards that. If you don't think your beliefs are better than the alternatives, you don't actually believe in them. So yes, I think my goals are the best possible goals to want.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    I'm totally okay with there being a wealth tax for people in that situation.
  - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
    That’s why I mentioned capital gains reform.
skellington 2y ago
It's been proven in the past that this does not increase revenue in the long run. If you want to significantly increase revenue, you'd have to tax the middle class harder. I'm not automatically against taxing high income people, but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes.
- hmmokidk 2y ago
  I refuse to believe you’re actually this clueless
  - skellington 2y ago
    You guys just prove over and over again you don't know how anything works.
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      > I'm not automatically against taxing high income people, but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes. Like... samesies, I guess? This is an irrelevant stat without more context. It says nothing useful as-is, and even if that were fixed, it'd be of limited use because it concerns only personal income taxes. But you're presenting it as if it means something. This kind of thing is what got you the comment you're responding to.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  I’m talking about the top 1%. And they’ve got most of the money. They should pay most of the taxes.
- dhc02 2y ago
  The top 50% of earners in my household pay 100% of the bills. How is this fair?!
- consteval 2y ago
  > but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes Right, which comes out to, oh I don't know... say, 0 dollars if you're a billionaire? These people have no income, they have wealth. The wealth is completely untaxable so long as it remains wealth. Which you can do, because the benefit of having wealth is you're given liquid money just by virtue of having that wealth. Meaning, you can infinitely take out loans and use said wealth as collateral. Probably your wealth is growing faster than the interest rate, too, so win-win: you also get free money. Of course, OUR wealth, meaning the wealth most commonly held by the middle and upper middle class, single family homes, are taxable. We tax the unrealized gains on home equity all the time, it's called a property tax. We have convinced the general population that the property tax is somehow not a wealth tax, and that it's actually good and they should be against wealth taxes. I mean, it's absolutely genius.
hmmokidk 2y ago
Yeah this is exactly it. It’s the only solution; and the logical conclusion of not taxing the extremely rich aggressively. Otherwise they will use their power to get rid of safeguards and government assets to essentially buy the governments power and assets.
dingnuts 2y ago
we still have to cut the deficit or increasing revenue is still just kicking the ever-growing interest payments down the road. If we don't do both, it's like increasing our salary and using it to justify getting another credit card when we have already maxed out the ones we have. We can -- and often do -- monetize the debt, but printing money to pay the debt is a regressive tax that affects those with the least disproportionately, so I would imagine you aren't trying to push for that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

I offer up that we collect unpaid taxes ($250B). Then we increase the highest tax bracket to 90%. Then we get a progressive capital gains tax. That should pay out trillions.

Applejinx 2y ago

You wouldn't need to go nearly that hard. 50%, or 25%, would still be a giant budget-balancer.

skellington 2y ago
It always amazes me that we are on this super hardcore capitalist site 'hacker news' and yet so few people here know how income works at the highest levels. Super high earners don't earn W2 income. It's mostly long term cap gains or gains in tax advantaged accounts. A 90% tax would just encourage them to never sell their stock and to borrow against it instead.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  I agree, ultra-rich capital gains taxation should shift towards being mark-to-market. The step-up basis for irrevocable trusts, and all the other games that make sense for $100MM+ net worth people, need to be eliminated.
  - skellington 2y ago
    This is incredibly dumb. What happens when the stock market is up one year and down the next? What happens when you force them all to sell and there is not enough liquidity to support current prices so the act of selling hammers the value? You are just saying "let's slowing take equity away from founders" so we can throw it away into wasteful gov. spending.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      All of that sounds like it gets us closer to my goal of less inequality in society and away from fake inflated valuations. It's great!
      - skellington 2y ago
        "Your goals"...hilarious. I guess it's your world and we're all just living in it. But seriously, inequality is a complex issue, just 'let's soak the rich' is a dumb take and won't solve anything. But social safety nets, estate taxes, single-payer fed health insurance, etc.. might be interesting as well as other ways to approach this. For example, maybe corporate tax rate should be ZERO, but some percentage of profits (let's say 25%) should be paid as dividend to employees.
        sunshowers 2y ago
        I think we should soak the rich as a matter of principle, regardless of any effects on the budget etc. It should simply not be the case that some people have wildly more power than others, and money is how we express power in a capitalist society. I believe the things I believe because I think they're the best things to believe (acknowledging my imperfect knowledge, potential for errors, etc). If I thought something else was better than what I believe, I would update my beliefs towards that. If you don't think your beliefs are better than the alternatives, you don't actually believe in them. So yes, I think my goals are the best possible goals to want.
- kemayo 2y ago
  I'm totally okay with there being a wealth tax for people in that situation.
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  That’s why I mentioned capital gains reform.

skellington 2y ago

It's been proven in the past that this does not increase revenue in the long run. If you want to significantly increase revenue, you'd have to tax the middle class harder. I'm not automatically against taxing high income people, but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes.

hmmokidk 2y ago
I refuse to believe you’re actually this clueless
- skellington 2y ago
  You guys just prove over and over again you don't know how anything works.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    > I'm not automatically against taxing high income people, but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes. Like... samesies, I guess? This is an irrelevant stat without more context. It says nothing useful as-is, and even if that were fixed, it'd be of limited use because it concerns only personal income taxes. But you're presenting it as if it means something. This kind of thing is what got you the comment you're responding to.
teaearlgraycold 2y ago
I’m talking about the top 1%. And they’ve got most of the money. They should pay most of the taxes.
dhc02 2y ago
The top 50% of earners in my household pay 100% of the bills. How is this fair?!
consteval 2y ago
> but the top 10% ALREADY pay 76% of federal personal income taxes Right, which comes out to, oh I don't know... say, 0 dollars if you're a billionaire? These people have no income, they have wealth. The wealth is completely untaxable so long as it remains wealth. Which you can do, because the benefit of having wealth is you're given liquid money just by virtue of having that wealth. Meaning, you can infinitely take out loans and use said wealth as collateral. Probably your wealth is growing faster than the interest rate, too, so win-win: you also get free money. Of course, OUR wealth, meaning the wealth most commonly held by the middle and upper middle class, single family homes, are taxable. We tax the unrealized gains on home equity all the time, it's called a property tax. We have convinced the general population that the property tax is somehow not a wealth tax, and that it's actually good and they should be against wealth taxes. I mean, it's absolutely genius.

hmmokidk 2y ago

Yeah this is exactly it. It’s the only solution; and the logical conclusion of not taxing the extremely rich aggressively. Otherwise they will use their power to get rid of safeguards and government assets to essentially buy the governments power and assets.

dingnuts 2y ago

we still have to cut the deficit or increasing revenue is still just kicking the ever-growing interest payments down the road. If we don't do both, it's like increasing our salary and using it to justify getting another credit card when we have already maxed out the ones we have. We can -- and often do -- monetize the debt, but printing money to pay the debt is a regressive tax that affects those with the least disproportionately, so I would imagine you aren't trying to push for that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]