5 ms·

Can also just raise taxes on the super rich

bombcar 1y ago
A 99.9% wealth tax on US billionaires would cover the annual deficit for about 1.5 years. The scale of the problem is absolutely mind-blowing.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  US annual deficit/debt is a meaningless number since it just prints as much money as it needs being the world reserve currency. It's a looney toons number.
  - IndubitableCoil 1y ago
    This really isn't true. I am not deficit doomer, but you can't say its meaningless. The US paid $881 billion on interest on its debt last year. This is on par with the DoD. Yes, it's still only around a tenth of the US's total budget, but it is not hard to imagine the debt going up by 10 times. With the same interest rates, we then the US will pay as much in interest as the rest of the budget combined. If the US just needs to "print as much money as it needs", there is a certain point at which it will become hyperinflationary.
    - gambiting 1y ago
      It's worth noting that it pays that interest back to itself. The risk of becoming hyperinflationary is real, but US can continue ignoring the problem pretty much indefinitely as long as other countries do their trading in US dollar.
      - HDThoreaun 1y ago
        Other countries dump the dollar as soon the US makes credible plans to print money in order to sustain the deficit.
- layer8 1y ago
  I’d say that “super rich” starts well below billionaires. Not saying that the math would work out without problems then.
  - AdrianB1 1y ago
    My grandpa went to prison (in Romania) in the 1950-es for being part of bourgeoise class because he fixed and ran a broken mill. He was a war refugee (from Romania to Romania) without any money, land or any other resources, but in Communist Romania running a mill would tag you as "super rich". I guess this is what you wanted to say there, correct?
    - layer8 1y ago
      I consider myself reasonably well-off but am unlikely to become even a millionaire in my life (inflation-adjusted). I’d say millionaire = rich, 10-20 million or more = super rich. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual.
      - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
        10% of Americans are millionaires you just need to own a home
        layer8 1y ago
        Then 10% of Americans are rich, I guess.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    If we assume the wealthy own the stock market, it’s $52 trillion - enough to pay off the debt and leave $16 trillion left over - which would cover about ten years (assuming the debt service has been removed by the payoff). Whether nationalizing the entire US market would be worth it is left to the reader.
Ray20 1y ago
[flagged]
- Buttons840 1y ago
  The top 1% pay like 25% of all taxes. If we want to increase tax revenue 25%, we can just double the taxes on the top 1%. This might cause some of the top 1% to suffer the extreme suffering of being in the top 2%. What part of the math am I not understanding?
  - Ray20 1y ago
    >The top 1% pay like 25% of all taxes. If we want to increase tax revenue 25%, we can just double the taxes on the top 1%. Just look at the countries that have already done this. What share of taxes does their top 1% pay, and does that consistent with your model? Or does the reality show exactly the opposite result?
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      You'll have to tell me. It's time to make your argument, because it's not obvious.

A 99.9% wealth tax on US billionaires would cover the annual deficit for about 1.5 years. The scale of the problem is absolutely mind-blowing.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
US annual deficit/debt is a meaningless number since it just prints as much money as it needs being the world reserve currency. It's a looney toons number.
- IndubitableCoil 1y ago
  This really isn't true. I am not deficit doomer, but you can't say its meaningless. The US paid $881 billion on interest on its debt last year. This is on par with the DoD. Yes, it's still only around a tenth of the US's total budget, but it is not hard to imagine the debt going up by 10 times. With the same interest rates, we then the US will pay as much in interest as the rest of the budget combined. If the US just needs to "print as much money as it needs", there is a certain point at which it will become hyperinflationary.
  - gambiting 1y ago
    It's worth noting that it pays that interest back to itself. The risk of becoming hyperinflationary is real, but US can continue ignoring the problem pretty much indefinitely as long as other countries do their trading in US dollar.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      Other countries dump the dollar as soon the US makes credible plans to print money in order to sustain the deficit.
layer8 1y ago
I’d say that “super rich” starts well below billionaires. Not saying that the math would work out without problems then.
- AdrianB1 1y ago
  My grandpa went to prison (in Romania) in the 1950-es for being part of bourgeoise class because he fixed and ran a broken mill. He was a war refugee (from Romania to Romania) without any money, land or any other resources, but in Communist Romania running a mill would tag you as "super rich". I guess this is what you wanted to say there, correct?
  - layer8 1y ago
    I consider myself reasonably well-off but am unlikely to become even a millionaire in my life (inflation-adjusted). I’d say millionaire = rich, 10-20 million or more = super rich. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual.
    - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
      10% of Americans are millionaires you just need to own a home
      - layer8 1y ago
        Then 10% of Americans are rich, I guess.
- bombcar 1y ago
  If we assume the wealthy own the stock market, it’s $52 trillion - enough to pay off the debt and leave $16 trillion left over - which would cover about ten years (assuming the debt service has been removed by the payoff). Whether nationalizing the entire US market would be worth it is left to the reader.

Ray20 1y ago

[flagged]

Buttons840 1y ago
The top 1% pay like 25% of all taxes. If we want to increase tax revenue 25%, we can just double the taxes on the top 1%. This might cause some of the top 1% to suffer the extreme suffering of being in the top 2%. What part of the math am I not understanding?
- Ray20 1y ago
  >The top 1% pay like 25% of all taxes. If we want to increase tax revenue 25%, we can just double the taxes on the top 1%. Just look at the countries that have already done this. What share of taxes does their top 1% pay, and does that consistent with your model? Or does the reality show exactly the opposite result?
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    You'll have to tell me. It's time to make your argument, because it's not obvious.