3 ms·

> How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share? How exactly do you propose that they pay their fair share when they literally do

> How about the rich say that 50% of the economy should pay their fair share? How exactly do you propose that they pay their fair share when they literally do not have the money or assets to do so? Are you proposing modern day slavery? Perhaps people selling their family? I'm curious what happens if you take this line of thought to it's actual conclusion.

billy99k 10mo ago
If they are only taxed at an effective rate of 3%, there is something being taxed. I don't think people should be able to vote on massive tax increase laws, if it doesn't also increase their own taxes in some way.
bensmoif 10mo ago
The solution is obvious and simple: Tax wealth not work.
- gjsman-1000 10mo ago
  Even if you were to liquidate every billionaire in America, at a 100% tax rate above $1 billion, and were able to sell the shares at current stock prices without a collapse, you would pay for the government deficit for... 3 years. Because their combined wealth, on paper, is $7T while we're running over $2T shortfalls every year. 3 years of not taking out debt, while still needing everyone else to pay current rates. Then you're back to square one. Sans billionaires and sans any major capital investment anywhere.
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    Now explain the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
welshwelsh 10mo ago
How about instead of taxes, we have a $10,000 per year subscription fee to live in society. Maybe different depending on area, like $20,000 a year to live in NYC but only $2,000 per year to live in a rural village. If you can't afford the fee that's OK, it just means you have to live outside of the developed areas and don't benefit from any services provided by the government. But you are free to set up a tent in the woods and live off the land.
- dragonmost 10mo ago
  Would this mean that a person that makes 50k/y most pay 20% of their income while a billion$ company still pays 10k? I don't think this helps with wealth inequality.
int_19h 10mo ago
Well, it depends. One possible answer is that we should make sure that everyone is wealthy enough to pay taxes by redistributing the wealth. ~

billy99k 10mo ago

If they are only taxed at an effective rate of 3%, there is something being taxed. I don't think people should be able to vote on massive tax increase laws, if it doesn't also increase their own taxes in some way.

bensmoif 10mo ago

The solution is obvious and simple: Tax wealth not work.

gjsman-1000 10mo ago
Even if you were to liquidate every billionaire in America, at a 100% tax rate above $1 billion, and were able to sell the shares at current stock prices without a collapse, you would pay for the government deficit for... 3 years. Because their combined wealth, on paper, is $7T while we're running over $2T shortfalls every year. 3 years of not taking out debt, while still needing everyone else to pay current rates. Then you're back to square one. Sans billionaires and sans any major capital investment anywhere.
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  Now explain the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

welshwelsh 10mo ago

How about instead of taxes, we have a $10,000 per year subscription fee to live in society. Maybe different depending on area, like $20,000 a year to live in NYC but only $2,000 per year to live in a rural village. If you can't afford the fee that's OK, it just means you have to live outside of the developed areas and don't benefit from any services provided by the government. But you are free to set up a tent in the woods and live off the land.

dragonmost 10mo ago
Would this mean that a person that makes 50k/y most pay 20% of their income while a billion$ company still pays 10k? I don't think this helps with wealth inequality.

int_19h 10mo ago

Well, it depends. One possible answer is that we should make sure that everyone is wealthy enough to pay taxes by redistributing the wealth. ~