Sure, implementing a wealth tax opens up a whole can of worms but I have yet to hear a credible argument against significantly raising the income tax on people making over ~$400k a year. Can someone explain this to me? Just sounds like greed from folks who live a charmed life already to me.
| +89 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +72 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 49 | 1h | |
| +42 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 22 | 10h | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 1d | |
| +37 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 12h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 1d | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +26 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 9 | 7h | |
| +25 | How to sound more eloquent? | 9 | 59m | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 5d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
You’re clearly not paying enough taxes if you’re asking.
I want to preface my response by saying that this is not necessarily an argument I believe.
The argument I have heard repeatedly is that a large portion of the population that makes that kind of money are those who start their own businesses and employ others. Depending on the organization’s structure the income could really be just pass through income from the business. Therefore, by increasing taxes on these individuals, you limit the ability for them to employ others and help grow the economy.
I’ll add to this argument, that the take home money made by these individuals is also trickles down to the wider economy as well. They spend money in restaurants, goods, or invest savings into startups or risky projects (primary market) more than the basic savings of a middle class individual only investing in the s&p 500 (secondary market). They don’t just take their cash and hide it from the wider society as most seem to believe.
This is also why I believe that there should be 2 different tax rates on capital gains for primary and secondary capital gains. The former actually adding value to the economy.
"Trickle-down economics" is an economic theory and/or policy initiative, not a fact. Additionally, many would argue it is not just a theory, but a failed theory.
Beyond that, the term itself is problematic and not particularly descriptive outside of media soundbites.
Many others have pointed out the folly of using the term — that no real economic model or serious school of thought stands behind what has long been a term of art at the intersection of politics and media. “I have a little bit of a hard time with the terminology and the idea of trickle-down economics,” says Wharton professor of finance Joao F. Gomes. “Although everyone in the popular press has a somewhat different characterization of what this means, this is not something we have tested or seriously theorized about as economists.”
To put it simple, when you earn 10mln USD gross and let's assume there is a universal tax rate of 10% in your country, which means that you pay 1mln USD in taxes. Then there is a guy who is getting 100k USD gross and thus paying 10k USD in taxes. You are already paying 100 times more than him, why should you pay 150 or 200 times more, if you are both getting the same benefits from the state and equal treatment.
P.S. Or you just raise the taxes and the riches just flee to a nicer jurisdiction...
One counterargument is that nothing works if government infrastructure is not there. By making that much money you are getting a larger benefit from collective infrastructure. One simple example is if you have ownership in Amazon or w/e you're using the transportation infrastructure to ship product much more than someone who just drives to work.
That's true, but Amazon or other companies pay as well as taxes. Depending on the jurisdiction there is an additional tax per kilometre/miles for a lorry transport.
yeah but nobody needs $10m a year, the marginal utility past, let’s say $500k a year, is really minimal. Making $10m a year while 1 in 5 kids in this country go hungry is kind of obscene
Lol, we’re one of the fattest countries on the planet, and obesity rates are dramatically higher in lower income communities. On top of that, there are a million government run and charitable food programs for children, every Becky or Karen seems to have started one, and we’re not even getting into free breakfast and lunches at school. Every time I see that stat I wonder where the hell all these hungry kids are.
Wait so you are not the real Lloyd ???
At some level its confiscatory. Top taxes on cash earners are north of 50% in the US today in nyc/california. How much do you want to make it?
Not to mention the marginal effects on incentives to work and questions as to whether the government is more efficient at spending that capital (leaky bucket argument) and what happens as you continue to strengthen safety nets (disincentives to work)
At every level it is confiscatory. That's kind of the point - taxes aren't voluntary. Also, don't confuse a top combined marginal tax rate with the real tax rate.
I never confuse things. You added the word combined. In any case, effective tax is 42-50% in the 400-1m income range.
Taxation is theft, aye?
You hint on an issue here that most people aren't considering. Two people making 100mill are both have the same marginal tax rate, but one could have a effective rate of 4% while the other could have one of 30%. The millionaire paying more taxes will of course think its unfair that the other millionaire is paying less taxes.
idk if this is really fair, people always want more and most people will work to provide more than the bare minimum to their families
South Dakota has no income tax but I’d rather pay 70% in taxes than live there
I do not have an issue with raising taxes on high income earners but within reason. A small percentage increase is not going to impact the spending patterns of someone who is making millions or billions of dollars per year. With that said, it might not be the best time to raise taxes on anyone, unless you want to experience the great depression part 2
I don't know about that, billionaires are profiting of this crash.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/heads-we-win-tails-you-lo…
Edit: mb, you got me, I didn’t actually read the article
Dude is this a joke they measured from mar 18 aka near the bottom of the mkt lmao. Why not jan 1? Come on you’re gonna be in finance/investing right? Use critical thinking, read bw the lines, scrutinize data, read footnotes
Yeah I’m about as lefty as this site gets and that stat is complete BS
.
I have no issue paying more in tax. Personally, I think the Canadian system I was raising in that afforded me specific opportunities is part of the reason I've been able to do what I do today. When I had severe health issues, my healthcare was free which was great, and allowed me to use capital I would have spent on solving health problems on building my first few successful companies.
My one big issue with the way taxation works though...IMO I shouldn't be taxes on funds that are being reinvested relatively quickly. It's frustrating as an entrepreneur that just wants to do bigger and better deals. I don't really spend much of my income on anything for self but I still get taxed as if I do.
Yet you're in America trying to benefit from the higher upside now? There's no free lunch you know
What exactly is wrong with that? My first few businesses were American and I've always sold to Americans because eCommerce does not work in Canada due to low pop + spread out pop across a huge amount of land.
I pay tax in both America and the US. I'm still a Canadian citizen and pay the majority of my tax dollars to the Canadian government.
Do you have anything useful to contribute or?
outside of the broader argument about how these high-earners own businesses that employ others and help enrich families - I take issue with where these tax dollars are going, the amount of essentially useless government agencies, tests, projects, etc is absolutely mind boggling and we really don't have a clue where all of this money is being funneled, or if it's even being put toward groups that actually provide any meaningful value to society
Pretty much this - the government is probably one of the most inefficient allocators of capital; nothing they do ever seems to work so what's the point of higher taxes? The only thing I'm potentially in favor of is universal/highly subsidized healthcare, because the current system is an absolute shitshow.
The US Government has literally backstopped the entire existence that allows you and everyone you know to pursue the acquisition of wealth, happiness, or whatever it is you choose to do. Through diplomacy, economic might, and military force, the US Government has used your grandparent's tax dollars, your parents' tax dollars, and your tax dollars to create a world that is relatively just, safe, and level - allowing for commerce to thrive.
It is easy to mock government. Luckily you live in a world in which you can.
There are numerous objections to higher taxes, including:
Higher taxes prevent disincentivize people from creating businesses, which create jobs.
Higher taxes are redistributive in a punitive sense, punishing the successful to benefit the less successful (and in many's view, less deserving.)
People argue over percent taxed versus dollar amount taxed.
People object to what the government is using their tax dollars for.
People object to the government's efficiency in using their tax dollars, period.
The reason is that taxation is an eternally complicated and nuanced issue in which there is no right answer. Even rational approaches that you'd think most everyone could get behind, like increasing the inheritance tax because those spoiled rich kids didn't earn that money anyhow, has unintended consequences such as sons having to sell their family farms once they inherit it from their fathers because they can't pay the tax on the assets, being asset rich but cash poor.
Now do I agree with all of those objections? Not entirely - citizens do not have a direct voice in how their tax dollars are spent and people aren't going to stop starting businesses simply because it is harder to make money - but I can certainly recognize the argument.
I think the premise of this question is pretty problematic and it gets to the heart of the debate. You’re saying along the lines of “I haven’t heard of one sound arguments for why we shouldn’t increase taxes on the wealthy”... on your end, explain why we should increase marginal taxes, other than ideas that “they should pay their fair share” or “it’s not fair” etc. The top 10% pay 90%+ of all taxes, yet I haven’t seen any objective evidence why they owe the government any more than the trillions they pay.
OP and others come in with the assumption that high earners should be taxed (objectively crazy amounts) just because they shouldn’t be allowed to have hyper-wealth, but they don’t provide any logical evidence other than “it’s not fair”. Bernie and left claim “billionaires should not exist” or “one person should not have xxx amount of money”. Why exactly? Americans of all socio-economic levels have gotten richer over the past 20-30 years on a real income basis and a purchasing power basis. If the idea is simply that they shouldn’t have that much wealth and it’s not fair, sounds more like jealousy.
On the other hand, If you still argue for increased marginal taxes because of the Bernie-Billionaire idea, why not just tax the wealthy at 80-90%? Billionaires and ultra-millionaires will still be rich, but are we trying to create an economic system where we can suck out as much as possible from our citizens until they break? Wealth creation is and always will be the what fuels America to be the innovative country it is. Can’t say that this identity will continue if we have bozos like OP running the country.
People become billionaires or ultra-millionaires at whose expense? For someone to make that much money in their lifetime, think about all of the people that, likely unintentionally and unknowingly were screwed over in the process. Think about the trail of unpaid bills for workers that Donald Trump never paid. Or the working conditions of Amazon warehouse employees. There is a large toll on society for someone to earn billions of dollars. That's why the people who generally doing good in the world aren't the richest. That's not to say people can't get rich. This is America after all. But they should recognize their toll on society and repay that through a fair, progressive tax.
At whose expense - You mean the people who consensually agreed to work for a company and be compensated a wage for it? Are you arguing that America, the world, and the people who Amazon, Apple, Uber, etc. employ are worse off now than they would be if these corporations did not exist in terms of standard of living? If not, please define this "toll" you're talking about, and whose life is worse now that Bezos hired them. If it's just the idea that hyper-rich people shouldn't exist b/c they're getting rich while employees relatively are not and that's somehow "not fair", then Idk what to tell you. Buy some Amazon stock maybe.
Also, you can make an argument that wages should increase, absurd tax loopholes should not exist, workers should have better conditions, yes, they should pay their bills... I think we can all agree on that. But that's a completely different conversation to redistribution of wealth through increasing (already very fair and progressive) tax rates. How does giving more money to the government magically make all of the aforementioned change/ the "toll" will somehow be lifted? Further, what % is considered "fair" to you?
It's interesting how you note that people who "do good" aren't the richest as if there's a market for "doing good" that people should pay for. I can confidently say that Jeff Bezos has done more "good" for society than Bernie has who got rich by exploiting tax payers for 45 years.
People always talk about taxes like "it's just your MaRGiNaL TaXeS, it's not a big deal" but what they don't realize is that it takes me MARGINAL HOURS to earn them. The extra hours I need to put into my job are very dear, indeed. It's the difference between sleeping 4-5 hours a night or 7-8. It's family time sacrificed. If taxes get raised again (yes, for me the Trump tax reforms were a tax RAISE due to SALT and mortgage interest changes), I will actively look for a different job because I just can't be squeezed any fucking tighter.
Also, $400k in California does not buy you a charmed life. I'm lucky to be in this position but it earns what I would consider a 1950's esque American lifestyle: a modest house (albeit with a gigantic mortgage), two modest cars, acceptable health and life insurance, public school for your child, retirement savings, some family vacations. We have become a nation that has lowered our expectations so much and we fight each other at the bottom like idiots.
I completely understand the Democratic Socialists when they point to what pathetic amount passes for a "living wage" nowadays and correctly point out that our parents and grandparents would be appalled if they had to go through the same thing ($1,000 per square foot housing prices in an "up and coming" neighborhood which has homeless on every corner).
I just disagree with some of their proposed solutions. We should develop tons of new affordable housing. We should reallocate horrendously allocated government money to directly help people. We should improve education and technology. I don't think anyone's going to benefit from the $400k chumps like bankers, lawyers and doctors. Where the real $$$$ is in corporations, large business owners, generational wealth... this is all getting tax-planned and siphoned outside of the country to death. Meanwhile my somewhat impressive W2 is like a giant fat pathetic dodo bird that can't run away. I get fully taxed but don't have enough to pull any tricks so I just sit here working all day and people sit around and discuss how to spend my marginal tax dollars. I'm tired.
100% agree
The two biggest problems in America are healthcare costs and housing costs. They are both totally out of control, across the board.
I'm in LA... just read this article and be depressed with me: LA has now funded 8.5K units of affordable housing through $1.2B bond
I mean, if you told me that my taxes would go up 5-10% but tomorrow we'll have the NHS or universal single payer healthcare, I would do it. I would still change my job but I would be happy to pay the marginal tax. If you tell me that my taxes are going up 5% but we're going to keep our current system, and my tax dollars are going to pay some price-gouging pharmaceutical company who is selling $1,000 insulin to keep an 80 year old going, that's fucking bullshit. Let's pull out the real stops, get Medicare to be able to aggressively negotiate prices, nationalize the essential generic medicines, I don't care. It just doesn't make any sense. Meanwhile the pharma CEO is paying fucking 15% capital gains taxes and buying art as a store of value. I'm so sick of it.
Wait $1000/sqft in an up and coming neighborhood with homeless people? That's ridiculous, are there no cheaper but safe neighborhoods near Century City?
At that point you might as well try to find a job in the South Bay or OC.
Rent is not cheap by any means but much cheaper than buying. The cap rates are laughable in this entire city. If you already "got yours" in CA aka bought housing a long time ago, you're golden. Anybody newly moving here better have some bitchin FAANG stock or something.
Neighborhoods around Century City: Century City (lol expensive AF), Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Palms, Culver City, Brentwood, Santa Monica, Venice. If you go over the hill (hello 1 hr+ commute easy), Sherman Oaks, Encino, and Studio City are still expensive at around $700-800/sqft. If you go further south it's not exactly helpful... Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach... do I want to drive 1.5 hours from Torrance in the morning (and then of course that's not exactly a great neighborhood).
Yeah, the OC, while expensive, is much more reasonable. I would 100% move to Irvine if I had the same job, and would strongly consider it even at a reduced salary.
This is the correct answer:
I'll pay more in taxes, knowing that's how the country will function. I will stand up and voice concern when I think that tax dollars are being misused, wildly allocated, and utterly squandered...
I don't really buy this bro..... the idea that nearly half a million of income gets you only a generally middle class (you're not even describing upper-middle here) in Cali is very very questionable.
Housing costs are wildly out of control tho, I wonder what needs to happen for that market to deflate some.
Stop rent control, end NIMBY laws and build like crazy, lower legal immigration and end illegal immigration.
Are you from LA? Most people commute over 1-1.5 hours to get to work, and I think he was talking about actually buying a home vs renting.
I like your post and agree with the vast majority of it, but the US gov't gets far more in taxes from individuals as a whole than corporations (https://www.cbpp.org/sources-of-federal-tax-revenue-2018).
Yes, exactly, that's the problem.
This chart from the same study is interesting: https://www.cbpp.org/sources-of-federal-tax-revenue-1945-2017
Where do you think that money comes from? Where do you think the horrendously allocated money is going? For better or worse the generation or two before us (assuming most people on this board are 22-40ish) decided that they didn't want to pay taxes, but still wanted more services and benefits from the government, so we're in a hole where we pay a ton of money for a broken system that benefits a constituency that doesn't pay for any of it. I mean, where do you propose cutting spending? It's the military or healthcare at this point.
And if you can't cut spending.... You need new revenue. Otherwise known as more taxes. Which, given the state of the vast majority of this country, who literally cannot afford to see an extra couple hundred bucks out of their paycheck every year, is coming from high earners.
I'm trying not to be John Galt here. I consider myself a liberal (Pence's not wearing a mask was the latest in dumb-fuckery from this administration).
However, we are wasting money. Yes, we are spending too much on the military (most of my family is military before this board jumps down my throat). Yes, we are spending too much on healthcare, and in a very inefficient way (our system of privatized third party insurers, strange and incomprehensible bills and deductibles to the individual, etc. is horrendous). I don't think the country should be a giant wealth transfer from the young and working to the old and dying (to save them on their healthcare costs, their housing taxes, etc.). I would rather have some of the most progressive ideals implemented (Green New Deal, free preschool -- there's $1-2k a month in a major city which depresses women's wages and careers -- / college / trade school, etc.) than prescription drugs for geriatrics and giant corporate tax loopholes. Let's not even start on inheritance and generational wealth, and all of the fun tricks you can play with trusts to avoid everything you should be paying... a fucking joke for the wealthy, impossible to avoid for the W2 professional.
Every time someone promises they're not going to cut Social Security.... umm how is it possible? Life expectancy has gone up, SS age has stayed the same. 10% of healthcare costs in the entire country of America occur in the final year of life. People just hang on, and hang on, as if they're going to live forever and the rest of us owe it to them to throw the kitchen sink, which of course drives up health insurance costs for the rest of us. The only reason we aren't willing to make the tough decisions is because the old people vote. The apathy of our young people is our own nail in our own coffin. There is not an endless supply of tax money out there and at some point we have to prioritize as a nation and stop promising everything at once.
Meanwhile, the next generation, the young generation who is supposed to be the wage earners fueling the country's progress.... can't afford a house, can't afford to have kids, can't take paid time off work. Being worked to the bone with little to show for it. Where is the answer?
I think a large concern is how the US Government spends that money it raises from increased taxes. Most people don’t believe the government spend it well. And if I may interject with an opinion, damn straight! As a non-US citizen I can safely say your government squanders your money on things like your huge defense budget. If you wanna free up some capital, address that.
To put it simply, I don't want the rich to be taxed highly because I want to be rich.
Coming from a poor background, I have pretty high ambitions for myself. If that means that I have to work 100 hour weeks to make an average of $20 an hour, I will be willing to do it. I don't understand why I should be taxed more than someone working 40 hour weeks at $20 or $25 an hour. People can reference how the money means less once you have more of it or whatever they want, but I don't think that it should matter. If I am working more and harder than my peers, I should not be getting taxed more just because I am making more money. I predict that people will reply with comments about how IB analysts are not "rich" and that the OP was referring to incomes within the 1% (500k+). However, I still don't think that it should matter as someone who is making 600k is very likely working 3x as hard as someone making 200k. I mean, high school administrators can break over 100k for an extremely cushy job while the VP in IB might have a stress induced heart attack at 30.
Might seem like a bit of a rant, but I believe in the American Dream and the ability of one to climb the societal ranks. I don't think that people should be punished more for succeeding in life.
Editing to include the fact that I also hate government waste. A buddy of mine living in a low COL city was making about $18 an hour and working 40 hours a week ($720) before coronavirus. He now got laid off and is collecting $900 a week from unemployment. What? How does this make sense to anyone?
2nd Edit: I typed this whole thing up in about 60 seconds without putting any real thought or effort into this. Synergy_or_Syzygy has a much better version.
Bravo
The issue is not that simple. People who get let go, may not get their job back for a long time or perhaps never. I would rather be working and earning $720 than be unemployed and getting $900 per week. Most people do not want to lose their jobs and collect unemployment.
It doesn't make sense. He should make more than that in his job.
When seeing a situation like this, why is your instinct immediately "unemployment is too damn high" instead of "wages are too damn low?"
Do you really think $18 an hour is too low for any job imaginable in a low COL city? Even in high COL urban cities, many liberals are only calling for $15 an hour.
In many states where a $400k+ salary is feasible, people are already paying an ~50% tax rate on each marginal dollar. That doesn’t then take into account sales taxes and property taxes.
You’re telling me these people should be paying more? Okay, I’ll listen, but at what point will people say “screw it” and stop putting in extra effort for a marginal dollar?
the problem isn’t people making $400k, the problem is Jeff Bezos and UHNWIs who don’t pay taxes
I will say, I’d literally go to war if it meant instituting a 95% Boomer wealth tax. Sorry Boomers, no second home, no giant RV, and no new boat for you!
Considering I am enjoying a better quality of life than Julius Caesar ( - the orgies), King Henry, and Egyptian Pharaohs I am pretty happy with taxes and what they do for societal utility.
What I hate about taxes is property tax. Nobody that lives outside of a property tax free state actually owns their property in my opinion. If you don't pay the government's property tax you will be foreclosed by the government. (reclaiming their land). You first have to "buy" the home from the owner and then continue to pay taxes indefinitely "paying government rent". While america has an unalienable right of possessing, developing, and disposing of property; I feel like property taxes depress this right of possession, as you cannot actually possess something if you have to continue paying someone else to use it.
Would love some input on property taxes.
That's an interesting viewpoint.
Since it was brought up earlier in this thread, I've read a lot about how the "fix" to California's incredibly high income tax rate would be to lower the state income tax and sales tax but repeal Prop 13 and raise the state property tax.
If politicians here had even the smallest of balls, they would change it so inheritance would be an event that forced re-assessment of the value of the property AT MINIMUM. If they don't do that eventually (if not already) you'll see 15-20 million dollar homes in Beverly Hills, Atherton, etc. assessed at $500k for property tax purposes because they were passed down within the family for generations after being initially purchased in the 1960/1970s.
Of course getting rid of prop 13 would be best, but there's no way that could happen with the idiot boomers that control the politics of this state.
I've tried to research areas without property taxes and have not found any yet. I totally agree. Why not have an area where people could go and not have to pay out some 2% of their property value every year, it's ridiculous.
The real question is, what is the purpose of raising taxes on the rich?
There are 2 tax rates that raise no revenue: 0% and 100%. If your purpose is to raise revenue via taxation then there is an optimum tax rate along the curve that raises the maximum amount of revenue. In other words, there is a tax rate that makes raising taxes counterproductive to the goal of raising revenue.
If your goals are not raising tax revenue but rather achieving some "moral" goal, then we simply fundamentally disagree on the purpose of the tax code.
Here's a great example on this from one of Howard Marks' memos.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes (by taxpayer decile), it would go something like this
The fist four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you're all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six? How could they divide up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that if would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to suggest the new lower amounts each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 29% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( a 22% saving). The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (a 15% saving).
The first four continued to drink for free, and the latter six were all better off than before. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the fifth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $9!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the sixth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he saved nine times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next day, the tenth man didn't show up, so the other nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is friendlier.
Link: https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/political-real…
While I am a big Howard Marks fan, I find this to be somewhat condescending and overly simplistic. Sure, there are people on the left who want to tax the wealthy as an end unto itself and don't understand percentages, but that's not the real argument here.
Smart people make complex subjects simple. Dumb people write long books with lots of psychobabble and big words explaining how capitalism leads to poverty.
You're the OP, are you not? Did you not make a moral statement by saying opposition to high taxes on high income earners is "greed"? Marks illustrates that you could easily turn around your assertion and state that those who support a heavily progressive income tax are themselves guilty of greed. They want a good or service that someone else pays for. Therefore, for some, opposition to significantly increasing taxes on higher earners could be coming from a position that greed is bad. You've stated that you think greed is bad; we agree with you that greed is bad. Now we have to determine which position is guilty of greed.
when are people going to stop shilling for billionaires. that story makes no sense.
Because they earned it... simple concept
it would take 2.8 million years on an average salary to earn what Jeff Bezos has but yes, he "totally earned it" himself instead of through worker exploitation
He provides value....
So how much money should we take away from Bezos? Half of it is still 1.4 million years. 99% of it is 28,000 years. Should we take away 99%? Picking different numbers is totally arbitrary.
Amazon has been massively beneficial for consumers everywhere. In addition, they have hundreds of thousands of employees, all or almost all of whom earn pretty decent money for their jobs. Worker exploitation is a joke - Amazon's workers are better off having jobs that pay more than minimum wage. They're also one of the only companies hiring people right now.
For the people on this site who are not revenue producers, which is the vast majority, you could argue we are exploiting our coworkers who are actually bringing in the revenue, or our suppliers' employees. We are only able to be paid by "exploiting" coworkers by not paying them the exact amount of profit they bring in.
People making over $400k per year are not “the rich”. They’re well-off no doubt, but they’re peasants compared to people worth $100+ million.
That’s the issue I have with it. Complaining that someone making $300k per year needs to pay more in taxes is asinine when there are billionaires and 100+ millionaires out there paying little to no taxes
I'm a big believer in the importance of emphasising the individual right to self-ownership, which entails the ownership of one's own labour, and the products thereof.
Taxes are necessary to fund the provision of police, courts, upholding of the rule of law, provision of a minimal welfare state (with strict safeguards in place to product against the risks of moral hazard), et cetera. But I'm against the use of taxation of one's income for anything but the provision of these essential services.
It's not fair to tax hard work.
IF there's a case where people are earning money 'unfairly' and by virtue of something other than hard work, then there is a strong case for the government to step in. But it ought not to step in by taxing this individual and all others who earn similarly to him, and instead ought to rectify the cause of these unfair earnings existing in the first place.
I am, all this being said, in favour of a mild form of a wealth tax, increased taxation of inheritance, and perhaps most of all, levelling taxes on capital gains with those of income.
Taxing income is not only the most inefficient way of taxing (you are, quite literally, disincentivising work), it's also the most unfair. Why punish people who work hard to produce goods and services that other desire and purchase voluntarily in non-coercive transactions?
(I am, in short, arguing in favour of a system of government and taxation that closely resembles what exists in Switzerland or Singapore)
I'm fairly certain wealth taxes have largely been repealed because they are unworkable and counterproductive. In the U.S. a wealth tax is almost certainly unconstitutional. So there's that...
I'd take the exact opposite position as you. If you demand a benefit, service, or good supplied by the public then you should have to pay for it. In much of the European continent, the middle class pay high taxes right along with their upper class neighbors. That's fair and just. In this country, those demanding expanded services and benefits put forth that lie that we can have a European welfare state with only a tiny slice of high-income persons paying the taxes. That's just not mathematically possible.
Capital gains, on the other hand, should be taxed as low as possible (I'd argue 0%). Why would we want to discourage capital investment, the heart and soul of any nation's economic engine? For the record, Singapore doesn't have a capital gains tax.
It’s just not fair. Why should any quality make someone have to pay more in taxes? Punishing someone for bringing more value to an economy? it’s no different than if I said “all men should be forced to pay more”. if that sounded unfair it’s because it is
So are you saying billionaires and a single mom making minimum wage should pay the same amount in taxes? This is dumbest argument that the right uses and would cause millions to go homeless and America to enter a depression as most would not be able to afford to buy basic essentials.
Et dolor eos aut et eos eaque necessitatibus. Nobis iste id blanditiis. Laboriosam veniam qui quisquam quam velit qui.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Exercitationem est omnis sed sed iusto. Sit culpa non repudiandae ut ut ipsam exercitationem. Accusamus consectetur voluptatem dolores suscipit.
Voluptatem enim saepe officiis veritatis corporis. Maxime omnis voluptas libero voluptatum corrupti. Soluta consequatur doloribus in. Architecto atque debitis dignissimos temporibus molestiae ut.
Enim et blanditiis reprehenderit et alias dolorum. Incidunt repudiandae tempore omnis praesentium. Ut in nostrum quasi. Quos minus modi consequatur et. Corrupti tenetur magnam veniam aut. Aut voluptatibus natus atque eum sit minus eveniet exercitationem.
Modi natus ratione esse aspernatur. Aliquam nesciunt autem aut necessitatibus. Neque qui ut ut sunt. Numquam maiores aspernatur temporibus eos vero dolor aut. Sed soluta dolor maxime est rerum modi dolorem ipsa.
Quasi architecto non et molestias exercitationem. Aut eos dicta est recusandae neque. Facere expedita optio cumque ab eum. Facere omnis voluptas suscipit vel nemo perferendis non. Aut sed distinctio magnam voluptate labore est. Inventore officiis nisi voluptatem ab fugit.
Nostrum amet necessitatibus aut voluptas debitis voluptate. Sed molestiae quo sit quas assumenda illum et eaque. Consequatur quia est fugit. Provident saepe quia ab sunt esse.
Eaque voluptatem facere esse mollitia ex veniam eligendi blanditiis. Unde eos et a dicta. Neque amet molestiae optio cum dolorum. A nemo consequatur est.