patrick.net

What about legislation instead of taxes for rich. The goal is to make very rich people to share they wealth and reduce inequalities.
Instead of taxing them, where government will take money and blow it out, pursue a legislation forcing companies to pay more employee by limiting earnings for CEO and Directors.
That would be win-win. Once Switzerland tried to do it.

REpro says

That would be win-win. Once Switzerland tried to do it.

Or another reason for companies to take their business elsewhere. Let's see, I can make 10 billion a year in Chile, or 1 billion a year in the US, where should I found my company...

Heraclitusstudent says

There is no collapse: France economy continues to grow at a snail pace.
The french governments continues to do "reforms" to liberalize the economy. In Macron's case mostly on the labor rights.
In the meantime, they try to close the deficit by increasing taxes. Hence the yellow vests.

So France is your idea of a stable government working for the people? Funny, the French don't share your sentiment...

NuttBoxer says

So France is your idea of a stable government working for the people? Funny, the French don't share your sentiment...

You guys are so confused...
Do you want less taxes? Less government? Then you are on the side of Macron: he is a neo liberal that dreams of cutting the size of the government. The yellow vests are leftists who want the opposite: generous welfare for poor people, AND they also want to tax rich people like crazy.

However you put it, France is not in the same position as the US, and the direction that makes sense in France is not the one that makes sense in the US.

REpro says

Why Macron was adding this tax, well because he was looking for financing France part of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Paris Agreement

It's a pretext.
He increased taxes because the government is desperate to reduce France twin deficits, and fighting global warming happens to be something French people agree with.
Also it was never about financing anything: just penalizing people who drive a lot.

https://www.ft.com/content/53ef664c-30d6-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498

Part of the problem here is that Americans see socialism and liberalism as the same thing.

You see the difference in France: Macron is a liberal, Yellow vests are socialists/communists.

I find it interesting in France that the Establishment, which is an alliance of Liberals and Socialists, still have time to whine about a knife wielding terrorist being shot in the Middle East, while imposing great brutality on largely peaceful protesters back in France.

If you want to collect more tax from the rich, do away with tax-exempt giving to charities, religion, and foundations. For example, the vast majority of Bill Gate's stock profits will never be taxed at all because the Gates Foundation is tax exempt.

SunnyvaleCA says

If you want to collect more tax from the rich, do away with tax-exempt giving to charities, religion, and foundations. For example, the vast majority of Bill Gate's stock profits will never be taxed at all because the Gates Foundation is tax exempt.

If rich people were giving most of what they have within a few years - even 10 yrs - no one would speak of taxing the rich.
But they aren't.
And so the problem is not what they spend, but what they don't spend.
Money should circulate, not be accumulated.

OccasionalCortex says

Yes, they do. Just like you do. According to the law, that is.

Seriously? Off-shore holding, secret bank accounts, lawyers to find loopholes.

do away with tax-exempt giving to charities,

+1000

Especially since this deduction is highly abused. Donate used underwear or beat up furniture and deduct far more that what that trash is worth.

marcus says

I agree. People should only care about what's best for themselves. Thinking about what's right, just, and best for society is silly. I hope others will join me in my quest to steal money from those richer than me.

Heraclitusstudent says

SunnyvaleCA says

And so the problem is not what they spend, but what they don't spend.

Money should circulate, not be accumulated.

I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money? I think most investments basically give money to other people, who then use the money for various things. Capital investment into new businesses seems pretty good for society.

I don't claim to know how valuable to the economy and society a dollar is when spent by a typical citizen vs spent by a typical rich person is, but I suspect there's a non-trivial difference and an ideal balance. For example, capital investment into private space programs like Spacex, Blue Origin, and Virgin have dramatically reduced the cost of space access, which seems like it could really pay off and do great things for humanity in the near future. I don't think these are typical cases, but cases like these do make me question the narrative that "rich people having money is bad". If anyone has anything to say that might help quantify the value of a "rich person dollar" vs a "middle class dollar", I'd love to hear it.

Hircus says

I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?

If you think it is the same: give me all your money, I will lend it back to you at interests.
No difference, right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Hircus says

I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?

If you think it is the same: give me all your money, I will lend it back to you at interests.
No difference, right?

Uh, no. I lend you my money, you pay me interest. To afford that payment, you invest that money at a higher return than you pay me.

The pool of capital chasing returns is ridiculously large, to the point where many government bonds have negative yields.

Private space programs like Spacex are long term stuff with no returns in the foreseeable future. I guess you could call that a charitable way to spend money. This is not an investment. This brings me back to my point: either rich people should spend most of what they have on charity or luxury or <>, or they should be taxed more.

SunnyvaleCA says

If you want to collect more tax from the rich, do away with tax-exempt giving to charities, religion, and foundations. For example, the vast majority of Bill Gate's stock profits will never be taxed at all because the Gates Foundation is tax exempt.

Or in the case of Bill and Hillary, who give 1 million to the Clinton Foundation, and take the writeoff, then travel around the world on the Clinton Foundation's dime, saving themselves hundreds of thousands out of pocket.

OccasionalCortex says

As a percentage of tax revenue, the 'rich' pay waaay more than everyone else. In fact, they carry the freight.

The rich pay waaayy more DOLLARS then anyone else. We need to get off this "percentage" bullshit, because it's meaningless. The spending in the country is paid in DOLLARS not in PERCENTAGES, and the Rich pay the bulk of those dollars into the system, give it up with the crying about who pays a higher percentage:

Hircus says

I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?

Another fallacy, that the rich don't spend any money and their money isn't circulated in the economy. Where does this crazy come from??

Let’s take a look at how the average American spends their paycheck. In 2013, the average American household earned about $63,000 and thus had about $51,000 to spend after taxes, according to this data. They spent like this:

$9,004 was spent on transportation.
$6,602 was spent on food, of which $3,977 was spent on food at home and $2,625 was spent eating out.
$5,528 was spent on insurance and pensions.
$1,604 was spent on apparel.
$2,482 was spent on entertainment.
$17,148 was spent on housing.
$1,834 was spent on cash contributions.
$3,631 was spent on health care.
The remaining $3,267 was spent in other areas.

Now, let’s assume that someone brings home $1 million per year lived by the exact same percentage budget as the average American. Here’s how that person would spend their money.

$176,000 was spent on transportation.
$129,000 was spent on food, of which $78,000 was spent on food at home and $51,000 was spent eating out.
$108,000 was spent on insurance and pensions.
$31,000 was spent on apparel.
$49,000 was spent on entertainment.
$336,000 was spent on housing.
$36,000 was spent on cash contributions.
$71,000 was spent on healthcare.
The remaining $64,000 was spent in other areas.

That’s how a person bringing home a million bucks a year would spend their money if they subscribed to the exact same budget as the average American. A person prioritizing their spending like that is prioritizing in the exact same way the average American is, just with a bigger income to spend.

https://www.thesimpledollar.com/the-rich-man-the-average-budget-and-you/

Hircus says

If anyone has anything to say that might help quantify the value of a "rich person dollar" vs a "middle class dollar", I'd love to hear it.

A rich person circulates a lot MORE of their dollars into the economy and federal government, which everyone benefits from.

Fox News Hosts Are Horrified to Learn Their Own Polls Show People Want to Tax the Rich...

Ever since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reminded people that the top tax bracket in this country used to be as high as 70 percent for decades—a period during which there was still economic growth and rich people—more and more polls are showing that Americans across the political spectrum are in favor of returning to that norm.

It turns out that even Fox News can't find a way to hijack those numbers. The network's own polls, conducted at the end of January, found a staggering 70 percent of respondents supported raising taxes on annual income over $10 million. In fact, 65 percent were down for raising taxes on those making over $1 million per year.

On Tuesday, a pair of baffled anchors referred to this trend as a movement "against capitalism." It is a dubious assertion, because by that definition the U.S. has only been a capitalist country since the 1980s, when Reagan knocked the top tax rate even lower and conservatives convinced enough legislators that "a rising tide lifts all boats" was a substitute for economic policy. But in their efforts to find an explanation for why so many people are turned off by unfettered, unregulated, and unaccountable capitalism, they turn to Charles Payne of Fox Business. His explanation: Schools have brainwashed kids with lessons about "fairness."

https://www.gq.com/story/fox-news-tax-poll-fairness

Yeah... over $150K is really RICH.
How about over $1 million?

MrMagic says

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah... over $150K is really RICH.
How about over $1 million?

Did you miss my post above that one?

I have glasses if you need them.

My friend, most Americans are too pussified to revolt against taxation.

Heraclitusstudent says

The pool of capital chasing returns is ridiculously large, to the point where many government bonds have negative yields.

Private space programs like Spacex are long term stuff with no returns in the foreseeable future. I guess you could call that a charitable way to spend money. This is not an investment. This brings me back to my point: either rich people should spend most of what they have on charity or luxury or <>, or they should be taxed more.

Most investment returns are not negative. The presence of some negative rates is the result of what happens at the margin, not what happens to all the huge area leading up to that.

Lame. You understand the point, but avoid it by discounting my choice of using SpaceX as an example instead of addressing the point that investment in businesses and other things often has very positive effects.

IMO such aversion tactics are often the sign of fear.

I'd love to hear your explanation why you think rich people should spend their money on luxury instead of investing in business, infrastructure, research .... all those great things we do that are funded with capital :)

All you pro-tax/wealth re-distribution people, let me see if I understand you correctly:

* If someone is successful that's bad, they should be forced to share what they've earned.
* Socialism works, despite Venezuela, Cuba, China,the USSR, and every other attempt at it failing miserably.
* Taking money from individuals and giving it to the government will make things better, despite the fact that our government has the largest deficit in history, spends recklessly, and wages endless wars ever since 1913.

MrMagic says

$176,000 was spent on transportation.
$129,000 was spent on food, of which $78,000 was spent on food at home and $51,000 was spent eating out.
$108,000 was spent on insurance and pensions.
$31,000 was spent on apparel.
$49,000 was spent on entertainment.
$336,000 was spent on housing.
$36,000 was spent on cash contributions.
$71,000 was spent on healthcare.
The remaining $64,000 was spent in other areas.

That’s how a person bringing home a million bucks a year would spend their money if they subscribed to the exact same budget as the average American. A person prioritizing their spending like that is prioritizing in the exact same way the average American is, just with a bigger income to spend.

MrMagic says

Did you miss my post above that one?

Are you saying rich people spend their money this way?
Obviously it doesn't matter: people with that kind of revenues likely already have a large wealth, and are very likely to save huge sums, accumulating capital.
Just because they spend a lot doesn't mean they don't accumulate. The wealth of the richest people is growing fast.

NuttBoxer says

* If someone is successful that's bad, they should be forced to share what they've earned.
* Socialism works, despite Venezuela, Cuba, China,the USSR, and every other attempt at it failing miserably.
* Taking money from individuals and giving it to the government will make things better, despite the fact that our government has the largest deficit in history, spends recklessly, and wages endless wars ever since 1913.

Wow the strawmen....
No success is good, and should be rewarded by wealth. I don't subscribe to socialism.
Gov deficit:
- (1) is the source of money in circulation
- (2) can be closed by taxing back the same money, leaving plenty of wealth of successful people,
- (3) is often the source of long term sources of growth: Like infrastructures, like education, like the Internet... which was created and long financed by the government. like long term research often not done in private industry.

Hircus says

Lame. You understand the point, but avoid it by discounting my choice of using SpaceX as an example instead of addressing the point that investment in businesses and other things often has very positive effects.

IMO such aversion tactics are often the sign of fear.

I'd love to hear your explanation why you think rich people should spend their money on luxury instead of investing in business, infrastructure, research .... all those great things we do that are funded with capital :)

Investments are great. But you need to recognize a few things here:
- investment generally happens to answer end-demand: i.e. a human need, expressed in consumer demand. If consumers are starved of money, or living on debt, and spending as little as possible, then you destroy end-demand, and you destroy the need for investments in production, leaving only investments in debt financing consumption.
- So there has to be a balance. Today the fact that trillions are invested in negative yielding bonds, tells you that there is way too much capital relative to the needs for capital, and so not enough consumption.
- Furthermore, because most investments generate returns, the general tendency is that people holding some capital have exponentially growing wealth, while other people are struggling to get income from work. So the imbalance I've just described, with too much capital and not enough spending has a natural tendency to get worse and worse with time. This is why we are in a deflationary world where debts & inequalities are growing.
There aren't many way to rebalance this: either you tax the rich like crazy, or they at least accept to spend more. If they want to spend on rockets, then no objection from me. But it needs to be spent.

Heraclitusstudent says

No success is good, and should be rewarded by wealth. I don't subscribe to socialism.

If you want to re-distribute wealth from the rich, you're a socialist. If you advocated a flat tax, like sales, which already exists, then I'd believe you, but you obviously favor the ridiculously complex tiered structure we have today.

Heraclitusstudent says

Gov deficit:
- (1) is the source of money in circulation
- (2) can be closed by taxing back the same money, leaving plenty of wealth of successful people,

Wrong, the Federal Reserve is the source of of money in circulation, money that can only be created by selling bonds, thus guaranteeing that every dollar we print adds debt. This is how ALL fiat central banking systems work.

Heraclitusstudent says

- (3) is often the source of long term sources of growth: Like infrastructures, like education, like the Internet... which was created and long financed by the government. like long term research often not done in private industry.

I'm curious.. Where do you think the government GOT the money to finance these projects? They don't make any goods. Ahh, by taking it from us. So government takes, deficit grows, and that's prosperity?
Also, bullshit on only government funding long-term research. See PARC.

Note the free shit for people unwilling to work: