patrick.net

First off, I totally agree that confiscating wealth is not the answer. But taxing income that is above a level that allows for extreme luxury, freedom and legacy, is the only way you ever get the powerful to really care about how our tax revenues are spent.

Buy why top 550 billionaires ?

There are many hundreds of thousands of people and corporations with incomes over $1 Million per year, that could be taxed much higher without decreasing their wealth - only decreasing the rate at which it grows.

But it's true, that probably only makes a difference of 100s of billions per year. But as I said, it's the only way you will ever force real change.

I just think billionaires should not pay lower tax rates than people who are poorer than themselves.

Patrick says

I just think billionaires should not pay lower tax rates than people who are poorer than themselves.

There also needs to be an inheritance tax otherwise you end up with an aristocracy. That's unamerican.

True, the country was founded partly in opposition to hereditary aristocracy.

But we are headed right back that way, until the next revolution. The goal should be to prevent that revolution by making things fair for everyone now.

Hence Trump ?

Yes, unfortunately.

Since the Democrats just gave up on helping the lower 80% of the country, working people had nowhere else to go. Trump was smart enough to see the demand for someone to represent Labor.

Patrick says

should not pay lower tax rates

Agreed. But why not substantially higher rates on incomes above some level, say perhaps on income above 20 times the median income. Back in the day, CEOs only made a little more than that, and they were taxed at something like 90% of their highest increments of income. That was back when America was great !!

Patrick says

I just think billionaires should not pay lower tax rates than people who are poorer than themselves.

I agree but the biggest theft against the middle class worker. Is we can't earn interest from our money in the bank. And our Corporate laws are set up to oppress Mom and Pop operations that have no greater aspirations out of their business than to keep just one location afloat, pay their employees, have it finance their lifestyle and not lose money.

That used to be the goal of 90% of the businesses in America. Now if your business isn't growing every year, and you're not big enough to add a new location in a couple years. Then it is considered a failure and the banks, competition, and the government will do what ever it takes to get you the fuck out of the way so Buffet and Bezos can make millions your keeping them from.

Even the Progs don't realize it's those policies that made them worthy of name dropping in the Voter Booth. Nobody in America thought it would be a great life to live in the Welfare line with your hand out on the dole. Those pro middle class policies is why the Democrats are still around in the 2000's. Without them they are worthless and useless.

The Republicans always wanted to do away with the upward mobile middle class growth. The only valid cause the Democrats ever had, was they were on the Middle Class side.
Being Union workers or the Small Biz entrepreneurs and their workers.

I just don't get what taxing the Billionaires would do for you or me Patrick. We're white males there is not one single red cent of Tax revenue earmarked to make our lives better.

Where as interest rates spreads the wealth to everyone willing to put a nest egg out there. Money attracts money was the mantra when I was growing up and savings accounts were the smart thing to do. Investing in the stock market was left up to the pros, or Novice that understood how it worked. Your average 401K schmoe hasn't got a clue what he's investing in. He should just throw a dart at a chart.

Allowing billionaires to corner every market, and not fostering small business is the ailment of Capitalism right now, not tax rates.

Tenpoundbass says

And our Corporate laws are set up to oppress Mom and Pop operations that have no greater aspirations out of their business than to keep just one location afloat, pay their employees, have it finance their lifestyle and not lose money.

This is true. Big businesses hate the competition from little businesses, and so theylobby to get laws and regulations passed that they can comply with, but which cripple their smaller competitors.

There was some website dedicated to pointing out laws like that. Can't remember the name at the moment.

At the moment, the billionaires are getting absolutely everything they want: lower taxes than on poorer people, open borders to allow floods of desperate workers in to drive down wages, global markets for their products, absolute control over WaPo, NY Times, NPR, etc, which they use to have them endlessly repeat variations of the most divisive stories they can find. And anyone who complains about it is a RACIST! NAZI! HITLER! PUTIN!

marcus says

Patrick says

should not pay lower tax rates

Agreed. But why not substantially higher rates on incomes above some level, say perhaps on income above 20 times the median income. Back in the day, CEOs only made a little more than that, and they were taxed at something like 90% of their highest increments of income. That was back when America was great !!

Also true. America actually did fine with Swedish-level taxation rates on the rich. But even better, imho, would be some form of Georgism. You want to tax non-productive rent-seeking most of all. And by "rent" I don't mean what you pay your landlord, except the rent on the land itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

In public choice theory and in economics, rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth-creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline.

Attempts at capture of regulatory agencies to gain a coercive monopoly can result in advantages for the rent seeker in a market while imposing disadvantages on (incorrupt) competitors. This constitutes one of many possible forms of rent-seeking behavior.

When TPB was talking about laws that oppress small businesses, that is also a kind of rent-seeking behavior: increasing your own share of wealth without creating new wealth.

Tenpoundbass says

I just don't get what taxing the Billionaires would do for you or me Patrick.

I'm not saying to tax them to death, just that they should not get special exemption from paying tax rates that poorer people pay.

I mean, seriously, why should billionaires have lower tax rates than mere millionaires?

marcus says

First off, I totally agree that confiscating wealth is not the answer. But taxing income that is above a level that allows for extreme luxury, freedom and legacy, is the only way you ever get the powerful to really care about how our tax revenues are spent.

Guess what. They’ll just leave. It’s a big world out there. France tried the same thing with Millionaires 5-6 years ago. 12,000 of them left in the first year.

So no, socialism doesn’t work and never has worked. It’s a fools folly of follies.

What if one guy managed to get 99% of the economy under his personal ownership (looking at Bezos' future).

Is there no limit to how much one monopolist should be allowed to accumulate?

We've been here before and do have anti-monopoly laws, but they are clearly not enforced.

Patrick says

I mean, seriously, why should billionaires have lower tax rates than mere millionaires?

They don't the argument is it's disproportionately to everyone else.
When a $100K workers is taxed $30K he only has $70K left.
When a billionaire is taxed 30% he still has a measly $700 million dollars left.
So therefore the Progs want them taxed a shit ton so everyone else can be taxed a little.

It's the same old "It's not fair so-n-so is making more than me." Argument.

Patrick says

What if one guy managed to get 99% of the economy under his personal ownership (looking at Bezos' future).

Is there no limit to how much one monopolist should be allowed to accumulate?

We've been here before and do have anti-monopoly laws, but they are clearly not enforced.

People were saying this about Microsoft, then Apple, and then Google.

Competition is a great thing in America. No company can be #1 forever as long as you keep the ability to compete open and free.

Also Bezos employs over 600,000 people. They are paid higher than average wages, get health benefits and 401k matching. That is literally a large cities worth of people who don’t need to get on welfare, can spend their own money to pay rent, buy groceries, cars, electronics, and other consumer goods but most importantly they pay taxes back into the system at the federal, state, and local level.

Is Amazon really that bad? I love Amazon.

The richest people in the USA haven't enough income to be taxed to do anything to solve pay inequality, wealth inequality, nor fix the federal budget deficits and pay down the debt.

The mega rich have their wealth in things like real estate or stock equity (e.g. Jeff Bezos)

I disagree that there should even be an inheritance tax; my father for example worried about running out of money so he saved some and invested some.

The lower classes never waste a minute of their time thinking about a future beyond. next month. Why should my father's blood sweat and tears be confiscated by the government to be wasted on the giant welfare/warfare state?

Tenpoundbass says

Patrick says

I mean, seriously, why should billionaires have lower tax rates than mere millionaires?

They don't the argument is it's disproportionately to everyone else.
When a $100K workers is taxed $30K he only has $70K left.
When a billionaire is taxed 30% he still has a measly $700 million dollars left.
So therefore the Progs want them taxed a shit ton so everyone else can be taxed a little.

It's the same old "It's not fair so-n-so is making more than me." Argument.

Because Jeff Bezos has a trillion dollars doesn’t mean my life is worse off with $5 million dollars.

Redistributing money to poor people does nothing. They simply remain poor because they lack the education, discipline and motivation to do better. It would be far more useful to realign welfare to fix those problems instead of primarily focusing on EBT and section 8 type programs.

marcus says

Back in the day, CEOs only made a little more than that, and they were taxed at something like 90% of their highest increments of income. That was back when America was great !!

Above a certain tax rate, taxation becomes straight up theft by popular fiat. Does it matter then if police and FBI agents confiscate almost all ones wages or if a mob with pitchforks and torches does it?
Either way, the effect on productivity and innovation is absolutely crippling.
Would YOU work for nothing? Assuming you had enough to take care of your needs otherwise and live in luxury, would you keep working just to help government pay other people?
Doubt it.

I think the magic number is around 40%. Above that, the psychological price isn’t worth paying and your revenues actually tend to decrease because Atlas shrugs.

Patrick says

Is there no limit to how much one monopolist should be allowed to accumulate?

No but I think there should be a rigid Small Business Administration. That creates small business industry verticals, has a list of needs and niches. People with some money to invest and or needs SBA capital. Goes to those administrations, looks up the list of needs. Propose a business plan, and if you get approved you get a loan.
Future small biz hopefuls going through the same process. Would not be able to put a similar business near one that is already thriving. And some of the businesses on the list could be people who failed, and those can be taken over cheaper than starting one up from scratch.

Just look at all of the commercial and retail space that sits empty on Main Street America. Imagine if those landlords could register with the SBA and even give input on the businesses needed in the area.

I've mentioned before a modular car industry that would support a multitude of local industries all over America.

Have Cities create Corporate Zoning where fortune 500 companies can only have a McDonald's, Big Lots and the like in those areas only. Like sort of like the way they primarily limited to off the highway Shopping centers now. They came to town and killed off the businesses. Cities gentrify the depressed down town areas time and time again. Only to have Star Bucks and Papa John's to come set up shop.

My proposal would break that cycle. The Billionaires aren't taking anything from America or American's by not paying some nominal rate in taxes. They are taking much more and we're giving it to them. Just wanting to tax them more, says what they are doing is fine they should just pay more taxes. It's not fine, they have limited to no competition. So much so they don't even try for quality anymore. Their product is more about marketing hype than substance.

40 is probably too high. 30 would be more than enough. The welfare state has grown by ten times what it was in 1960 and the proportion of the population in poverty hasn’t changed much.

Why is that? If you can honestly answer that question then you would know raising taxes to support entitlements is foolish.

Tenpoundbass says

When a $100K workers is taxed $30K he only has $70K left.
When a billionaire is taxed 30% he still has a measly $700 million dollars left.

@Tenpoundbass The point is that the billionaire is never taxed 30%.

Capital gains are taxed at 15%, and most billionaire income is capital gains.

Only the $100K worker pays 30%. And he pays it on money he actually had to work for, for 40 hours a week.

At the very least the tax rates should be equal, not less for the billionaire.

The problem is productivity and wage gains have been decoupled since the 1970s. It's compounded by the fact that economic upswings no longer lead to virtuous cycles, because the manufacturing is outsourced.

Used to be: Increasing confidence, more buying of stuff, more jobs making stuff, more buying of stuff, more jobs supporting the making/buying of Stuff (retail, advertising, R&D), and so on. Until a few years went by, and then there was a bit of a pullback as people had purchased (cash, not credit) most of the things they wanted and could reasonable afford. Then the cycle would repeat.

Today: Increasing confidence, more buying of stuff, creating more jobs in China, recessions last longer and recoveries slower and weaker, esp. for the Blue Collars because there is little increase in "jobs making stuff". Only some jobs supporting the making/buying of Stuff are created in the upswing.

Patrick says

@Tenpoundbass The point is that the billionaire is never taxed 30%.

Capital gains are taxed at 15%, and most billionaire income is capital gains.

Only the $100K worker pays 30%. And he pays it on money he actually had to work for, for 40 hours a week.

At the very least the tax rates should be equal, not less for the billionaire.

+ billionaires employ armies of lawyers/lobbyists who create loopholes in tax laws, buy off politicians, hide money in Bahamas etc. Guy who earns $1M per year gets hosed, because he can not do that.

I think Billionaires should be taxed on the money they spend as if it is income. If they spend 100 million in a given year, then they owe 30 million in taxes on top of the Capital gains tax. Because technically it's not income. But if they spend their money their money made them. Then at the end of the year all of that money should be considered income. Because that's where their investments actually paid them an income. Those investments could get wiped out in one night in their sleep. Just imagine owning a considerable interest in Venezuela before they went Commie? Those guys would have lost everything.

d6rB says

+ billionaires employ armies of lawyers/lobbyists who create loopholes in tax laws, buy off politicians, hide money in Bahamas etc. Guy who earns $1M per year gets hosed, because he can not do that.

And complex entities that cost big money to set up and maintain, but pay off big over the years in tax avoidance. Something Dr. Goldberg the Surgeon can't do with $1.5M, but Ramesh Gupta the Indian Steel Magnate with $500M could do.

Tenpoundbass says

I agree but the biggest theft against the middle class worker. Is we can't earn interest from our money in the bank. And our Corporate laws are set up to oppress Mom and Pop operations that have no greater aspirations out of their business than to keep just one location afloat, pay their employees, have it finance their lifestyle and not lose money.

That used to be the goal of 90% of the businesses in America. Now if your business isn't growing every year, and you're not big enough to add a new location in a couple years. Then it is considered a failure and the banks, competition, and the government will do what ever it takes to get you the fuck out of the way so Buffet and Bezos can make millions your keeping them from.

MisterLearnToCode says

And complex entities that cost big money to set up and maintain, but pay off big over the years in tax avoidance. Something Dr. Goldberg the Surgeon can't do with $1.5M, but Ramesh Gupta the Indian Steel Magnate with $500M could do.

Both make excellent points. That's why the more regulation and the higher the nominal tax rates, will result in more concentration of wealth as well as the more wealth polarization. The most effective competition to a Billionaire is not an average household with $80k net-worth but someone with $10-$100mil capital that has a good new idea about how business can be run, or a product/service, and can be implemented then sold to the average household to save a few hundred dollars each! High regulations and high nominal taxation rates get in the way of new challengers . . . that's the real reason why wealth inequality has gotten worse as government bureaucracy grows . . . and the real reason why all those clowns are coming out of the wood works advocating higher taxes! Those commie clowns are always sponsored by big monopolists! trying to kneecap new competition.

Private sector spending their own money would seek out efficient new solutions . . . whereas government bureaucrats spending tax money would benefit little from saving money but risk their cushy positions and pension if the new solution is no good . . . so government spending money instead of private sector spending money (i.e. either by taxation or by deficit) would automatically entrench existing big monopolists at the expense of new competition . . . thereby exacerbate wealth inequality. On top of that, privilege breeds corruption. That's why every socialist country always develops into a situation where a few billionaires lord over a sea of starving population (e.g. North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela)

Goran_K says

Redistributing money to poor people does nothing. They simply remain poor because they lack the education, discipline and motivation to do better. It would be far more useful to realign welfare to fix those problems instead of primarily focusing on EBT and section 8 type programs.

Good points. The reality is even harsher than that: people are not born genetically identical. Welfare programs like EBT and section 8 actually perpetrate poverty by encouraging the incompetent to breed more at the expense of taxpaying middle class.

Patrick says

I'm not saying to tax them to death, just that they should not get special exemption from paying tax rates that poorer people pay.

I mean, seriously, why should billionaires have lower tax rates than mere millionaires?

You're still stuck on this whole "percentage" thing, instead of dollars paid in taxes. TPB explained once, but here it is again. I pointed this out in the other thread, but you disappeared.

The bottom line, bills are paid with dollars NOT percentages, and the RICH pay BIG dollars in taxes every year. Trying to make a case based on "percentages" is just crazy talk again:



High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2013, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,841) earned 11.49 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $34 billion in taxes, or 2.78 percent of all income taxes in 2013.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $465 billion, or 37.80 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $372 billion, or 30.20 percent of all income taxes.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/

Reality says

Goran_K says

Redistributing money to poor people does nothing. They simply remain poor because they lack the education, discipline and motivation to do better. It would be far more useful to realign welfare to fix those problems instead of primarily focusing on EBT and section 8 type programs.

Good points. The reality is even harsher than that: people are not born genetically identical. Welfare programs like EBT and section 8 actually perpetrate poverty by encouraging the incompetent to breed more at the expense of taxpaying middle class.

1. Graduating high school.
2. Getting a job.
3. Being married before kids.

The 3 life choices above are the top indicators for whether an individual in the US over the past 5 decades has stayed poor or gone on to become “upper middle class”.

If you can’t come up with $400 in an emergency as an employed adult, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

When I was in college as a part time math and essay writing tutor, I had more than $400 saved up.

HEYYOU says

Further, Dalio points to a survey by the Federal Reserve showing that 40 percent of adults can’t come up with $400 in the case of an emergency. “It gives you an idea of what the polarity is,” Dalio said. “That’s a real world. That’s an issue.”

Wonder how the clusterfuck will work out this time? Are the rich getting scared?
Flaunting one's wealth is not a great idea when the majority feels the rich have taken advantage of the poor.
No right or wrong just: "We will be taking what you have,over your dead body if necessary,or you can SURRENDER IT NOW!"

LOL! Ray Dalio speaking as the head of the hedge fund housing numerous public employee pension funds.

In case it's not obvious, 40% adults have become so poor precisely because all those gaggles of rent-seekers working for various governments with their oversized wages doubling private sector wages and massive pensions that rise into 6-figures per year in retirement. Such high pay-off all for doing what? Aimlessly pushing papers and never taking any risk in their entire careers.

Given the secrecy of Bridgewater and the publicity-hound tendency of Dalio in the last couple years, it wouldn't surprise me if that thing blows up in the next major market down turn.

More and more I'm convinced a top problem lies in Single Motherhood, enabled by Welfare and Section 8.

That was what made the mild Welfare State untenable, and caused it's explosion.

Before, Welfare was really for families down on their luck, and widows. Now we are basically subsidizing Hobags to churn out psychopaths and more hobags they have with ex-cons.

We need to have a two tier system: Mild foodstamps and assistance (inc. mandatory job placement) for two-parent families and widows. Single Mothers get dorms, curfews, and other controls on their behavior in a relatively unpleasant environment.

Single Motherhood is literally the #1 Social and Economic Ill, but as American Males we are too cucked to insist it disappear. What is Red gonna do? Shriek alot? Get earplugs and flip her the bird. If we don't stand up to the Harridans, we'll wind up with Imams.

I think it is an incredibly winning issue, and one that would have a surprisingly large number of childless Coastal Single Females voting for it as well (because they're anti-natal)

By the way, big Wall Street Companies administer many Food Stamp and Cash Benefit Programs across the states and profit by it. As do Cornfed Carb Cow Fattening Companies (ADM, Cargill) with cheap fructose corn syrup and soy products sold as "Snacks".

I'd say it's One-sided Fake Free Trade, Open Borders, and Single Motherhood in order of severity.

What Marcus and some of the same political ilk have not brought up is that all the top 10% needs to be examined, not just the top 5% and top 1%.

When the Left examines how many make $200,000 to $400,000 there are opportunities to raise taxes there to realize a large increase in tax revenue.

MisterLearnToCode says

I'd say it's One-sided Fake Free Trade, Open Borders, and Single Motherhood in order of severity.

If those things were corrected they would have a snowball effect and positively change many of the things wrong in our country. Globalists want us dumbed down easily controlled so just expect those things to get worse.

You guys really don’t get it. Someone ALWAYS wants the power. If it’s not the rich it will be the politicians. If not the politicians, then the military.

I’m not proposing a solution because there isn’t one. A fair shake and gun ownership is as close as it gets.

Bruce Springsteen understood. Not sure why the rest of you dont. Poor man wants to be rich, rich man wants to be king, the king ain’t satisfied till he rules everything...find the guy that doesn’t want to rule the world and you have humanities savior. Pretty sure President Trump doesn’t give a fuck if he gets the boot from office, so maybe there’s your answer

www.youtube.com/embed/f3cecpC75vw

AD says

What Marcus and some of the same political ilk have not brought up is that all the top 10% needs to be examined, not just the top 5% and top 1%.

When the Left examines how many make $200,000 to $400,000 there are opportunities to raise taxes there to realize a large increase in tax revenue.

Wouldn't surprise me if that's the real intent of all the tax-raising talk. In any case, that would be the result: those making $80k to $1M would see their taxes go up significantly. People making more than that can afford fancy tax-avoidance devices or move. The raising of taxes on the upper-middle class would of course be a disaster: almost all new technology products: from smart phone to fax machine to personal computer to CD player to even the video tape player had to be adopted by the "rich" and upper middle class when they cost multiple thousands of dollars when newly invented, before economy of scale made them cheaper and affordable to everyone. Government bureaucrats spending taxpayer money would never spend money on the early development of new products beneficial to consumers. Instead they would continue to fund Main-frame computers, just like Japanese bureaucrats and Soviet bureaucrats did . . . because there wouldn't be incentive to make breakthrough innovations or getting those breakthrough changes funded in a bureaucratic system.

CovfefeButDeadly says

You guys really don’t get it. Someone ALWAYS wants the power. If it’s not the rich it will be the politicians. If not the politicians, then the military.

I’m not proposing a solution because there isn’t one.

There actually is one: sound money. Money was invented to check unbridled power (as in changing society from mutual looting to mutually willing exchanges).

Unfortunately, "education" (especially funded by government) has a tendency of depriving youths of the first-hand experience necessary in learning how to coax a customer into willingly paying for something . . . instead the students are taught the superstition of the omnipotent government-god entitled to looting in the name of "taxation." The result of those "over-educated" / poorly-brainwashed society is rampant corruption and then massive societal upheaval.

The reason 2.5 Trillion would only run the government for 8 months is because the money is fiat.

And lots of money in one hand is not the same as the same amount in many hands. There are certain games of poker which you just cannot join unless you have the 500,000 in chips required to get you to the table.

The talk of rich and poor and fairness in taxation is meaningless. A “rich” man can have a billion dollar loss in corporate bankruptcies and still say he’s never been bankrupt.

The equivalent percentage of an average man’s wealth would offer him no such advantage. His debt cannot be used as a bond sale that he benefits from in some off-hand way - and no fair tax percentage would eliminate the loopholes.

It comes down to the mountain of debt. It cannot be forgiven. There are too many split debt obligations relying on the existence of the mountain. Too many chalet’s and ski resorts built on its slopes.

And then there’s the fact that to be a billionaire, one would have to be a sociopath or an asshole.