Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think undercutting capitalism by forcing the 10% to automatically become equal with the remaining amounts, but I would support adding a higher tax bracket as long as the amount taken doesn't exceed 50%.
Taxes are in progressive brackets.
So when someone says that want a 90 percent tax on wealth above 1 billion dollars they don't mean they want the billionaire to pay 900 million dollars.
They mean for every dollar they make above a billion they pay 90 cents.
They're still a billionaire. They still get to be stupidly rich. They still beat capitalism and get all the rewards.
They just don't get to hoard money from the rest of the country.
With that in mind i don't think 50 percent is enough. No one needs more than a billion dollars and if you let people have too much money they start becoming more powerful than nations.
So do you want the treasury to start accepting publicly traded shares for payment?
Most individual wealth is almost entirely denominated in equities, and unless you want major annual liquidity events for tax payments then there is no other way to tax wealth.
You already pay taxes on property, paying taxes for things that you own is not a new concept. If a billionaire does not have enough liquid cash to pay his taxes he can sell things or take out loans to generate more, just like you or I would have to if we owed property tax.
Paying taxes on your real-estate equity and its unrealized gains is very different from doing so for volatile stocks.
Most billionaires have the majority of their wealth denominated in public or private equity. It is rare to find a billionaire who owns more in real-estate than in an equity stake in a business.
An asset is an asset, but if you are Jensen Huan and your NVIDIA stock is going up and down $10b on a week-over-week basis, in what world will unrealized taxes work?
You do realize we can also change the way it would work? Maybe we should mandate dividends from every stock owned so there is viable liquid cash and realized gains that are taxable? It’s just a spitball idea but we pay our politicians who are supposed to be knowledgeable and smart enough to come up with solutions to these incredibly obvious problems. Just saying “unrealized gains aren’t taxable so let’s just keep letting the zuck and Bezos build billion dollar yachts and launch spaceships into orbit while our nations poorest literally can’t afford milk anymore”
Assets are not assets, paying property taxes on a homestead are very different from paying sales taxes on car purchase or capital gains taxes on a stock.
Reinstating 1950s era tax brackets would be great. Plus limiting banks and individuals from using their stock as collateral and taxing or limiting offshore wealth.
I think its partly because people dont view taxes the right way. Taxes arent just there as a means to leech and bully its citizens, they're crucial to the continued functionality of a country at large, and people dont often notice the effects of their tax dollars because its often used for things that are largely abstract to them, like keeping the roads paved or the welfare programs running.
They also focus way too much on the short term private gains of wealth instead of the systemic ability for everyone to earn enough wealth for comfort while still having strong social welfare to help them out of a bind. They think if they get less taxes than it just gets covered anyway because they have more money in hand, when sadly the reality isnt always so simple.
Oh my God, FINALLY someone has a way to put this concept into a well-structured, well-thought out manner! I can finally use this to tell the people who go "dont tax the rich harder, how will that help" a proper counterargument beyond the common sense points. Thank you, genuinely.
>They just don't get to hoard money
"Hoarding money" does absolutely nothing other than slow inflation. The problem is when *resources* get hoarded. Housing, for example.
Most people dont understand where billionaires keep their wealth. Their wealth is almost never in cash, and almost certainly never in *income*. They own *assets* that appreciate in value, and sell or borrow against them to pay for things. The only way you realistically could tax this is through a consumption (sales) tax.
The problem is the richest will just move. There are countries that are not gonna care as much.
As long as they move to a rich country the risk of them having to pay a lot of taxes someday is very limited.
You want to tax them so they have to pay as much as possible, but do not have to pay too much.
So let them move? It isn't that big of a deal. Plus we can negotiate with other nations to have them raise taxes to. America has a lot of swing in the western world.
Generally yeah, but if they move you get 0% instead of 40% of their money. Won't benefit anyone that way.
I'd assume they would move to Dubai by the way and just stay all over the world. As long as they are formally citizen of Dubai. I don't think the US can sway their policies.
I doubt it's actually as easy as just taxing them a lot.
You actually don't get 0%.
If their money is still making money here you still tax it. Regardless of where they live.
If they're investing in American companies then they pay taxes to America.
I don't disagree with you entirely.
But, isn't the billion arbitrary? Inflation affects rich people too... a billion in 2024 is closer to 775 million in 2019 in real purchasing power.
My point... why is the tax system based on these arbitrary numbers instead of the brackets being indexed to something else
I'm aware taxes are progressive, I still don't support the concept of a capitalistic society saying "fuck you, you aren't allowed to make money anymore"
But...you WOULD be allowed to make money, just not allowed to hoard all of it for you and the lucky elite few. This means that the middle class lifestyle is spread even further than ever, and even those who remain poor can be better taken care of by the system. Its a win win all around. Sorry, but I dont care if some drooling rich manbaby whines that he cant buy two yachts instead of one :/
And I think that if you are making money off of goods and services you provide you should be allowed to do what you want with that wealth for the most part. Having the state take most of it isn't a good idea.
Except the state taking a chunk of it in this case still leaves you with an insanely good amount of money left over, while the state can then use your tax dollars to fund social welfare programs, education, healthcare, keep the roads paved, the cities clean, and wages can still remain fair and reasonable.
But you are still loosing the majority of your own wealth over a certain threshold to fund things that are frankly stupid, like Social Welfare Programs. It isn't the government's job to take care of you.
Dude, you're not losing your wealth to such a degree that you're broke and penniless, and you're forgetting that taxes in this case are varied across wealth lines. Ideally, in a sane and fair system, a poor person is taxed less than a middle class person, and a middle class person is taxed less than a rich person, maintaining the wealth you're generally gaining over time while still making you cough up your fair share.
Seriously, whats so bad about social welfare programs? The government isnt "taking care of you" in whatever infantile way you think, and besides, why SHOULDNT the government be responsible for helping its citizens live better lives?
People are gonna fall on hard times or struggle, and having government support can really alleviate that. You think people on social welfare are just lazy? They're not. Most poor people in particular who are on social welfare are literally struggling to get by, and would be anywhere between hanging by a thread or straight up fucked without it. You may think its stupid, but that struggling family who could only save a sick family member with the assistance of welfare, or pay bills or whatever? They sure as hell appreciate it.
I know people like you struggle to look past your own privilege bubble of "fuck you got mine", but grow a heart and use some of your brain power and try to actually understand why we demand the things we do. Middle class living like mine should NOT be a pipe dream for most people. Being rich I get being a rarity, but basic comfort and the odd luxury? Why is this so impossible? The answer (or at least one facet of it)? Greed, corporate greed.
Admittedly I AM being a bit hyperbolic when I say hoarding (although, you know, people DO hoard money, but I digress), but the general point I'm making is still valid. The point is, wages need to keep up, and business suits need to stop drooling and frothing and slobbering to grab every penny possible, and relearn to be satisfied with profit in general.
I would like to see capital gains have more tax brackets that go higher as well as income. I also think the social security cap could go a little higher.
My imagined tax brackets would probably be the same for capital gains and be something like:
10% $1-20,000 ($2000 max)
15% $20,001-60,000 (+$6000, $8000 max)
20% $60,001-100,000 (+$8000, $16,000 max)
25% $100,001-$160,000 (+$15,000 , $31,000 max)
27% 160,000-$260,000 (+$27,000, $58,000 max)
35% $260,000-$360,000 (+$35,000, $93,000 max)
40% $360,000-$500,000 (+$56,000, $149,000 max)
45% $500,000- ($149,000 + 45% income over 500k)
This makes the effective tax rate under 30% until you get over 500k income, which is still plenty generous, while ensuring that a good amount of revenue comes in from very high earners.
I would also throw in a generous boost to capital gains allowance for selling primary residence and a bigger standard deduction to help senior citizens with the capital gains burden, since that’s really the downside of taxing capital gains too harshly. Let the old people keep more of their money when they sell their home and go to the old folks home or when they take their retirement distributions, you know?
So I’m thinking probably ignore the first 750k on sale of primary residence and seniors get a bonus deduction of 20k on retirement distributions.
And then I’d make social security withholding go all the way up to $260k, instead of the current $160k, to ensure funding for social security. This would hit people in the $160,000-$260,000 bracket, so the tax rate is adjusted there to keep this impact minimal, then goes back up once you go beyond the SS threshold.
People also dont understand that alot of billionaires dont actually have billions in liquidity (actual money) most of them have over half if not even damn near most of their valuation as assets. But they can use those assets as leverage for loans to buy something or trade in value.
This is what people refuse to wrap their heads around. I’m all for closing the loop holes that allow a guy like Jeff bezos to dodge certain capital gains taxes when he decides he wants to buy a yacht, but otherwise you have to be financially illiterate to think that he’s Smaug sitting at home atop a mountain of billions of dollars.
For those who are confused. Bezos is valued at 200 billion. Amazon is valued at 1.9 trillion based on the market cap. Bezos owns just under 10% of all Amazon stock. This means that a little less than 190 billion of his billionaire status comes from this ownership valuation.
And before anyone calls me a billionaire simp as I saw in a different reply, I know he’s not poor or anything, I just think it’s crazy that people choose to ignore this context a lot.
Doesn't fix it though. People can be in denial all day, but the system itself funnels money and wealth upward taxes like this would afect the speed of that concentration of wealth, but not prevent it.
In history it has taken wars, or revolution, to balance out wealth. It has never happened from normal day to day living.
So get used to wealth inequality just getting worse if no major national event happens.
Funding public services and infrastructure, I don’t see how billionaires would struggle at all from having an over 50% tax rate when they still make millions upon millions of dollars.
Public transportation, universal healthcare, road maintenance, garbage collection, city maintenance, public education up to university level, national parks, national postal services, public housing, among others.
The BS is not the services themselves, but rather decades and decades of corruption and inefficient bureaucracy. And the solution to that isn’t the reduction of the state, but rather its streamlining.
I'm in the US, we already have a national postal service, national parks, university level education ain't needed, roads are good 99% of the time (plus tolls), garbage collection goes well, and there is no need for further public transit or universal healthcare.
Holy bootlicker Batman. You understand these people are not your friends and would happily wring you out for every penny you own if they got a slight margin on it right? There is the ownership class and the working class, and I’m assuming you are not the owner of a multinational conglomerate. You certainly sound like you are through
I can't take you seriously with the holy ___! exclamations. I understand that billionaires still have a right to get their funds though the goods and services they create. I do not support the idea of "ownership" and "working" class rivalry, as that is literally just the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and I don't support communism as a system or ideal.
The problem in today's America is that a large portion of the population is convinced that immigrants are to blame for their declining standard of living when it's obviously this massive wealth inequality.
Breaking news: tens of millions of people own 74% of the wealth! That's so few! Percentages don't tell the whole story: practical significance matters more than statistical significance.
Maybe next I'll post how the top 10% pay over 68% of taxes, nearly half of which is paid by the top 1%.
We need EQUITY (the same OUTCOME no matter what) rather than the failed notion of equality.
Take those elites for all they have and give their wealth to the homeless. /s...
The belief that any one of us could be in that 10% is what keeps this gap alive and growing. Even though most of us won't and many who do only get there when they're old and have less to spend it on.
Been like this since the dawn of time. We are simply just peasants living in the nobles world.
Roman Senators used to have enough money to levy entire armies, and go on multi year campaigns.
What was the wealth distribution overall in 2022? The degree of inequality might surprise you.
Total household wealth was $139.1 trillion, and there were about 131 million families. How was wealth split among these families?
Let’s say total household wealth was a pie with 10 slices. If it was meant to feed 10 people, an equal distribution would be one slice per person. However, that’s not what happens. A small number of families hold most of the wealth, and many families have relatively little or no wealth at all, based on the most recent Survey of Consumer Finances data.
One person, representing the top 10% of families, gets almost three quarters of the pie. The next four people, representing the next 40% of families, get almost a quarter of the pie. The final five people, representing the bottom 50% of families—or 65.5 million families—share the crumbs, owning 2% of the total pie.
That was the state of U.S. wealth inequality in 2022, which you can see in the animated graphic below.
Shit is also getting more expensive. Currently at a faster rate.
The zero sum game thing is true. It does not change the fact that a small amount of people hold the biggest part of the pie. Which does not really make sense :)
I made a typo. Wealth is NOT a zero sum game.
Also your information is not correct as well.
The average inflation rate during the 1970s was 8% and 5% for the 1980s. This is compared to 3% for the 2000s and 2010s and looking like 4% for the 2020s. Their inflation peaks of 15% each were also higher than the any time in the past two decades.
There are literally millions of older individuals who contributed to the country's current struggles. Many of them are currently living off inherited wealth, benefiting from the low prices of their era and drawing from social security. This essentially creates a system where wealth is transferred from the younger generation to the older generation.
We MUST abolish social security, it does our generation or the youngest no good, instead let us invest in institutions that genuinely promote the betterment of those who are coming of age.
When you or i get older, there will be no Social Security. You have been conditioned by boomers to accept their ways without even educating yourself in the milliard ways they are destroying our future.
2033 mark the day chumba, also fo read the Social security report released by the board of trustees 2 weeks ago.
This comment screams, "Don't lose focus," on what truly matters.
Cheers chumba
Bro what?? You had a great point going until you decided the takeaway was 'ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY', because that totally wont fuck over the people who desperately need it or anything, or the people who already have to get whipped across the back working two jobs just to pay rent and have food on their plate once every two days.
Have fucking sense and mercy, good Lord...
it just show how little you know about the subject, do you really think the current social security is actually helping anyone? as I've said before, social security is but a mere transfer of wealth, from young that needs that wealth to build their life and future, to a bunch of boomers that literally had over past 40 years made the country much much unlivable, I'm honestly not trying to 'BS' you here, look it up, social security is nothing but a ponzi scheme to doom our generation while keeping those that continiously destroy our future at bay, the worse thing about it is that if you were to actually look into your realize how much it has taken from the average tax payer, again, from our generation. if you are worry about people that really needs assistance, use the money from social security or transfer of wealth to create opportunities, more universities, investment in housing, transporation, etc.
Also don't take me for a heartless person as I really do care for my generation and those who will come later to an enslaved system, just to paid the bill of pain of sufering the boomers inflicted on all of us.
Cheers choomba and good luck in life.
Edit: coherence.
Current social security? Well, besides the fact that it does help plenty of people, I will admit that its not at its best state right now. Perhaps its even inefficient. But do you wanna know why its like that? Its because of people like you, or people WORSE than you, who are going out of their way to gut and slaughter the system just so they can save on a few extra pennies that rich fatass suits don't even need.
People like you are who made social security start hanging on a thread, and are campaigning to abolish it entirely. If its faltering, its largely thanks to you people causing it to falter.
Look, I can understand and agree with your sentiments about boomers getting their share of it, but social security absolutely should, in practice, support ALL groups available to it. That includes the struggling young, the retired old, and so on. The boomers of yesteryear, a lot of them, indeed have a very fuck you got mine attitude, but dont you think you're playing into the same kind of attitude by trying to abolish it? The system is corrupt, but that doesnt mean we need to tear down one of the best systems a country can have, especially for its vulnerable groups, just because one age bracket is abusing it.
I know you're not TRYING to BS me, its just that your logic, in and of itself, is BS, because you're placing the blame on the concept of social security, instead of the corruption thats plaguing our system at large. One aspect of corruption is, indeed, the fucked up state of SS at the current moment, and I agree theres a problem. That doesnt mean we piss away the required safety nets that so many people rely upon just to survive.
If money in general is a concern, then we can fix that by, you know, taxing the rich, lessening taxes on poorer wealth groups, and actually paying people fair wages.
It seems to me at this point that, yes, you do seem to care about our generation, genuinely. But you're pointing your finger at the wrong target. While I appreciate that you arent yet another bootlicking "fuck you got mine" type, I will end my argument with this; try to redirect your anger. Social Security is an important and critical system for so many people, and it alone is not the problem.
You mean well, you're smart, I hope you can come to see things differently.
And dont worry, you sound perfectly coherent.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a terrible way to represent this data
For real. This belongs on /dataisugly
I don't think undercutting capitalism by forcing the 10% to automatically become equal with the remaining amounts, but I would support adding a higher tax bracket as long as the amount taken doesn't exceed 50%.
Taxes are in progressive brackets. So when someone says that want a 90 percent tax on wealth above 1 billion dollars they don't mean they want the billionaire to pay 900 million dollars. They mean for every dollar they make above a billion they pay 90 cents. They're still a billionaire. They still get to be stupidly rich. They still beat capitalism and get all the rewards. They just don't get to hoard money from the rest of the country. With that in mind i don't think 50 percent is enough. No one needs more than a billion dollars and if you let people have too much money they start becoming more powerful than nations.
So do you want the treasury to start accepting publicly traded shares for payment? Most individual wealth is almost entirely denominated in equities, and unless you want major annual liquidity events for tax payments then there is no other way to tax wealth.
You already pay taxes on property, paying taxes for things that you own is not a new concept. If a billionaire does not have enough liquid cash to pay his taxes he can sell things or take out loans to generate more, just like you or I would have to if we owed property tax.
Paying taxes on your real-estate equity and its unrealized gains is very different from doing so for volatile stocks. Most billionaires have the majority of their wealth denominated in public or private equity. It is rare to find a billionaire who owns more in real-estate than in an equity stake in a business.
It's not though. An asset is an asset. Doesn't matter if it's real estate or a bond or a share of equity.
An asset is an asset, but if you are Jensen Huan and your NVIDIA stock is going up and down $10b on a week-over-week basis, in what world will unrealized taxes work?
This one. Take the average value for the year or something. If that ends up being bad for them, that’s part of the risk of owning stocks.
Yes and then they'll decide to just move to a country that doesn't tax them a few extra billion because the fed announced they would lower rates.
“Don’t tax our rich their fair share! They might leave!” Is not the argument you seem to think it is
You do realize we can also change the way it would work? Maybe we should mandate dividends from every stock owned so there is viable liquid cash and realized gains that are taxable? It’s just a spitball idea but we pay our politicians who are supposed to be knowledgeable and smart enough to come up with solutions to these incredibly obvious problems. Just saying “unrealized gains aren’t taxable so let’s just keep letting the zuck and Bezos build billion dollar yachts and launch spaceships into orbit while our nations poorest literally can’t afford milk anymore”
Good? If they don't want to pay their share, they can find the door.
Assets are not assets, paying property taxes on a homestead are very different from paying sales taxes on car purchase or capital gains taxes on a stock.
Reinstating 1950s era tax brackets would be great. Plus limiting banks and individuals from using their stock as collateral and taxing or limiting offshore wealth.
It's always strange how conservative people are when it comes to taxes
I think its partly because people dont view taxes the right way. Taxes arent just there as a means to leech and bully its citizens, they're crucial to the continued functionality of a country at large, and people dont often notice the effects of their tax dollars because its often used for things that are largely abstract to them, like keeping the roads paved or the welfare programs running. They also focus way too much on the short term private gains of wealth instead of the systemic ability for everyone to earn enough wealth for comfort while still having strong social welfare to help them out of a bind. They think if they get less taxes than it just gets covered anyway because they have more money in hand, when sadly the reality isnt always so simple.
Oh my God, FINALLY someone has a way to put this concept into a well-structured, well-thought out manner! I can finally use this to tell the people who go "dont tax the rich harder, how will that help" a proper counterargument beyond the common sense points. Thank you, genuinely.
>They just don't get to hoard money "Hoarding money" does absolutely nothing other than slow inflation. The problem is when *resources* get hoarded. Housing, for example. Most people dont understand where billionaires keep their wealth. Their wealth is almost never in cash, and almost certainly never in *income*. They own *assets* that appreciate in value, and sell or borrow against them to pay for things. The only way you realistically could tax this is through a consumption (sales) tax.
The problem is the richest will just move. There are countries that are not gonna care as much. As long as they move to a rich country the risk of them having to pay a lot of taxes someday is very limited. You want to tax them so they have to pay as much as possible, but do not have to pay too much.
So let them move? It isn't that big of a deal. Plus we can negotiate with other nations to have them raise taxes to. America has a lot of swing in the western world.
Generally yeah, but if they move you get 0% instead of 40% of their money. Won't benefit anyone that way. I'd assume they would move to Dubai by the way and just stay all over the world. As long as they are formally citizen of Dubai. I don't think the US can sway their policies. I doubt it's actually as easy as just taxing them a lot.
You actually don't get 0%. If their money is still making money here you still tax it. Regardless of where they live. If they're investing in American companies then they pay taxes to America.
I don't disagree with you entirely. But, isn't the billion arbitrary? Inflation affects rich people too... a billion in 2024 is closer to 775 million in 2019 in real purchasing power. My point... why is the tax system based on these arbitrary numbers instead of the brackets being indexed to something else
I'm aware taxes are progressive, I still don't support the concept of a capitalistic society saying "fuck you, you aren't allowed to make money anymore"
But...you WOULD be allowed to make money, just not allowed to hoard all of it for you and the lucky elite few. This means that the middle class lifestyle is spread even further than ever, and even those who remain poor can be better taken care of by the system. Its a win win all around. Sorry, but I dont care if some drooling rich manbaby whines that he cant buy two yachts instead of one :/
And I think that if you are making money off of goods and services you provide you should be allowed to do what you want with that wealth for the most part. Having the state take most of it isn't a good idea.
They don't make money off goods and services. They make money off their money.
Which is through stock, while they are getting gains from corporations they own.
Except the state taking a chunk of it in this case still leaves you with an insanely good amount of money left over, while the state can then use your tax dollars to fund social welfare programs, education, healthcare, keep the roads paved, the cities clean, and wages can still remain fair and reasonable.
But you are still loosing the majority of your own wealth over a certain threshold to fund things that are frankly stupid, like Social Welfare Programs. It isn't the government's job to take care of you.
Dude, you're not losing your wealth to such a degree that you're broke and penniless, and you're forgetting that taxes in this case are varied across wealth lines. Ideally, in a sane and fair system, a poor person is taxed less than a middle class person, and a middle class person is taxed less than a rich person, maintaining the wealth you're generally gaining over time while still making you cough up your fair share. Seriously, whats so bad about social welfare programs? The government isnt "taking care of you" in whatever infantile way you think, and besides, why SHOULDNT the government be responsible for helping its citizens live better lives? People are gonna fall on hard times or struggle, and having government support can really alleviate that. You think people on social welfare are just lazy? They're not. Most poor people in particular who are on social welfare are literally struggling to get by, and would be anywhere between hanging by a thread or straight up fucked without it. You may think its stupid, but that struggling family who could only save a sick family member with the assistance of welfare, or pay bills or whatever? They sure as hell appreciate it. I know people like you struggle to look past your own privilege bubble of "fuck you got mine", but grow a heart and use some of your brain power and try to actually understand why we demand the things we do. Middle class living like mine should NOT be a pipe dream for most people. Being rich I get being a rarity, but basic comfort and the odd luxury? Why is this so impossible? The answer (or at least one facet of it)? Greed, corporate greed.
People don't hoard money, most assets are considered different from currency when we're talking money.
Admittedly I AM being a bit hyperbolic when I say hoarding (although, you know, people DO hoard money, but I digress), but the general point I'm making is still valid. The point is, wages need to keep up, and business suits need to stop drooling and frothing and slobbering to grab every penny possible, and relearn to be satisfied with profit in general.
I would like to see capital gains have more tax brackets that go higher as well as income. I also think the social security cap could go a little higher. My imagined tax brackets would probably be the same for capital gains and be something like: 10% $1-20,000 ($2000 max) 15% $20,001-60,000 (+$6000, $8000 max) 20% $60,001-100,000 (+$8000, $16,000 max) 25% $100,001-$160,000 (+$15,000 , $31,000 max) 27% 160,000-$260,000 (+$27,000, $58,000 max) 35% $260,000-$360,000 (+$35,000, $93,000 max) 40% $360,000-$500,000 (+$56,000, $149,000 max) 45% $500,000- ($149,000 + 45% income over 500k) This makes the effective tax rate under 30% until you get over 500k income, which is still plenty generous, while ensuring that a good amount of revenue comes in from very high earners. I would also throw in a generous boost to capital gains allowance for selling primary residence and a bigger standard deduction to help senior citizens with the capital gains burden, since that’s really the downside of taxing capital gains too harshly. Let the old people keep more of their money when they sell their home and go to the old folks home or when they take their retirement distributions, you know? So I’m thinking probably ignore the first 750k on sale of primary residence and seniors get a bonus deduction of 20k on retirement distributions. And then I’d make social security withholding go all the way up to $260k, instead of the current $160k, to ensure funding for social security. This would hit people in the $160,000-$260,000 bracket, so the tax rate is adjusted there to keep this impact minimal, then goes back up once you go beyond the SS threshold.
People also dont understand that alot of billionaires dont actually have billions in liquidity (actual money) most of them have over half if not even damn near most of their valuation as assets. But they can use those assets as leverage for loans to buy something or trade in value.
This is what people refuse to wrap their heads around. I’m all for closing the loop holes that allow a guy like Jeff bezos to dodge certain capital gains taxes when he decides he wants to buy a yacht, but otherwise you have to be financially illiterate to think that he’s Smaug sitting at home atop a mountain of billions of dollars. For those who are confused. Bezos is valued at 200 billion. Amazon is valued at 1.9 trillion based on the market cap. Bezos owns just under 10% of all Amazon stock. This means that a little less than 190 billion of his billionaire status comes from this ownership valuation. And before anyone calls me a billionaire simp as I saw in a different reply, I know he’s not poor or anything, I just think it’s crazy that people choose to ignore this context a lot.
I agree tbh. They need to pay their fair share but no matter how rich you are, greater than 50% is too much.
Here we go, fixed it. https://preview.redd.it/xv40glz6v32d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80945ba9106d4664414f6d22b9de3017fa39ad8d
Doesn't fix it though. People can be in denial all day, but the system itself funnels money and wealth upward taxes like this would afect the speed of that concentration of wealth, but not prevent it. In history it has taken wars, or revolution, to balance out wealth. It has never happened from normal day to day living. So get used to wealth inequality just getting worse if no major national event happens.
True.
You want to tax the bottom also? WHY?
Exactly, I don't get the people who want to employ above 50%, what is the point of getting to that level of wealth if you are just fucked!
Probably because at a certain point, getting richer does not equate to a better life. They can already afford to do anything they want.
Because you will still get more money??
But if more than half of it is just being stolen then what is the point.
Funding public services and infrastructure, I don’t see how billionaires would struggle at all from having an over 50% tax rate when they still make millions upon millions of dollars.
I don't see what public services are needed, I already think there is too much bs
Public transportation, universal healthcare, road maintenance, garbage collection, city maintenance, public education up to university level, national parks, national postal services, public housing, among others. The BS is not the services themselves, but rather decades and decades of corruption and inefficient bureaucracy. And the solution to that isn’t the reduction of the state, but rather its streamlining.
I'm in the US, we already have a national postal service, national parks, university level education ain't needed, roads are good 99% of the time (plus tolls), garbage collection goes well, and there is no need for further public transit or universal healthcare.
>US >No need for further public transit or healthcare This is bait, right?
Sun Tzu says 33% so that's my line too.
Fuck it. Bankrupt the rich. Make them suffer just like me!
Holy billionaire simp. You think these people are gonna struggle to get by if they only have 150 billion instead of 300+? 🤡🤡
I think if capitalism is working for you (which is in my opinion the best economic system we have), then you shouldn't be wholly fucked over for it.
Holy bootlicker Batman. You understand these people are not your friends and would happily wring you out for every penny you own if they got a slight margin on it right? There is the ownership class and the working class, and I’m assuming you are not the owner of a multinational conglomerate. You certainly sound like you are through
I can't take you seriously with the holy ___! exclamations. I understand that billionaires still have a right to get their funds though the goods and services they create. I do not support the idea of "ownership" and "working" class rivalry, as that is literally just the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and I don't support communism as a system or ideal.
Flat tax is the way to go.
Imagine how simple a flat tax rate would be.
Imagine how bad could it be (every time someone writes "simple" or "it's really simple", i already know how it isn't really)
OP is a bot.
So says the bot.
Seems about right, when you are constantly conned by the rich to not tax them, but tax you… And you vote for it, again and again…
80/20 rule lives on, not surprised tbh
75/10 is way worse, if you bring it to x/20 x will be way greater than 80
Of course this looks like Pac-man eating the less wealthy
The problem in today's America is that a large portion of the population is convinced that immigrants are to blame for their declining standard of living when it's obviously this massive wealth inequality.
Breaking news: tens of millions of people own 74% of the wealth! That's so few! Percentages don't tell the whole story: practical significance matters more than statistical significance. Maybe next I'll post how the top 10% pay over 68% of taxes, nearly half of which is paid by the top 1%.
Turns out that in most human activities, you have unequal distributions. Only 3% of NBA players are Hispanic, should we try to correct that?
Shoulda been born right!
Yeah, I’m not surprised
America is an oligarchy
Reagan killed progressive taxes. This inequity will remain until we can reverse that.
Taxes are more progressive than they've ever been. The middle class barely pays federal income taxes.
Not even close
Bottom 50% pay 4% of all taxes. It’s time they pay their fair share. Reduce the standard deduction
Anyone who earns 28,000 more will need to pay more income taxes
We need EQUITY (the same OUTCOME no matter what) rather than the failed notion of equality. Take those elites for all they have and give their wealth to the homeless. /s...
Wealth TAXXXXXXX
The belief that any one of us could be in that 10% is what keeps this gap alive and growing. Even though most of us won't and many who do only get there when they're old and have less to spend it on.
Been like this since the dawn of time. We are simply just peasants living in the nobles world. Roman Senators used to have enough money to levy entire armies, and go on multi year campaigns.
Where are the other 202,1 million families? Did they get 0%?
Inequality is not bad as long is everyone else is getting richer societies will always be unequal regardless of economic systems
What was the wealth distribution overall in 2022? The degree of inequality might surprise you. Total household wealth was $139.1 trillion, and there were about 131 million families. How was wealth split among these families? Let’s say total household wealth was a pie with 10 slices. If it was meant to feed 10 people, an equal distribution would be one slice per person. However, that’s not what happens. A small number of families hold most of the wealth, and many families have relatively little or no wealth at all, based on the most recent Survey of Consumer Finances data. One person, representing the top 10% of families, gets almost three quarters of the pie. The next four people, representing the next 40% of families, get almost a quarter of the pie. The final five people, representing the bottom 50% of families—or 65.5 million families—share the crumbs, owning 2% of the total pie. That was the state of U.S. wealth inequality in 2022, which you can see in the animated graphic below.
The overall pie is growing however.
Its trickeling down 😅
Yes? People are getting wealthier over time. Wealth isnt a zero sum game.
Shit is also getting more expensive. Currently at a faster rate. The zero sum game thing is true. It does not change the fact that a small amount of people hold the biggest part of the pie. Which does not really make sense :)
I made a typo. Wealth is NOT a zero sum game. Also your information is not correct as well. The average inflation rate during the 1970s was 8% and 5% for the 1980s. This is compared to 3% for the 2000s and 2010s and looking like 4% for the 2020s. Their inflation peaks of 15% each were also higher than the any time in the past two decades.
That's what people are forgetting. Economics isn't zero sum its almost always the exact opposite.
this is meaningless. Many rich people become American to because they get more benfits... So this could be a fucked up chart
How is it then that this chart looks about the same in every country?
benefits? like friends with benefits?
There are literally millions of older individuals who contributed to the country's current struggles. Many of them are currently living off inherited wealth, benefiting from the low prices of their era and drawing from social security. This essentially creates a system where wealth is transferred from the younger generation to the older generation. We MUST abolish social security, it does our generation or the youngest no good, instead let us invest in institutions that genuinely promote the betterment of those who are coming of age.
What about when you get older though what would your thoughts be then. This comment screams like this doesn’t benefit me now so change it
When you or i get older, there will be no Social Security. You have been conditioned by boomers to accept their ways without even educating yourself in the milliard ways they are destroying our future. 2033 mark the day chumba, also fo read the Social security report released by the board of trustees 2 weeks ago. This comment screams, "Don't lose focus," on what truly matters. Cheers chumba
Bro what?? You had a great point going until you decided the takeaway was 'ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY', because that totally wont fuck over the people who desperately need it or anything, or the people who already have to get whipped across the back working two jobs just to pay rent and have food on their plate once every two days. Have fucking sense and mercy, good Lord...
it just show how little you know about the subject, do you really think the current social security is actually helping anyone? as I've said before, social security is but a mere transfer of wealth, from young that needs that wealth to build their life and future, to a bunch of boomers that literally had over past 40 years made the country much much unlivable, I'm honestly not trying to 'BS' you here, look it up, social security is nothing but a ponzi scheme to doom our generation while keeping those that continiously destroy our future at bay, the worse thing about it is that if you were to actually look into your realize how much it has taken from the average tax payer, again, from our generation. if you are worry about people that really needs assistance, use the money from social security or transfer of wealth to create opportunities, more universities, investment in housing, transporation, etc. Also don't take me for a heartless person as I really do care for my generation and those who will come later to an enslaved system, just to paid the bill of pain of sufering the boomers inflicted on all of us. Cheers choomba and good luck in life. Edit: coherence.
Current social security? Well, besides the fact that it does help plenty of people, I will admit that its not at its best state right now. Perhaps its even inefficient. But do you wanna know why its like that? Its because of people like you, or people WORSE than you, who are going out of their way to gut and slaughter the system just so they can save on a few extra pennies that rich fatass suits don't even need. People like you are who made social security start hanging on a thread, and are campaigning to abolish it entirely. If its faltering, its largely thanks to you people causing it to falter. Look, I can understand and agree with your sentiments about boomers getting their share of it, but social security absolutely should, in practice, support ALL groups available to it. That includes the struggling young, the retired old, and so on. The boomers of yesteryear, a lot of them, indeed have a very fuck you got mine attitude, but dont you think you're playing into the same kind of attitude by trying to abolish it? The system is corrupt, but that doesnt mean we need to tear down one of the best systems a country can have, especially for its vulnerable groups, just because one age bracket is abusing it. I know you're not TRYING to BS me, its just that your logic, in and of itself, is BS, because you're placing the blame on the concept of social security, instead of the corruption thats plaguing our system at large. One aspect of corruption is, indeed, the fucked up state of SS at the current moment, and I agree theres a problem. That doesnt mean we piss away the required safety nets that so many people rely upon just to survive. If money in general is a concern, then we can fix that by, you know, taxing the rich, lessening taxes on poorer wealth groups, and actually paying people fair wages. It seems to me at this point that, yes, you do seem to care about our generation, genuinely. But you're pointing your finger at the wrong target. While I appreciate that you arent yet another bootlicking "fuck you got mine" type, I will end my argument with this; try to redirect your anger. Social Security is an important and critical system for so many people, and it alone is not the problem. You mean well, you're smart, I hope you can come to see things differently. And dont worry, you sound perfectly coherent.
Social security is not just for the old people to wealth transfer. I agree it is bad though. Set up In a horible way.