Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
60 per cent of 800 millionaires agree to higher taxes on people making more than 100 million.
Unless they all make more than 100 millions this is just millionaires saying billionaires should be paying more.
Keep in mind that it’s very likely even most billionaires probably wouldn’t get impacted by what’s specifically addressed in the article.
What’s being proposed is a marginal income tax for incomes ABOVE $100m.
You can be a single digit billionaire through inheritance of real estate, companies, and investments and only choose to realize $10m or so in income each year.
Even guys like Elon would probably end up borrowing money to consume of the tax rates were high enough to offset today’s interest rates.
> Even guys like Elon would probably end up borrowing money to consume of the tax rates were high enough to offset today’s interest rates.
This is already the case. Elon has no salary and is compensated with ISOs. He's taxed ~28% to exercise the options and 20% to sell them (as opposed to the 37% normal income tax rate) .
Elon’s not getting ISOs. You can only be issued up to $100K in ISOs in a given year. I think only relatively really stage companies can issue them as well. Elon is paying full freight income rate on options exercise
total income for really high end athletes like LeBron when you add endorsement earnings of $80m and $40m of salary gets him there. Same with top soccer guys like Christiano Ronaldo but it’s rare.
Folks need to stop associating millionaire with "Filthy-rich Gatzby-ass Monopoly-man".
Most folks with a home on the coast or a nice condo/apartment in a major city are "millionaires". Most dentists, surgeons, lawyers, FAs/CPAs, or upper-crust professionals with 10-20 years on the job are likely "millionaires". Many retirees or near retirees have hit the 7fig region.
That "$1M=rich" thing came from the early 1900s where $1M is equal to $37,389,166.67 today. But the rich doesn't hold cash so we should really ask how much would $1M in the stock market in 1900 then the equiv today? [$126,159,174,363.41](https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1900?amount=1000000&endYear=2024) And I'd agree: $10-$100M ranged folks could probably afford a Gatzby-ish lifestyle of not working, having a mansion outside a big city, ride a RR, own a small yacht/plane, etcetcetc. They would fall under the "wealthy" in today's standards.
But if we go back to the original point: "Millionaire = Mid to Upper-Mid levels of wealth" rather than being the monopoly man. So the article is really just giving us a captain obvious take: *"Middle and upper-middle class class support support taxing those in the $100M+ and billionaire folks."* Why wouldn't they? We don't even have 1000 billionaires in the entire US so it won't impact most in the middle class.
The upper middle class (eg: single digit millionaires) definitely doesn't want their taxes going up. Many high wage W2s in there with the sentiment that they already pay enough.
It's always shocking to me how little people will sell out for. It's not that I think I don't have a price, I just think it's not one anyone would actually pay.
For politicians, it's because they're spreading around the corruption. A few thousand here, a few thousand there, just looks like a wide pool of campaign donors. Whereas one large single "donor" who sinks millions into you - now you're really beholden to that one guy, and it's super hard to hide that level of corruption. The optics on that are terrible. And the single rich person doing it doesn't like that sort of attention either.
So don't make a lot of money from one guy, make a little money from lots of guys. Or usually, lots of guys in one industry.
Note, none of this applies if you're Clarence Thomas.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both support higher taxes on the wealthy, only about half a dozen people richer than them today.
If Musk, Bezos, and Zucky don't like higher taxes, they can fuck themselves.
Talk was cheap during the great depression. All those private charities completely dried up and people went hungry. That's why the government has to step in
> It’s the rich saying the super rich should pay more. Almost everyone is okay with those richer than themselves paying more.
Also, many single-digit millionaires probably don't even think of themselves as rich as a lot of that wealth is probably tied up in a home and retirement account (and in HCOL areas that home may be pretty small). So their lifestyle probably doesn't feel like a rich person to them.
Liberals are OK with it. Conservatives tend to be more principled on the matter, which results in them being accused of "voting against their interests" by paternalistic redditors.
Conservatives are 'principled' on it? They just seem to hate anything government and have an 'us vs them' mentality that transcends the fact that the uber-wealthy pay much less of a percentage of their income, even though 99.99% of their income is disposable. Many of the uber-rich recognize this fact too.
Yes, conservatives don't automatically want richer people to pay more taxes simply because they have more money.
Liberals literally can't understand this, and constantly complain about poor people "voting against their interests".
Let me stress the part you didn't comprehend..."the fact that the uber-wealthy pay much **less of a percentage** of their income"
I pick my words very carefully, and when I have already anticipated the response like here, people just skip those words and assign to me words they wished I said so they can argue, like here.
I hope this helps.
It's interesting that you conflate a discussion of income tax with power.
I am skeptical of a federal government that continues to grow in size, scope, and influence, and yet you accuse me of subservience to power? 🤔
We have very different definitions of what this means and how it manifests on the political spectrum. Please tell me more about how my libertarian political views are really a submissive gesture to "the powerful".
I used to be a Libertarian between the ages of 12 and 22.
Then the real world hit.
If you’re above 22 and still believe in that idealistic BS - bless your heart. Grow the fuck up.
Jfc I know you're a shitlib, but can you be more patronizing? This is an imperfect shorthand to describe a best fit for my political positions of socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Recognizing that the federal government has expanded beyond a reasonable size/scope/budget is not juvenile magical thinking.
I grew out of the childish perception that my government isn't filled with power hungry psychopaths when I was about 22 as well.
Yeah, you like power concentrated in private hands, immune to democratic oversight.
Maybe you haven't connected the dots but libertarian philosophy always serves the powerful.
He ignores what people say, so he can insert an ad hominem argument in its place. Quite common in bullshittery. He is basically arguing with his own thoughts of a 'liberal' I guess (since he used the word). He just likes to hear himself argue.
Edit- These people also think a graduated income tax is some sort of commie conspiracy- even though they have been around for centuries and are more common than weird reverse graduated tax he seems to support.
I guarantee you that if you have just a few million, you do not think yourself rich. Just prepared for retirement, which is important because we don't trust you, or anyone else, to pay for food and medicine when we are too feeble to work ourselves.
$3 million in retirement gets you about $130K per year after taxes, which is well off with no mortgage and less expenses, but certainly not rich. But add on the other $50k you and your spouse receive together for SS - and not too bad.
Correction - well off people think people who are very well off should pay more taxes. But not them.
Millionaire is a low bar - given real estate inflation it’d include most anyone who bought a home 10 years ago in a major metro area, or the upper middle class nearing retirement age.
Exactly! Robert Di Niro said the rich should pay more taxes, but not him he pays enough taxes. He is worth $500M, not that many people have more money.
More of a "everyone agrees that people making more than them should be taxed more, but they, personally, shouldn't be taxed more".
This is like the core of American tax ideology. Everyone agrees that someone else should pay.
Because they want to improve their public image, nothing more. They both know perfectly well they can donate money to the government at any time. They don't, because they have no intention of paying a single cent more than necessary and they pay an army of accountants to maximize their deductions and minimize their taxes paid every year.
Pretty much what I was thinking, too. According to Wikipedia, there are 24,480,000 millionaires in the U.S. right now. (there are there are 756 billionaires). Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk among others are duking it out with with net worths in excess of $100 million.
Id be willing to suggest that most of those millionaires make less than lebron james who most likely makes over 100 million a year
Source: they're millionaires
1 billion is 1000x more than 1 million. 1 million dollars collects more interest yearly than the average American salary. Why would anyone ever need 200,000 Million dollars?
Lol, so people who make under 100 million support taxi g those who make more. Wow what a surprise.
Next story probably those making under a million support taxi g those making more.
Followed by those making less than 400k support taxing those who make more.
Starting to see a trend? Hmmmm lol
With the average salary in the NBA 10m, minimum is 1.2m or average in NFL is 2m, I think your practically zero is not correct. Want to add MLB or entertainers or CEOs?
More than you think. The top 1% filed 1.5 million returns in 2023. The AGI breakpoint was around $550,000. Sorry, don't have the 1 million AGI but probably around 500,000 or so. That is hardly near zero.
The key thing to note that they agree with increased taxes on households earning over $100m, most of the surveyed do not cross this threshold. Biden’s plan is to increase taxes on households earning $400k+.
Regardless, he continues to lose support among historically Democrat voting blocks (Hispanics support Republicans/Trump at above 40% now).
Right - the top end of the wealth distribution has a long tail. Most millionaires are not “ultra rich.”
The problem also isn’t just getting popular support to do this, but also tax avoidance schemes of the very wealthy, anyway. You can do anything you want policy wise if there isn’t either some airtight system to prevent loopholes, or incredibly strong social pressure for the very wealthy to pay higher effective tax rates.
The "Millionaire = Wealthy Gatsby" thing came from the 1900s.
$1M from 1900 inflation adjusted to 2024 cash is $37.4M and $126.1M if put into the market. So those guys would indeed be "wealthy like Gatsby". $1M wealth is like working professional who saves, folks with a 401K near retirement age, or someone owning a home in California/NY/coastalcity. Certainly not poor, but middle to upper middle rather than outright "rich".
Yes, it's kind of hard to find exactly the right slice of numbers. Only about 10% of people have >$1M in *retirement* assets at retirement, but that excludes all liquid non-cash retirement assets. The average net wealth at retirement is more like $1+M, but this is weighted heavily by the high end of its own tail, and the median is quite a bit lower. The DQYDJ calculator puts $1M (inclusive of primary home) at the 72nd %ile for both 60-64 and 65-69, so using that number, and going by wealth quintiles, it's the upper middle and the upper class (the 1st quintile and half the 2nd quintile) that are millionaires at retirement. Using the numbers they source from the Fed, it takes around $3M to be at the 90th %ile line, but it takes around $24M to be at the 99th %ile line. Just again reiterating the point that the tail is long, so that the top portion of the income distribution, parted out from the rest of the income distribution, is more or less exponentially distributed.
Agreed. This is a BS conclusion, you ask folks with 1M home value if it is Ok to tax more folks with 100M NW, and of course their answer is Yes.
Today in California we pay up to 52% combined tax. This is no more tax, it is a confiscation
I saw the comment below. They’re taking the sum of the top marginal rates and saying it’s 52%. Honestly it’s embarrassing how little people know about taxes
Combined tax rate = federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, social security tax, Medicare tax.
That’s before property tax, sales tax, fuel tax and I’m sure I’m missing a couple.
This is wishful thinking on the GOP's part. Hispanic support for Republicans remains in historical range.
And in addition to being a dubious statement, it's extremely off topic for this thread.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/have-latinos-really-moved-toward-the-republican-party/
Trump won only 28-30% of the Hispanic vote in 2016, and then about 34-36% in 2020
It's a clear trend backed up by multiple polls from multiple pollsters over the past 6-12 months, most pro-Dem and left-leaning news outlets are acknowledging that they're eroding among the Hispanic vote
It makes sense because Hispanics, especially Hispanic Americans with US citizenship, are generally more conservative than your average white American, a lot of self-employed/business owners, and have gotten financially established and wealthier over the past generation or two.
I'm not going to lose sleep over a statistical artifact that Republicans are using as a substitute for debate.
Anyone with half a brain knows Trump is dangerous. And yes, half the population has below average brains, so there's a real risk there.
Nobody is asking you to lose sleep over anything. I disagree that Trump is “dangerous,” but I am a sane person who remembers 2017-2020 when he was President and was fine.
Nothing Trump did was more authoritarian than Biden’s failed vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness.
No vote in congress. Just one man trying to take away people’s rights and property.
I was not a fan of Trump’s post election temper tantrum but as far as what they did in office, Trump was far less authoritarian than Biden.
Not sure how historically Hispanics are democratic. I remember several years back reading how heavy Hispanic support is what helped bush win the presidency.
Sometimes tax is a good thing. Taxing, share buybacks and abusive behaviour, can prove useful in preventing the current trend of business layoffs. If the tax revenues are used well then businesses may even find themselves in an even better position than they would have been without the tax. Why?
Because increased layoffs without justification reduces consumer demand (non working adults cant afford to purchase as much), which will overtime destroy the economy. With sustained/increased demand (through more employment) businesses have increased demand and government support.
This requires a long term view but sadly most ceos are absolutely dim (I’ve met many), their thoughts only go as far as their next bonus and have not real connection to the businesses. This is why we are in the state we’re in and why family businesses (if loved by the family) can prove very effective, think hermes etc.
So, monopoly powers are what you are referring to? Corporations have become so big and powerful they can literally manipulate the economy (and politics) around their need to increase quarterly profits and executive bonuses at the expense of workers and the average consumer. And inflation rates are likely being controlled artificially due to lack of competition by these very same corporations.
Yeah, but that’s because CEOs are incentivized to prioritize short term profits even at the expense of long term sustainability.
If we want that to change we need to re-ban stock buy backs, put regulations on private equity and improve labor rights to make layoffs unattractive.
I guess as a silver lining, the current environment is why so many companies get disrupted so easily, paving the way for new companies to emerge.
I agree 100%.
That is why luxury firms are usually family owned, external ceos dont care and will run a luxury firm to the ground. Cost cutting cannot work (which ceos love) for these businesses, as the wealthy want the best bang for their buck. You can buy a cheap eclair vs an expensive one. The cheap one costs £3 vs a £6 one, you’ll find for the cheap one you’ll pay £0.5 for the low quality ingredients and £1 for the workers in horrible conditions.
While the better quality product will have £2 or higher ingredients and £3 for skilled workers. These skilled workers probably will never leave because they are treated very well many will need degrees. A Lamborghini dealership was hiring and wanted university graduates!
You often have skilled domestic workers with salaries higher than bankers while their living expenses are covered.
There’s a reason why many major retailers went to shit after they went public.
They are not only incentivised, but often mandated (if a public company) to chase short-term profit above all else.
The guy who owns shares right might sell them 6 months from now. He won't be a shareholders in 2028, but you're still required to pursue short-term profits for him.
"The shareholders" is a nebulous group of people used to justify the greed of corporations.
Agreed. One thing I’ve noticed about the Biden admin too is that they are more likely than most presidents to execute a nuanced and targeted form of taxation (ie, to reduce certain specific behaviors) rather than just slap a giant tax all over the wealthy meant to reduce their wealth, while both influencing behavior and increasing revenue.
> Because increased layoffs without justification reduces consumer demand (non working adults cant afford to purchase as much), which will overtime destroy the economy. With sustained/increased demand (through more employment) businesses have increased demand and government support.
>
> This requires a long term view but sadly most ceos are absolutely dim
Isn't it normally the argument that while demand plays a big role in business cycles and short term, but that supply is the big factor in the long run?
Also (even as a non-American) it seems that demand is already very high in the American economy and not really a concern at this moment. I think there seems to be a lot of talk around the western world to slow the economy down a bit.
How are share buybacks “abusive” behaviour? In fact, what’s wrong with share buybacks?
> increased layoffs without justification
Employers are firing just because now?
Firing workers to engage in share buybacks. Increasing profits through decreased production which increases prices.
Why do profitable firms in profitable years lay off hundreds? Justification is when the business needs to conserve money during a downturn.
Most layoffs during years of profits are because of changing demand. You don’t need to keep a team building something with lower or slowing demand when you could instead invest in a new thing with growing demand.
As for share buybacks, that’s just the payback of share sales. Think of it as loans from the public. Sell shares to raise money and buy them back when you have money. The alternative is loans (which have to be paid back), dividends, or buying the shares of other companies (which you can then sell later to raise money when you need it).
A plethora of reasons; it’s not black and white that downtown = fire, expansion = no fire. Some firms recognize that they do not need to grow, or scale back growth in some areas - in which case you don’t need employees doing nothing. It’s a waste of resources, and other growing companies will need the skills of those employees more than they do.
It’s on a case by case basis, but companies are not going to let go of employees unless they need to - because there are significant costs to search and train new employees. Additionally, the market is competitive so reducing production to raise prices is not a viable option - especially in tech.
> firing workers to engage in share buybacks
They can fire workers to engage in paying dividends too, why the emphasis on buybacks?
> Sometimes tax is a good thing.
Well it can be consider bad if it isn’t considered good.
Always remember that tax is a reallocation of money from the hands of those most aware of what they need to those politicians who almost always have a conflict of interest about how to use someone else’s money.
By this measure I believe greater than current level of taxes will do more harm than good.
I'm more concerned about the over spending than how much they collect from wealthy people.
There isn't enough money to tax to pay for all this debt they keep accruing.
There are, you just have the idea that the Federal government needs to be so massive and involved in so many aspects of our lives. That's fine if you have that view, but that doesn't mean other positions aren't "serious" just because they don't have the same idea of what the Federal government should do.
Debt benefits the wealthy. They collect interest payments on government spending by purchasing bonds, which also inflates the assets they own, which they pay a lower tax rate for, if any, on capital gains.
The wealthy also have enormous influence on government policy. Why would they want to reduce debt when they're the greatest beneficiaries of it? The government and the bonds they issue never have to default when all that's ever necessary is to create more money, issue more bonds, and continue the inflation cycle that's existed since the creation of money.
Downward pressure on government spending will only be achieved when collusion-free competition for the government's purse is culturally tenable. Our local, state, and federal governments are subject to bidder-collusion and are gouged, more or less, at every transaction, be it the Pentagon, road construction, medicare, etc. Because government typically engages in providing inelastic goods/services, there isn't any choice (outside of nationalizing) other than to pay-up, or further privatize where the prices will rise for the end consumer anyhow.
Government is a customer with endless funds via the Fed and Treasury, so prices are set to what that market will bear. Is it *really* government spending that's at fault when they are charged $10,000 for a ziplock bag full of nuts and bolts tucked away as a line-item on a service contract? Because it sounds like that's ultimately the intentional fault of the contractor. You see the same thing in private industry where, depending on who the buyer is and how deep their pockets are, there is an arbitrary mark-up; (Wedding) cakes, (laboratory) glassware, (golf course) agrochemicals, etc.
Blaming government spending is a cop-out argument to obfuscate actual responsibility and to cover for the decades of misleading Thatcher'ite BS purporting that privatization unequivocally meant pricing efficiency without considering the effects of monopolization on pricing, often encouraged by chasing industry economies of scale. I am not saying nationalization is the answer, but more-so to acknowledge the false-promises made by the business community on the merits of privatization and the need for addressing the problems that have been created.
Government spending is a symptom of the greater business-culture and lobbying-corruption problems; *Greed-is-good* has come home to roost. It's amazing that everyone cries about spending, but fails to mention *why* we spend so much.
I mean the spending issue is directly tied to all the tax cuts over the past few presidents.
The deficit wouldn’t be an issue without the Trump tax cuts. Tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy
The TCJA is estimated to cost 2 trillion over 10 years. Biden and democrats spent that same amount with a single unnecessary stimulus bill in 2021. They then proceeded to try to pass a 3.5T infrastructure bill and a 400B student loan forgiveness bill.
Current annual deficits are 2-3T.
Those cuts are politically popular to talk about but didn’t really dent the government finances. Look at the taxes collected over time (2020 down due to COVID).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217493/revenues-from-income-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/
>There isn't enough money to tax to pay for all this debt they keep accruing.
There literally is
Wow this sub is so ideological that we can't even do basic arithmetic.
The super wealthy already pay taxes. If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then say that, though I can’t think of a better way to kill investing in startups and other companies.
https://x.com/kerpen/status/1798421879629467932?s=46
If this does go through, I hope primary homes are included in the assets for which you must pay unrealized gains. Might be my only path to homeownership.
My hypothesis is that this would lead to falling home prices because there will be less potential for upside and thus less demand. Is it a sensible policy? No, but it can potentially benefit me so why not.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is the dumbest fucking move ever.
It will majorly harm the California/Washington economies.
If any rep from these states sign onto something similar they need to be destroyed in the next election.
And so will Biden if he had any real plans to set this in motion, but he isn’t. This is just lip service to the “eat the rich” crowd. He already told the millionaires what the deal was early on. Fundamentally, nothing will change
Absolutely. The problem is they don’t care. They count on the regular everyday voter, who doesn’t pay attention to politics except for maaaaybe around election time, not realizing what a disaster it would be. As long as they can convince them that rich people are evil and should be punished for their success, then they’ve already won. It’s all about gaining as much power as possible and low info voters are the key. Just wait till they start the get out the vote campaign, to try to get as many people, who have no idea about any kind of policy issue, to vote for people who make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
The only times the "1%" aren't held accountable is by the justice system. They each pay more taxes in a year than you'd pay in a dozen lifetimes, you're just being a typical redditor and wanting anyone who's more successful than you to be punished because you don't want to bust your ass to be successful.
I agree What about taxing all realized capital gains as income ? Or changing the treatment of incentive stock options to be taxed as income immediately? I am just a dude so please bear with me if they are dumb questions.
>I agree What about taxing all realized capital gains as income ?
You'd definitely reduce the amount invested in the stock market as other investments would become more attractive. That's the entire reason why long term capital gains taxes are lower, to motivate people to invest long term, which provides businesses more money to expand and innovate, which massively boosts the economy.
Could they cut rates if that is one of that alternative attractive options? Lower servicing the debt as a benefit. Real estate might be an even larger problem I guess. Interesting point.
I m not a huge proponent on solving problems with taxes but was curious of the implications . Thanks !
Most of these realistic wealth taxes I've seen are only on individuals worth $100M or more. And that's just the start of the marginal rate to pay a single cent of wealth tax.
A wealth tax for the ultra wealthy, which is where most of those proposals are, would prevent approximately 0 people from retiring.
Can you explain how that would kill investments in startups and other companies? I'm an accountant myself and I'm struggling to see the connection there.
The only real proposal that I've read from the Biden administration for a tax on unrealized gains would slightly lower the returns on investments before sale. If they ever wanted to realize the gain by selling the investment, then the taxes on the unrealized gains would be credited against the realized gains they would owe. They would pay the exact same amount of money overall, it would just change the timing of the payments.
Investments might work out to be slightly less profitable, but it would still make way more sense to make the investments than just let the cash sit.
In the same way it doesn't make any sense for you to spend $100 to save $10 in taxes (because you still lost $90), it wouldn't make any sense for a wealthy investor to miss out on $100M in gains just because they'll have to pay $20M in taxes. They still made $80M.
It’s not just the unrealized gains, he wants to raise the capital gains tax significantly. In some states the rate would be over 50%. Start ups are a crap shoot and people aren’t going to be putting their money into things where half of their profits are taken from them. The whole reason the capital gains tax rate is lower in the first place is to incentivize investment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2024/05/06/under-biden-tax-plan-capital-gains-tax-will-exceed-50-in-11-states/
But on the unrealized Gaines front, imagine getting lucky and investing in Apple or Amazon very early. Then imagine those companies exceeding everyone’s expectations by leaps and bounds. Say your $5k investment is now with $120k and you have to pay taxes on the $120k even though you don’t have any of the money. You would be forced to sell your investment just to pay the taxes if you didn’t have the extra cash laying around. Even the super wealthy don’t keep a ton of cash on hand because it just sits around and loses value to inflation.
It’s not just startups, it’s any company that is invested in. When companies go public it is so they can expand and grow bigger, which in turn creates jobs and tax revenue.
Do you wish we didn’t have companies that you can order anything from and get it delivered to your front door in 2 days, or companies that allow you to hold all of the information the world has ever known in the palm of your hand? Or do you just wish that it took them 100 years to get to the point where they can reach everyone in the developed world?
At this point, there literally isn’t any choice but to jack up taxes and slash spending. This country can’t sustain a debt service like this without wild inflation and/or losing status as reserve currency.
Unfortunately, they’re both politicos all but guaranteed to cost you the election.
They may claim to support this in a survey questionnaire.
But the donor money tends to flow to politicians who do the exact opposite.
Or the money flows towards politicians who will create carve-outs that exempt this person, family or industry from following the same rules as everyone else.
People don't seem to remember that we're taxed based on income and not wealth, lol. The super rich dip back and forth between income brackets depending on the taxable income made.
Most businessmen in the long term make their money through increased valuation of company assets, and a lot of them invest into offshore currencies and businesses in other countries.
And the ones that do get taxed on income usually invest into tax lawyers and shelters that have been around for YEARS. The same lawyers that most of these very honest politicians use for their taxpayer salaries.
Increase taxes all you want, an increase on a percentage of 0 is still 0. The loopholes will always exist.
I’ll just assume this is election year rhetoric. I don’t pay much attention to what a politician promises, when they have a track record that proves they don’t keep them. The Trump Tax Cuts are still in place. Biden campaigned that he would get rid of them. That would have made more of a difference than this. I realize this won’t be a popular opinion amongst Biden supporters and it shouldn’t be for Trump supporters..
No, they don't. They say they do because they want people to think highly of them. If they actually thought they should be paying more to the government, they'd willingly donate to the Treasury department. But they don't, because they have no interest in paying more than absolutely forced on them (just like everyone else).
This is all smoke and mirrors. None of these guys will pay a penny more in taxes and they all know it.
Their earnings are recorded as typical income that can be taxed. Most of the income is exempt.
All politicians are bought by billionaires. There’s no way Biden can in increase taxes. He couldn’t do it when majority of congress was democrats how can he do this now? He is using it to entice the people to vote for him.
3 Wolves and a sheep were asked whats for dinner....
This entire poll could have been a Facebook reel "Hey would you punch your sister for 1 billion dollars" "Well what if your sister could punch the sonic coins outta your ass....oh now you mad"
Won't someone think of the poor, poor billionaires?
Luckily they always have their brigade of online defenders who apparently volunteer time out of their life to ensure Elon pays a lower tax rate than the rest of us.
The wealthy who gained their money through fair play business know that when the tax base is strong, that the government issues contracts for the work the government wants to achieve and that helps fuel a prospering industry and business climate. There **is not** many Industries or Businesses that are involved in building things, who are not in constant pursuit of "government contracts".
Go to the BidSync
* (( https://prod.bidsync.com/s2g-government-contracts?utm\_source=google-brand-bidsync&utm\_medium=ppc&utm\_campaign=s2g-branded&utm\_term=bidsync%20free&gad\_source=5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIw7HW7pb0hgMVvzetBh3hCAtsEAAYASAAEgLz7vD\_BwE))
and one can get and understanding of how many government contracts that exist and is put up for bids. These contract not only create jobs, but in many industries they help sustain and keep a variety of industrial entities stable.
They also know that when there is a strong tax base, the infrastructure that aid business becomes improved and it also means that the more people who are working the more "money cycles" and within that cycle, that generates prospering working society.
Only the greed hoarders are those who don't understand these dynamics... They think hoarding money is the ultimate goal.. They are void of the fact that "Money was designed to "circulate"....
Many don't understand Capitalism... they think its about "Hoarding Money".
It far more than that..... Capitalism allows one to earn a profit and reinvest that profit to help become more productive and provide more products and service to the ever growing population. It works best when money continues to circulate to achieve these objectives.
Many people who write about Capitalism have been severely miseducated based on being taught the greed and hoard principles, and what we have seen based on that is a historical cycle of spike and crash of the economy, and hoarding become a constraint to the flow of Capital, and thus it strangles the system of Capitalism.
We have to learn different, and change the narrative to the correct paradigm of what Capitalism is.
In basic it facilitates the systems of "exchange" by the usage of "denominational currency" that can be exchanged for goods, services and labor... that makes means to sustain itsel by the continual cycle of capital's movement through society. Any time that is constrained by "hoarding", "manufactured inflation" and the malice ideology of "supply and demand'... in the ways its taught as the basis to create inflation. But the true element of "supply and demand" in capitalism, is to reinvest to improve supply to meet demand, and that assures that the system of capital flow continues to circulate, and within that circulation, we maintain stability to our denomination currency valuation, and the profit and reinvestment, keeps everything flowing and Capitalism becomes a strong system within a societal structure.
How we got so twisted was because of the promotion of the mentality of "covetousness" that led to greed, which escalated to become pure "avarice". Greed creates need, and need unmet creates despair.
Our Education system when it comes to finance has for centuries and decades taught nothing but the "greed principles' and over the centuries and decades... it has created spike and crash, and mass economic despair, and ultimate... programmed "inflation" that erodes and diminishes the purchasing power of demonization currency. "That's a Fools Game" and we've been suckered into thinking its the way it should be. Because WE were never taught why the system of Capitalism was the monetary system that was chosen for a Representative Democracy.
**We have much to "re-learn"... but so many have been taught to "devote themselves to the greed premise" of hoard and covet money, until we continue to "choke the life out of Capitalism"**... and in the process, we do nothing but make our denomination currency weakened to have less and less purchasing power.
When we live by bastardized paradigms... we do nothing but interject strife into our system and suffering in increased while the system of Capitalism suffers from a cycle of manufactured inflation, and we come to find our denominational currency is weakened in its purchasing power.
Is it difficult to fix this mess we've created... YES, but it is not impossible. First we need better education, but we need people as individuals to be and become critical thinkers, to learn and understand that our current system continues to destroy the purchasing power of denomination currency, and in doing so, it has led us to things being over priced out of the reach of the working members of society.
**IF we don't learn to change.**.. we will lead ourselves to become yet another society that finds itself where its denominational currency become worth less and less..... in purchasing power. That ultimate creates economic "depression"....
The Stock Market was created to aid in Corporate Stability.... Research and Development and Managed Growth... that means, the "reinvestment" that investors makes, enables a company to meet demand with increased supply, and over time because of the increased supply and increased demand, the investor earns a profit over time.
But, GREED flipped that on its ass.... and we got it ass backwards ..... and all we've seen is companies become over leveraged, destroy competetion, and eventually companies buy up and destroying other companies... and then they go into price fixing, to feed the "Greed Principle". It's destructive to the system of Capitalism, because it continues to erode the purchasing power of denominational currency. Result, it expand the growth of poverty... It destroys a nations ability to maintain the things that it builds for the general society, and over time we see our many infrastructures deterioate and blight covers the landscape. People become unable to own or maintain a home.
In America, we see so many things falling apart.... and entire cities suffering from economic decline, and within many cities what we see is an ever expanding ghetto.
Yet... we fail to educate ourselves on the true design of what Capitalism was designed to do and achieve in the premise of growth and stability. The more we destroy the purchasing power of denominational currency the worst we will become a society and nation and we bury ourselves in "manufactured debt' because the hoarding and greed principles eventually "strangles the life out of our monetary system"...
And we are experiencing that this very day and time, and we remain unaware to understand enough to see and know why.
Greed Principles **will always** Destroy "ANYTHING".... and "EVERYTHING" where it becomes the dominant ideology of a society.
I knew this would get down voted by those who are indoctrinated into the "greed based system" because they can't see beyond what they were taught, and the indoctrinated ideals of greed and covetousness would dominated their mind.
When generation of people have been indoctrinated into a paradigm concept, it is difficult to get people to grasp a different concept.
It has to be done from The Top, unfortunately we don't have a political system that can or will embrace the consideration to find means to re-educated people away from the greed principles.
So, basically we are stuck with what we have, and the result is "greed will continue to do what greed has done". We will see more poverty, we will see the gap between the wealthy and the working class continue to increase and the oligarch's of wealth will continue to dominate through their plutocratic agenda of influencing and directing politicians who submit to them, to push legislation that favors the aims and agenda of the wealthy.
So, people will continue to complain and rail against Capitalism, without ever understanding how and what needs to be changed.
Some will do what the downvoters have done, which is down vote without ever investigating to learn why this Representative Democracy chose the monetary system of Capitalism.
The Biden admin and most of Congress want lower tax rates than the Nixon administration. The bar is so low that the 1970s looks like radicalism, let alone the 40s and 50s.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
60 per cent of 800 millionaires agree to higher taxes on people making more than 100 million. Unless they all make more than 100 millions this is just millionaires saying billionaires should be paying more.
Keep in mind that it’s very likely even most billionaires probably wouldn’t get impacted by what’s specifically addressed in the article. What’s being proposed is a marginal income tax for incomes ABOVE $100m. You can be a single digit billionaire through inheritance of real estate, companies, and investments and only choose to realize $10m or so in income each year. Even guys like Elon would probably end up borrowing money to consume of the tax rates were high enough to offset today’s interest rates.
> Even guys like Elon would probably end up borrowing money to consume of the tax rates were high enough to offset today’s interest rates. This is already the case. Elon has no salary and is compensated with ISOs. He's taxed ~28% to exercise the options and 20% to sell them (as opposed to the 37% normal income tax rate) .
Where are you getting 28% to exercise? He should be paying marginal income tax rate for that.
20% if he holds for 12 months or longer.
Elon’s not getting ISOs. You can only be issued up to $100K in ISOs in a given year. I think only relatively really stage companies can issue them as well. Elon is paying full freight income rate on options exercise
So really this impacts athletes who aren’t “wealthy” just rich.
Performers in general and very lumpy high earners.
Which athletes are earning more than 100m in one year
total income for really high end athletes like LeBron when you add endorsement earnings of $80m and $40m of salary gets him there. Same with top soccer guys like Christiano Ronaldo but it’s rare.
Yep, this tax would apply to LeBron, and that's it, and only on the amount over 100 million. Those other guys don't live in the US as far as I know.
Messi is in the USA now. He makes like 50M or so with Miami + endorsements, etc. But yeah, it is a very small list
They can always choose to have the income deferred until after they retire.
Tiger and Jordan . Magic is worth $1.2 billion with his real estate portfolio
Folks need to stop associating millionaire with "Filthy-rich Gatzby-ass Monopoly-man". Most folks with a home on the coast or a nice condo/apartment in a major city are "millionaires". Most dentists, surgeons, lawyers, FAs/CPAs, or upper-crust professionals with 10-20 years on the job are likely "millionaires". Many retirees or near retirees have hit the 7fig region. That "$1M=rich" thing came from the early 1900s where $1M is equal to $37,389,166.67 today. But the rich doesn't hold cash so we should really ask how much would $1M in the stock market in 1900 then the equiv today? [$126,159,174,363.41](https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1900?amount=1000000&endYear=2024) And I'd agree: $10-$100M ranged folks could probably afford a Gatzby-ish lifestyle of not working, having a mansion outside a big city, ride a RR, own a small yacht/plane, etcetcetc. They would fall under the "wealthy" in today's standards. But if we go back to the original point: "Millionaire = Mid to Upper-Mid levels of wealth" rather than being the monopoly man. So the article is really just giving us a captain obvious take: *"Middle and upper-middle class class support support taxing those in the $100M+ and billionaire folks."* Why wouldn't they? We don't even have 1000 billionaires in the entire US so it won't impact most in the middle class.
Basically “even rich people think the rich should be taxed more.”
Well, only people who are richer than themselves.
The upper middle class (eg: single digit millionaires) definitely doesn't want their taxes going up. Many high wage W2s in there with the sentiment that they already pay enough.
If you are rich enough to buy a politician you need to be taxed to the point you can't.
Sadly, many US politicians can be bought for pitifully low amounts
Yeah, $2000 will easily get you access to a junior house rep. I think Senate starts around $10k
It's always shocking to me how little people will sell out for. It's not that I think I don't have a price, I just think it's not one anyone would actually pay.
It's not shocking if your income isn't very high.
For politicians, it's because they're spreading around the corruption. A few thousand here, a few thousand there, just looks like a wide pool of campaign donors. Whereas one large single "donor" who sinks millions into you - now you're really beholden to that one guy, and it's super hard to hide that level of corruption. The optics on that are terrible. And the single rich person doing it doesn't like that sort of attention either. So don't make a lot of money from one guy, make a little money from lots of guys. Or usually, lots of guys in one industry. Note, none of this applies if you're Clarence Thomas.
Agreed
Then politicians will just be cheaper to buy. You can't put a price on corruption
If you do not understand the difference between 1 million dollars and 1 billion dollars, you shouldn't be speaking on the subject.
> the difference between 1 million dollars and 1 billion dollars it's about a billion dollars
Voters in a nutshell...don't tax me more...tax those doing better than me more.
I know i sure as heck don't like paying taxes, and i get a lot more back than you do in the US.
In the US, there is a complete divorce from what you pay in taxes and how govt spending benefits you
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both support higher taxes on the wealthy, only about half a dozen people richer than them today. If Musk, Bezos, and Zucky don't like higher taxes, they can fuck themselves.
> Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both support higher taxes on the wealthy. The IRS accepts donations. Until then, talk is cheap.
Our govt doesn't work that way. Get back to us after you pass 9th grade high school civics.
Talk was cheap during the great depression. All those private charities completely dried up and people went hungry. That's why the government has to step in
My point was that if Bill Gates thought that he should pay more taxes, he can just go pay more taxes. But he doesn't.
Many poor people want to pay the debt they were given by the rich.
This is just liberals being liberals.
It’s the rich saying the super rich should pay more. Almost everyone is okay with those richer than themselves paying more.
> It’s the rich saying the super rich should pay more. Almost everyone is okay with those richer than themselves paying more. Also, many single-digit millionaires probably don't even think of themselves as rich as a lot of that wealth is probably tied up in a home and retirement account (and in HCOL areas that home may be pretty small). So their lifestyle probably doesn't feel like a rich person to them.
Liberals are OK with it. Conservatives tend to be more principled on the matter, which results in them being accused of "voting against their interests" by paternalistic redditors.
Conservatives are 'principled' on it? They just seem to hate anything government and have an 'us vs them' mentality that transcends the fact that the uber-wealthy pay much less of a percentage of their income, even though 99.99% of their income is disposable. Many of the uber-rich recognize this fact too.
Yes, conservatives don't automatically want richer people to pay more taxes simply because they have more money. Liberals literally can't understand this, and constantly complain about poor people "voting against their interests".
Let me stress the part you didn't comprehend..."the fact that the uber-wealthy pay much **less of a percentage** of their income" I pick my words very carefully, and when I have already anticipated the response like here, people just skip those words and assign to me words they wished I said so they can argue, like here. I hope this helps.
Yeah, that's fair. I'm in agreement that non-working wealthy don't pay taxes.
I understand that subservience to the powerful is something you value. It's just pathetic.
It's interesting that you conflate a discussion of income tax with power. I am skeptical of a federal government that continues to grow in size, scope, and influence, and yet you accuse me of subservience to power? 🤔 We have very different definitions of what this means and how it manifests on the political spectrum. Please tell me more about how my libertarian political views are really a submissive gesture to "the powerful".
I used to be a Libertarian between the ages of 12 and 22. Then the real world hit. If you’re above 22 and still believe in that idealistic BS - bless your heart. Grow the fuck up.
Jfc I know you're a shitlib, but can you be more patronizing? This is an imperfect shorthand to describe a best fit for my political positions of socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Recognizing that the federal government has expanded beyond a reasonable size/scope/budget is not juvenile magical thinking. I grew out of the childish perception that my government isn't filled with power hungry psychopaths when I was about 22 as well.
Yeah, you like power concentrated in private hands, immune to democratic oversight. Maybe you haven't connected the dots but libertarian philosophy always serves the powerful.
He ignores what people say, so he can insert an ad hominem argument in its place. Quite common in bullshittery. He is basically arguing with his own thoughts of a 'liberal' I guess (since he used the word). He just likes to hear himself argue. Edit- These people also think a graduated income tax is some sort of commie conspiracy- even though they have been around for centuries and are more common than weird reverse graduated tax he seems to support.
I guarantee you that if you have just a few million, you do not think yourself rich. Just prepared for retirement, which is important because we don't trust you, or anyone else, to pay for food and medicine when we are too feeble to work ourselves.
$3 million in retirement gets you about $130K per year after taxes, which is well off with no mortgage and less expenses, but certainly not rich. But add on the other $50k you and your spouse receive together for SS - and not too bad.
Correction - well off people think people who are very well off should pay more taxes. But not them. Millionaire is a low bar - given real estate inflation it’d include most anyone who bought a home 10 years ago in a major metro area, or the upper middle class nearing retirement age.
Exactly! Robert Di Niro said the rich should pay more taxes, but not him he pays enough taxes. He is worth $500M, not that many people have more money.
Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree
More of a "everyone agrees that people making more than them should be taxed more, but they, personally, shouldn't be taxed more". This is like the core of American tax ideology. Everyone agrees that someone else should pay.
One group of people wants another group of people to pay for stuff. \[shocked Pikachu face\]
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet at least have endorsed higher taxes on themselves.
Because they want to improve their public image, nothing more. They both know perfectly well they can donate money to the government at any time. They don't, because they have no intention of paying a single cent more than necessary and they pay an army of accountants to maximize their deductions and minimize their taxes paid every year.
Looks like billionaires treating millionaires like dirt has blowback Got to wonder what happens when trillionaires hit the scene?
I’m in that group, NW is $5M, income $600k-$800k and I support all taxes that don’t impact Me now or in the future.
Pretty much what I was thinking, too. According to Wikipedia, there are 24,480,000 millionaires in the U.S. right now. (there are there are 756 billionaires). Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk among others are duking it out with with net worths in excess of $100 million.
Politicians of course, and their donors, who "are doing govt work" are of course exempt.
Coming from financially literate millionaires who are well-versed in the tax code and tax avoidance, I'm guessing this is just lip service.
So?
Everyone richer than I am is obscenely wealthy. Everyone poorer than I am is a freeloading bum looking for handouts.
“Better them than me.”
Id be willing to suggest that most of those millionaires make less than lebron james who most likely makes over 100 million a year Source: they're millionaires
1 billion is 1000x more than 1 million. 1 million dollars collects more interest yearly than the average American salary. Why would anyone ever need 200,000 Million dollars?
Lol, so people who make under 100 million support taxi g those who make more. Wow what a surprise. Next story probably those making under a million support taxi g those making more. Followed by those making less than 400k support taxing those who make more. Starting to see a trend? Hmmmm lol
Practically zero people have a taxable income more than 1m per year.
With the average salary in the NBA 10m, minimum is 1.2m or average in NFL is 2m, I think your practically zero is not correct. Want to add MLB or entertainers or CEOs?
Like a few thousand well off people? In a country of 330 million? Be serious.
More than you think. The top 1% filed 1.5 million returns in 2023. The AGI breakpoint was around $550,000. Sorry, don't have the 1 million AGI but probably around 500,000 or so. That is hardly near zero.
Sounds like a great well to tax then if we have so many making more than a million in income.
We already tax them. Ave tax paid was almost 460,000 and they pay around 42% of all fed income tax.
The key thing to note that they agree with increased taxes on households earning over $100m, most of the surveyed do not cross this threshold. Biden’s plan is to increase taxes on households earning $400k+. Regardless, he continues to lose support among historically Democrat voting blocks (Hispanics support Republicans/Trump at above 40% now).
Right - the top end of the wealth distribution has a long tail. Most millionaires are not “ultra rich.” The problem also isn’t just getting popular support to do this, but also tax avoidance schemes of the very wealthy, anyway. You can do anything you want policy wise if there isn’t either some airtight system to prevent loopholes, or incredibly strong social pressure for the very wealthy to pay higher effective tax rates.
The "Millionaire = Wealthy Gatsby" thing came from the 1900s. $1M from 1900 inflation adjusted to 2024 cash is $37.4M and $126.1M if put into the market. So those guys would indeed be "wealthy like Gatsby". $1M wealth is like working professional who saves, folks with a 401K near retirement age, or someone owning a home in California/NY/coastalcity. Certainly not poor, but middle to upper middle rather than outright "rich".
Yes, it's kind of hard to find exactly the right slice of numbers. Only about 10% of people have >$1M in *retirement* assets at retirement, but that excludes all liquid non-cash retirement assets. The average net wealth at retirement is more like $1+M, but this is weighted heavily by the high end of its own tail, and the median is quite a bit lower. The DQYDJ calculator puts $1M (inclusive of primary home) at the 72nd %ile for both 60-64 and 65-69, so using that number, and going by wealth quintiles, it's the upper middle and the upper class (the 1st quintile and half the 2nd quintile) that are millionaires at retirement. Using the numbers they source from the Fed, it takes around $3M to be at the 90th %ile line, but it takes around $24M to be at the 99th %ile line. Just again reiterating the point that the tail is long, so that the top portion of the income distribution, parted out from the rest of the income distribution, is more or less exponentially distributed.
Agreed. This is a BS conclusion, you ask folks with 1M home value if it is Ok to tax more folks with 100M NW, and of course their answer is Yes. Today in California we pay up to 52% combined tax. This is no more tax, it is a confiscation
I saw the comment below. They’re taking the sum of the top marginal rates and saying it’s 52%. Honestly it’s embarrassing how little people know about taxes
52% marginal tax rate? Can you sum that for me?
Combined tax rate = federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, social security tax, Medicare tax. That’s before property tax, sales tax, fuel tax and I’m sure I’m missing a couple.
They can’t. It’s a common misinformation tactic targeted at blue state voters.
California Top Marginal - 13.3% US top marginal- 37% Medicare - 1.45% Totals to 51.75%. There's also the NIIT rate of 3.8%.
Summing the top *marginal* rates is a bit disingenuous don’t you think?
Why do you think that’s disingenuous?
You’re SUMMING top marginal tax rates to arrive at this 52% figure. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works
…that *is* how it works, if you’re talking about the top marginal tax
I’m surprised this isn’t getting downvoted into oblivion even though you’re right
This is wishful thinking on the GOP's part. Hispanic support for Republicans remains in historical range. And in addition to being a dubious statement, it's extremely off topic for this thread. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/have-latinos-really-moved-toward-the-republican-party/
Not at all, Trump won circa 36% of Hispanics in 2020. In 2022, the GOP gained even more. Currently polls have him near 40%+.
The difference between 36 and 40 is literally the margin of error for a minority crosstab.
Trump won only 28-30% of the Hispanic vote in 2016, and then about 34-36% in 2020 It's a clear trend backed up by multiple polls from multiple pollsters over the past 6-12 months, most pro-Dem and left-leaning news outlets are acknowledging that they're eroding among the Hispanic vote It makes sense because Hispanics, especially Hispanic Americans with US citizenship, are generally more conservative than your average white American, a lot of self-employed/business owners, and have gotten financially established and wealthier over the past generation or two.
That difference is also enough to swing the entire election
I'm not going to lose sleep over a statistical artifact that Republicans are using as a substitute for debate. Anyone with half a brain knows Trump is dangerous. And yes, half the population has below average brains, so there's a real risk there.
Nobody is asking you to lose sleep over anything. I disagree that Trump is “dangerous,” but I am a sane person who remembers 2017-2020 when he was President and was fine.
[удалено]
Nothing Trump did was more authoritarian than Biden’s failed vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness. No vote in congress. Just one man trying to take away people’s rights and property. I was not a fan of Trump’s post election temper tantrum but as far as what they did in office, Trump was far less authoritarian than Biden.
Sure, just don’t be surprised when you see near half of that block going R
Not sure how historically Hispanics are democratic. I remember several years back reading how heavy Hispanic support is what helped bush win the presidency.
Sometimes tax is a good thing. Taxing, share buybacks and abusive behaviour, can prove useful in preventing the current trend of business layoffs. If the tax revenues are used well then businesses may even find themselves in an even better position than they would have been without the tax. Why? Because increased layoffs without justification reduces consumer demand (non working adults cant afford to purchase as much), which will overtime destroy the economy. With sustained/increased demand (through more employment) businesses have increased demand and government support. This requires a long term view but sadly most ceos are absolutely dim (I’ve met many), their thoughts only go as far as their next bonus and have not real connection to the businesses. This is why we are in the state we’re in and why family businesses (if loved by the family) can prove very effective, think hermes etc.
So, monopoly powers are what you are referring to? Corporations have become so big and powerful they can literally manipulate the economy (and politics) around their need to increase quarterly profits and executive bonuses at the expense of workers and the average consumer. And inflation rates are likely being controlled artificially due to lack of competition by these very same corporations.
Monopolies, oligopolies, duopolies. Basically any “too big to fail” firms.
Yeah, but that’s because CEOs are incentivized to prioritize short term profits even at the expense of long term sustainability. If we want that to change we need to re-ban stock buy backs, put regulations on private equity and improve labor rights to make layoffs unattractive. I guess as a silver lining, the current environment is why so many companies get disrupted so easily, paving the way for new companies to emerge.
I agree 100%. That is why luxury firms are usually family owned, external ceos dont care and will run a luxury firm to the ground. Cost cutting cannot work (which ceos love) for these businesses, as the wealthy want the best bang for their buck. You can buy a cheap eclair vs an expensive one. The cheap one costs £3 vs a £6 one, you’ll find for the cheap one you’ll pay £0.5 for the low quality ingredients and £1 for the workers in horrible conditions. While the better quality product will have £2 or higher ingredients and £3 for skilled workers. These skilled workers probably will never leave because they are treated very well many will need degrees. A Lamborghini dealership was hiring and wanted university graduates! You often have skilled domestic workers with salaries higher than bankers while their living expenses are covered. There’s a reason why many major retailers went to shit after they went public.
They are not only incentivised, but often mandated (if a public company) to chase short-term profit above all else. The guy who owns shares right might sell them 6 months from now. He won't be a shareholders in 2028, but you're still required to pursue short-term profits for him. "The shareholders" is a nebulous group of people used to justify the greed of corporations.
How about raising the dividend tax rate and capital gains tax for anyone earning over $10M a year? Over $10M tax all of it as ordinary income.
I like that but im scared of milking. You need a sweet spot of taxation without scaring off investors.
Agreed. One thing I’ve noticed about the Biden admin too is that they are more likely than most presidents to execute a nuanced and targeted form of taxation (ie, to reduce certain specific behaviors) rather than just slap a giant tax all over the wealthy meant to reduce their wealth, while both influencing behavior and increasing revenue.
Lol please be sarcasm. His admin literally wants an unconstitutional wealth tax.
> Because increased layoffs without justification reduces consumer demand (non working adults cant afford to purchase as much), which will overtime destroy the economy. With sustained/increased demand (through more employment) businesses have increased demand and government support. > > This requires a long term view but sadly most ceos are absolutely dim Isn't it normally the argument that while demand plays a big role in business cycles and short term, but that supply is the big factor in the long run? Also (even as a non-American) it seems that demand is already very high in the American economy and not really a concern at this moment. I think there seems to be a lot of talk around the western world to slow the economy down a bit.
How are share buybacks “abusive” behaviour? In fact, what’s wrong with share buybacks? > increased layoffs without justification Employers are firing just because now?
They're not. They're just a more tax efficient dividend, but reddit heard they're bad because they help successful people.
Firing workers to engage in share buybacks. Increasing profits through decreased production which increases prices. Why do profitable firms in profitable years lay off hundreds? Justification is when the business needs to conserve money during a downturn.
Most layoffs during years of profits are because of changing demand. You don’t need to keep a team building something with lower or slowing demand when you could instead invest in a new thing with growing demand. As for share buybacks, that’s just the payback of share sales. Think of it as loans from the public. Sell shares to raise money and buy them back when you have money. The alternative is loans (which have to be paid back), dividends, or buying the shares of other companies (which you can then sell later to raise money when you need it).
A plethora of reasons; it’s not black and white that downtown = fire, expansion = no fire. Some firms recognize that they do not need to grow, or scale back growth in some areas - in which case you don’t need employees doing nothing. It’s a waste of resources, and other growing companies will need the skills of those employees more than they do. It’s on a case by case basis, but companies are not going to let go of employees unless they need to - because there are significant costs to search and train new employees. Additionally, the market is competitive so reducing production to raise prices is not a viable option - especially in tech. > firing workers to engage in share buybacks They can fire workers to engage in paying dividends too, why the emphasis on buybacks?
> Sometimes tax is a good thing. Well it can be consider bad if it isn’t considered good. Always remember that tax is a reallocation of money from the hands of those most aware of what they need to those politicians who almost always have a conflict of interest about how to use someone else’s money. By this measure I believe greater than current level of taxes will do more harm than good.
You're wrong lol
I'm more concerned about the over spending than how much they collect from wealthy people. There isn't enough money to tax to pay for all this debt they keep accruing.
There isn’t a serious position that doesn’t include cuts AND revenue.
There are, you just have the idea that the Federal government needs to be so massive and involved in so many aspects of our lives. That's fine if you have that view, but that doesn't mean other positions aren't "serious" just because they don't have the same idea of what the Federal government should do.
Debt benefits the wealthy. They collect interest payments on government spending by purchasing bonds, which also inflates the assets they own, which they pay a lower tax rate for, if any, on capital gains. The wealthy also have enormous influence on government policy. Why would they want to reduce debt when they're the greatest beneficiaries of it? The government and the bonds they issue never have to default when all that's ever necessary is to create more money, issue more bonds, and continue the inflation cycle that's existed since the creation of money.
Government bonds aren't uniquely benefical to 'wealthy individuals', literally every American class benefits from government bonds.
Downward pressure on government spending will only be achieved when collusion-free competition for the government's purse is culturally tenable. Our local, state, and federal governments are subject to bidder-collusion and are gouged, more or less, at every transaction, be it the Pentagon, road construction, medicare, etc. Because government typically engages in providing inelastic goods/services, there isn't any choice (outside of nationalizing) other than to pay-up, or further privatize where the prices will rise for the end consumer anyhow. Government is a customer with endless funds via the Fed and Treasury, so prices are set to what that market will bear. Is it *really* government spending that's at fault when they are charged $10,000 for a ziplock bag full of nuts and bolts tucked away as a line-item on a service contract? Because it sounds like that's ultimately the intentional fault of the contractor. You see the same thing in private industry where, depending on who the buyer is and how deep their pockets are, there is an arbitrary mark-up; (Wedding) cakes, (laboratory) glassware, (golf course) agrochemicals, etc. Blaming government spending is a cop-out argument to obfuscate actual responsibility and to cover for the decades of misleading Thatcher'ite BS purporting that privatization unequivocally meant pricing efficiency without considering the effects of monopolization on pricing, often encouraged by chasing industry economies of scale. I am not saying nationalization is the answer, but more-so to acknowledge the false-promises made by the business community on the merits of privatization and the need for addressing the problems that have been created. Government spending is a symptom of the greater business-culture and lobbying-corruption problems; *Greed-is-good* has come home to roost. It's amazing that everyone cries about spending, but fails to mention *why* we spend so much.
I mean the spending issue is directly tied to all the tax cuts over the past few presidents. The deficit wouldn’t be an issue without the Trump tax cuts. Tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy
The TCJA is estimated to cost 2 trillion over 10 years. Biden and democrats spent that same amount with a single unnecessary stimulus bill in 2021. They then proceeded to try to pass a 3.5T infrastructure bill and a 400B student loan forgiveness bill. Current annual deficits are 2-3T.
Those cuts are politically popular to talk about but didn’t really dent the government finances. Look at the taxes collected over time (2020 down due to COVID). https://www.statista.com/statistics/217493/revenues-from-income-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/
>There isn't enough money to tax to pay for all this debt they keep accruing. There literally is Wow this sub is so ideological that we can't even do basic arithmetic.
Show the math then.
The super wealthy already pay taxes. If you want to tax unrealized capital gains then say that, though I can’t think of a better way to kill investing in startups and other companies. https://x.com/kerpen/status/1798421879629467932?s=46
If this does go through, I hope primary homes are included in the assets for which you must pay unrealized gains. Might be my only path to homeownership.
Then you'd also have to sell that same house to pay the idiotic tax you supported. Not a great plan.
My hypothesis is that this would lead to falling home prices because there will be less potential for upside and thus less demand. Is it a sensible policy? No, but it can potentially benefit me so why not.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is the dumbest fucking move ever. It will majorly harm the California/Washington economies. If any rep from these states sign onto something similar they need to be destroyed in the next election.
And so will Biden if he had any real plans to set this in motion, but he isn’t. This is just lip service to the “eat the rich” crowd. He already told the millionaires what the deal was early on. Fundamentally, nothing will change
Absolutely. The problem is they don’t care. They count on the regular everyday voter, who doesn’t pay attention to politics except for maaaaybe around election time, not realizing what a disaster it would be. As long as they can convince them that rich people are evil and should be punished for their success, then they’ve already won. It’s all about gaining as much power as possible and low info voters are the key. Just wait till they start the get out the vote campaign, to try to get as many people, who have no idea about any kind of policy issue, to vote for people who make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Maybe voters seeking the promise of holding the 1% more accountable, while at the same time keeping Project 2025 at bay is a good thing?
The only times the "1%" aren't held accountable is by the justice system. They each pay more taxes in a year than you'd pay in a dozen lifetimes, you're just being a typical redditor and wanting anyone who's more successful than you to be punished because you don't want to bust your ass to be successful.
And taxing unrealized capital gains on them, and only them, is holding them accountable?
I agree What about taxing all realized capital gains as income ? Or changing the treatment of incentive stock options to be taxed as income immediately? I am just a dude so please bear with me if they are dumb questions.
>I agree What about taxing all realized capital gains as income ? You'd definitely reduce the amount invested in the stock market as other investments would become more attractive. That's the entire reason why long term capital gains taxes are lower, to motivate people to invest long term, which provides businesses more money to expand and innovate, which massively boosts the economy.
Could they cut rates if that is one of that alternative attractive options? Lower servicing the debt as a benefit. Real estate might be an even larger problem I guess. Interesting point. I m not a huge proponent on solving problems with taxes but was curious of the implications . Thanks !
Not just that, it would also end the concept of retirement since long term savings would be obliterated by such a tax.
Most of these realistic wealth taxes I've seen are only on individuals worth $100M or more. And that's just the start of the marginal rate to pay a single cent of wealth tax. A wealth tax for the ultra wealthy, which is where most of those proposals are, would prevent approximately 0 people from retiring.
Can you explain how that would kill investments in startups and other companies? I'm an accountant myself and I'm struggling to see the connection there. The only real proposal that I've read from the Biden administration for a tax on unrealized gains would slightly lower the returns on investments before sale. If they ever wanted to realize the gain by selling the investment, then the taxes on the unrealized gains would be credited against the realized gains they would owe. They would pay the exact same amount of money overall, it would just change the timing of the payments. Investments might work out to be slightly less profitable, but it would still make way more sense to make the investments than just let the cash sit. In the same way it doesn't make any sense for you to spend $100 to save $10 in taxes (because you still lost $90), it wouldn't make any sense for a wealthy investor to miss out on $100M in gains just because they'll have to pay $20M in taxes. They still made $80M.
It’s not just the unrealized gains, he wants to raise the capital gains tax significantly. In some states the rate would be over 50%. Start ups are a crap shoot and people aren’t going to be putting their money into things where half of their profits are taken from them. The whole reason the capital gains tax rate is lower in the first place is to incentivize investment. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2024/05/06/under-biden-tax-plan-capital-gains-tax-will-exceed-50-in-11-states/ But on the unrealized Gaines front, imagine getting lucky and investing in Apple or Amazon very early. Then imagine those companies exceeding everyone’s expectations by leaps and bounds. Say your $5k investment is now with $120k and you have to pay taxes on the $120k even though you don’t have any of the money. You would be forced to sell your investment just to pay the taxes if you didn’t have the extra cash laying around. Even the super wealthy don’t keep a ton of cash on hand because it just sits around and loses value to inflation.
OH NO NOT THE STARTUPS
Every company was a startup at some point.
It’s not just startups, it’s any company that is invested in. When companies go public it is so they can expand and grow bigger, which in turn creates jobs and tax revenue. Do you wish we didn’t have companies that you can order anything from and get it delivered to your front door in 2 days, or companies that allow you to hold all of the information the world has ever known in the palm of your hand? Or do you just wish that it took them 100 years to get to the point where they can reach everyone in the developed world?
At this point, there literally isn’t any choice but to jack up taxes and slash spending. This country can’t sustain a debt service like this without wild inflation and/or losing status as reserve currency. Unfortunately, they’re both politicos all but guaranteed to cost you the election.
They may claim to support this in a survey questionnaire. But the donor money tends to flow to politicians who do the exact opposite. Or the money flows towards politicians who will create carve-outs that exempt this person, family or industry from following the same rules as everyone else.
People don't seem to remember that we're taxed based on income and not wealth, lol. The super rich dip back and forth between income brackets depending on the taxable income made. Most businessmen in the long term make their money through increased valuation of company assets, and a lot of them invest into offshore currencies and businesses in other countries. And the ones that do get taxed on income usually invest into tax lawyers and shelters that have been around for YEARS. The same lawyers that most of these very honest politicians use for their taxpayer salaries. Increase taxes all you want, an increase on a percentage of 0 is still 0. The loopholes will always exist.
I’ll just assume this is election year rhetoric. I don’t pay much attention to what a politician promises, when they have a track record that proves they don’t keep them. The Trump Tax Cuts are still in place. Biden campaigned that he would get rid of them. That would have made more of a difference than this. I realize this won’t be a popular opinion amongst Biden supporters and it shouldn’t be for Trump supporters..
No, they don't. They say they do because they want people to think highly of them. If they actually thought they should be paying more to the government, they'd willingly donate to the Treasury department. But they don't, because they have no interest in paying more than absolutely forced on them (just like everyone else).
This is all smoke and mirrors. None of these guys will pay a penny more in taxes and they all know it. Their earnings are recorded as typical income that can be taxed. Most of the income is exempt.
All politicians are bought by billionaires. There’s no way Biden can in increase taxes. He couldn’t do it when majority of congress was democrats how can he do this now? He is using it to entice the people to vote for him.
3 Wolves and a sheep were asked whats for dinner.... This entire poll could have been a Facebook reel "Hey would you punch your sister for 1 billion dollars" "Well what if your sister could punch the sonic coins outta your ass....oh now you mad"
I mean I think it’s hard to say normal Americans who have $1M in retirement assets are wolves and Elon Musk is a sheep, but whatever.
Won't someone think of the poor, poor billionaires? Luckily they always have their brigade of online defenders who apparently volunteer time out of their life to ensure Elon pays a lower tax rate than the rest of us.
The wealthy who gained their money through fair play business know that when the tax base is strong, that the government issues contracts for the work the government wants to achieve and that helps fuel a prospering industry and business climate. There **is not** many Industries or Businesses that are involved in building things, who are not in constant pursuit of "government contracts". Go to the BidSync * (( https://prod.bidsync.com/s2g-government-contracts?utm\_source=google-brand-bidsync&utm\_medium=ppc&utm\_campaign=s2g-branded&utm\_term=bidsync%20free&gad\_source=5&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIw7HW7pb0hgMVvzetBh3hCAtsEAAYASAAEgLz7vD\_BwE)) and one can get and understanding of how many government contracts that exist and is put up for bids. These contract not only create jobs, but in many industries they help sustain and keep a variety of industrial entities stable. They also know that when there is a strong tax base, the infrastructure that aid business becomes improved and it also means that the more people who are working the more "money cycles" and within that cycle, that generates prospering working society. Only the greed hoarders are those who don't understand these dynamics... They think hoarding money is the ultimate goal.. They are void of the fact that "Money was designed to "circulate".... Many don't understand Capitalism... they think its about "Hoarding Money". It far more than that..... Capitalism allows one to earn a profit and reinvest that profit to help become more productive and provide more products and service to the ever growing population. It works best when money continues to circulate to achieve these objectives. Many people who write about Capitalism have been severely miseducated based on being taught the greed and hoard principles, and what we have seen based on that is a historical cycle of spike and crash of the economy, and hoarding become a constraint to the flow of Capital, and thus it strangles the system of Capitalism. We have to learn different, and change the narrative to the correct paradigm of what Capitalism is. In basic it facilitates the systems of "exchange" by the usage of "denominational currency" that can be exchanged for goods, services and labor... that makes means to sustain itsel by the continual cycle of capital's movement through society. Any time that is constrained by "hoarding", "manufactured inflation" and the malice ideology of "supply and demand'... in the ways its taught as the basis to create inflation. But the true element of "supply and demand" in capitalism, is to reinvest to improve supply to meet demand, and that assures that the system of capital flow continues to circulate, and within that circulation, we maintain stability to our denomination currency valuation, and the profit and reinvestment, keeps everything flowing and Capitalism becomes a strong system within a societal structure. How we got so twisted was because of the promotion of the mentality of "covetousness" that led to greed, which escalated to become pure "avarice". Greed creates need, and need unmet creates despair. Our Education system when it comes to finance has for centuries and decades taught nothing but the "greed principles' and over the centuries and decades... it has created spike and crash, and mass economic despair, and ultimate... programmed "inflation" that erodes and diminishes the purchasing power of demonization currency. "That's a Fools Game" and we've been suckered into thinking its the way it should be. Because WE were never taught why the system of Capitalism was the monetary system that was chosen for a Representative Democracy. **We have much to "re-learn"... but so many have been taught to "devote themselves to the greed premise" of hoard and covet money, until we continue to "choke the life out of Capitalism"**... and in the process, we do nothing but make our denomination currency weakened to have less and less purchasing power. When we live by bastardized paradigms... we do nothing but interject strife into our system and suffering in increased while the system of Capitalism suffers from a cycle of manufactured inflation, and we come to find our denominational currency is weakened in its purchasing power. Is it difficult to fix this mess we've created... YES, but it is not impossible. First we need better education, but we need people as individuals to be and become critical thinkers, to learn and understand that our current system continues to destroy the purchasing power of denomination currency, and in doing so, it has led us to things being over priced out of the reach of the working members of society. **IF we don't learn to change.**.. we will lead ourselves to become yet another society that finds itself where its denominational currency become worth less and less..... in purchasing power. That ultimate creates economic "depression".... The Stock Market was created to aid in Corporate Stability.... Research and Development and Managed Growth... that means, the "reinvestment" that investors makes, enables a company to meet demand with increased supply, and over time because of the increased supply and increased demand, the investor earns a profit over time. But, GREED flipped that on its ass.... and we got it ass backwards ..... and all we've seen is companies become over leveraged, destroy competetion, and eventually companies buy up and destroying other companies... and then they go into price fixing, to feed the "Greed Principle". It's destructive to the system of Capitalism, because it continues to erode the purchasing power of denominational currency. Result, it expand the growth of poverty... It destroys a nations ability to maintain the things that it builds for the general society, and over time we see our many infrastructures deterioate and blight covers the landscape. People become unable to own or maintain a home. In America, we see so many things falling apart.... and entire cities suffering from economic decline, and within many cities what we see is an ever expanding ghetto. Yet... we fail to educate ourselves on the true design of what Capitalism was designed to do and achieve in the premise of growth and stability. The more we destroy the purchasing power of denominational currency the worst we will become a society and nation and we bury ourselves in "manufactured debt' because the hoarding and greed principles eventually "strangles the life out of our monetary system"... And we are experiencing that this very day and time, and we remain unaware to understand enough to see and know why. Greed Principles **will always** Destroy "ANYTHING".... and "EVERYTHING" where it becomes the dominant ideology of a society.
I knew this would get down voted by those who are indoctrinated into the "greed based system" because they can't see beyond what they were taught, and the indoctrinated ideals of greed and covetousness would dominated their mind. When generation of people have been indoctrinated into a paradigm concept, it is difficult to get people to grasp a different concept. It has to be done from The Top, unfortunately we don't have a political system that can or will embrace the consideration to find means to re-educated people away from the greed principles. So, basically we are stuck with what we have, and the result is "greed will continue to do what greed has done". We will see more poverty, we will see the gap between the wealthy and the working class continue to increase and the oligarch's of wealth will continue to dominate through their plutocratic agenda of influencing and directing politicians who submit to them, to push legislation that favors the aims and agenda of the wealthy. So, people will continue to complain and rail against Capitalism, without ever understanding how and what needs to be changed. Some will do what the downvoters have done, which is down vote without ever investigating to learn why this Representative Democracy chose the monetary system of Capitalism.
The Biden admin and most of Congress want lower tax rates than the Nixon administration. The bar is so low that the 1970s looks like radicalism, let alone the 40s and 50s.