2815

This is an interesting argument for why property taxes are different, in that essentially you’re saying that unless you’re willing to keep paying for that property, it should go to someone who is, as its a limited commodity.

Ultimately though, I don’t really have a problem paying property taxes, even though they go towards things that I don’t use directly, as I believe they have some indirect benefit to me.

But it does strike me as somewhat different than taxing me for say, my car. Or my TV. Or money in my bank account.

Because I bought that stuff with money that I already paid a tax on. I don’t have a problem paying income taxes, and I paid them when I got my salary. And then when I bought stuff, I paid taxes again in the form of sales tax… but it seems kind of crappy for me to continue to pay taxes on that stuff forever.

While I understand that, I guess I have a problem with the concept in this case, and think that it’s wrong even if it’s only applied to other people and not myself.

Like, if someone was shooting other people in the head, I’d still think it was wrong, even if he wasn’t shooting ME in the head.

Eh, maybe, but we’ve had way richer people in the past than we have today, and they didn’t destroy the world.

Someone like Andrew Carnegie, for instance, in today’s dollars, would have been valued at somewhere around $350 billion. Rockerfeller would have been worth around $400 billion.

2816

Let me see if I understand what you have proposed. As I read it, you are saying that both of these people should be paying the same amount in taxes, namely $2590, and that it would take 50k in stock trades to produce that amount of taxation for the super wealthy guy? And somehow that’s the equivalent of the 2590 that the guy making 50k pays? Really? People with 50 million should pay the same amount in taxes as people making 50k? That’s what you think is their fair share?

2590 is about 5% of 50k. 2.5 million is 5% of 50 million. That sounds closer to fair, but is not what I would propose for a wealth tax.

2817

I’m mostly on board with you conceptually, but here’s where I think we diverge: The concept is sound, but the results have come up short. I would very much like taxation by action to be sufficient to keep things running at our expected level, but I also think that’s not happening so we have to do some things that are conceptually weak in the abstract but financially powerful in the execution.

2818

I believe that if we are talking about a rich guy, he’d only be selling around 13k in stock (or rather, realize 13k in gains) in order to pay as much as the guy earning $50k would pay in income taxes, wouldn’t he?

2819

You said that “People who make $50k a year already pay their fair share”, which means that you’re specifically talking about income tax, and I pointed out that someone with $50 million in investments will generally be paying the same income tax on cashing out $50k of investments (although he will probably pay more). So as far as income taxes go, they are both paying their fair share.

Instead of asking me what I think is “their fair share”, why don’t you tell me how you define it? How can you determine mathematically who is paying “their fair share” and who isn’t?

2820

I’m not sure how all of the standard deductions and everything work out if you just have capital gains income. But yes, he is probably paying a higher tax rate on long-term capital gains.

2821

Here’s an idea. Tax everyone based on a percentage of their wealth, period, including income. Get rid of the income tax entirely. Have a floor and make it progressive. Then everyone is paying, not just the worker bees.

2822

I feel like the problem isn’t “we aren’t taxing wealth”, but rather that other aspects of the tax law are just hosed, such that rich people are paying a lower rate on their income than poorer people.

There are all kinds of special rules that allow them to not pay taxes on income if they are spending money in special ways that rich people spend money… which is kind of bullshit. The government shouldn’t really be choosing how we spend our money, and rewarding us… especially when the rich people are deciding what gets rewarded.

Also, I think that while I’m not really a fan of wealth taxes, I am a fan of dramatically increasing estate taxes. If you get handed a ton of money, that’s income. You can pay taxes on it just like anyone else.

2823

But taking five percent of wealth from a minimum-wage worker is functionally different from taking five percent of wealth from a billionaire. It’s not shooting both people in the head. It’s breaking the worker’s arm and lightly caressing the billionaire.

2824

Agreed although I think actually taxing income without various avoidance schemes and loopholes would work just as well after a short introductory phase.

2825

I just don’t think it’s ok to take that stuff from either of them, since they already paid taxes on their income that led to that wealth. Their wealth is the left over stuff, after they’ve already been taxed.

If you want more of their money, then just tax them more on their income (or remove the ways that allow them to hide their income).

2826

A fair share is different for someone who makes 20k a year, 250k a year, and one who has 500 million in investments but makes nothing in income.

2827

Again, same concept but a little different. Rich people absolutely pay more tax on their income, it’s just what they consider, and the IRS considers, “Income” is fucked. There’s really two threads here, what is income, and what is wealth? It’s not as fuzzy and easy as the argument seems, my wealth and my income are very different things. A pretty rich person’s wealth and income have much blurrier lines.

2828

But there should be a way to calculate it, right? You seem to have a clear idea when people are or aren’t paying their fair share, so there should be an objective way to define that.

2829

Eh, at that reductive a level, we’re already there. The minimum wage earner has no wealth and we’ve set minimum guidelines for taxation on income period, so they are effectively paying very little to nothing. Not that that’s a bad thing, it’s a good thing because they need help to try and start building wealth.

2830

Which would be, again, going back to the original discussion talking about Warren/Sanders thresholds of wealth tax. We covered this. Like, five posts was all it took.

2831

I think I generally agree, but I also think it’s easier to get broader popular support for a wealth tax on obscene wealth than for closing a bunch of tax loopholes, even if it roughly comes out the same.

2832

I think there’s also something else that rubs me the wrong way about this, which is the idea that it’s ok to take some folks’ wealth, not just their income, because they’re really rich.

I would suspect that everyone in this thread is among the top 10% richest humans that have ever lived. Should we all have our wealth taken away, to reduce the inequality between us and the literal billions of people who have basically nothing at all by comparison?

I feel like most folks here would say, “Oh, well, no… not MY stuff.”

2833

But it doesn’t. Income among the wealthy has very little to do with their actual wealth. Jeff Bezos probably has an income of a few million dollars a year compared to his quarter-billion wealth.

2834

And that’s full circle, I think I kicked this off by objecting to “tax unrealized capital gains” which effectively means “fuck your retirement prole!” We moved beyond that very quickly, but then sank back in.