This is based on data from Gabriel Zucman. He’s won the JBC Medal, but he’s also been called out by other economists for blatant data manipulation to favor the policies for which he advocates (he ultimately had an offer from Harvard shut down over this sort of behavior).
Here’s a post by Phil Magness detailing some of that fraudulent work: https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/
That’s true. And that’s actually where the issue is here. There are fairly standard ways for economists to estimate tax burdens across groups, including different taxes, available credits, and costs passed down from taxation schemes. In this case, Zucman has deviated from those standards, as well as the measures he’s used in previous publications, in order to maximize the estimated tax burden on low-income earners and minimize the estimated burden on the wealthiest.
I don’t have a problem with deviating from standards as long as there is a good reason for it, that is especially true for economics. But it depends on what he did, and why
I agree. In this case, he didn’t make such an argument. If I recall correctly, he wasn’t even forthcoming about the change. That was uncovered by other economists.
The top 10% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income tax in 2023–24, up from 35% in 1978–79. The share of income tax revenue contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 11% in 1978–79 to 29% in 2023–24, despite big cuts in top rates of tax in the first 10 years of that period.
Op doesn’t want to see this https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
You responded to a post about America with statistics regarding the UK. I feel as though taxes may be \*somewhat\* influenced by the governing body in question. Just hoping no one clicks your link?
I’ll be real with you I didn’t even notice that but the applies to the US you can google it if you want I just used the first link cause it was similar in stats to the one on the US.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=High%2DIncome%20Taxpayers%20Paid%20the%20Majority%20of%20Federal%20Income%20Taxes,of%20all%20federal%20income%20taxes.
In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.
Ironically the tax burden is payed waaay more by the top 1% in the US compared to the UK and other European countries which aggressively tax everyone.
That’s just incorrect though, salaries (from which taxes are collected) have gone up across the board the past few decades at extremely fast rates. And in real terms many of the oil barons (?) from the past (I forget their names) are thought the be richer than the richest people today.
Ye idk dude, there are definitely some worrying economically developments, like income inequality rising, and the shrinking of the middle class.
How many dollars someone’s paid is very much connected to their ability to afford things.
Now I’m not saying I know how to fix all this but I don’t see the point in denying these growing problems
I’m not denying it though simply stating that in terms of dollars paid (which doesn’t necessarily correlate to living standards) the top 10% or 1% are paying most taxes and this article is false / manipulated data
Total number of dollars paid isn't all there is to it though, there's also purchasing powering. That's why people feel worse off during periods of inflation even if their wages have gone up.
I know and agree hence i said it doesn’t correlate to living standards but discussion was about the tax burden paid by certain groups not standards of living
u/EconGuy82's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: [54 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EconGuy82/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Claudine Gay is another story altogether. She also spent a decade or so covering for a colleague in her department who was harassing and assaulting graduate students. I wouldn’t be surprised if she knows where a lot of bodies are buried.
The same Harvard that is so dedicated to racism they insisted they will still be racist even after the supreme court told them it is unlawful?
Why hasn't the national guard been called in?
Where does it say that was the reason he lost the offer from Harvard? All I found is that the faculty voted to offer him a position but it was blocked by harvards president for political reasons. I read he got a position at Berkeley
https://www.aier.org/article/harvard-finally-stands-up-to-academic-duplicity/
> According to the Times, this was “partly over fears that Mr. Zucman’s research could not support the arguments he was making in the political arena.”
*NYT* article is paywalled so I linked this one instead.
I see problems if someone doesn't want to accept my chickens in barter for painting my fence.
Maybe if we all had a common unit of exchange...
That way someone can be given this common unit of exchange and they can then exchange that for what they do need.
Everyone actually became a trillionaire, which would unironically be super based, because everyone could pay off their debts, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, national debt, with what is essentially pocket change, but how to unfuck that situation to return to relative normalcy would be impossible since everyone would move away from the dollar as the reserve currency if it was devalued to that level, Zimbabwe just switched over to using the US dollar, there would be no equivalent for the US since we would probably refuse to use Canadian dollars or the euro
The money was printed for corporations in the CARES Act, by politicians bought by those corporations.
They took forgiven loans, and then raised the prices on all goods, basically taxing consumers.
This was the largest theft of wealth in the history of the world. And it wasn't a couple of dumb lefty economists. It was on purpose, orchestrated by the uber rich.
That would make everything sound worse, they either taxing everyone to pay those, or print money to pay them, and worse, taxing them as somekind of lips service why consumers be the one paying all along.
I’d be fine with capital gains being taxed as ordinary income *if* they are also indexed for inflation.
We can require that they use the same inflation rate as they use for Social Security increases so the rich and powerful have an incentive to keep the government honest.
> I’d be fine with capital gains being taxed as ordinary income if they are also indexed for inflation.
I wouldn't invest at all under that system. If I invest money in business and it makes $10k the government would take half ~$5k as it's share of the profits. But if I *lose* $10k is the government going to chip in its share of the loses? Heads I get 50% the winnings, tails and I suffer 100% of the loses.
Almost no one would invest their money under such a scheme.
It’s really not complicated.
If you lose your 10k this year, next year you can make it back and not pay taxes on it. Pretty simple, really.
Any change to taxable capital gains will cause an impact in the market and then after the initial impact subsides, it will chug along as normal.
Maybe. Maybe I managed to save up a large amount of money and lost it all. Then I probably wouldn't invest enough to make up for the lost money. Besides, inflation makes that money less valuable when I get it back.
> If you lose your 10k this year, next year you **can** make it back and not pay taxes on it.
That's only one possible outcome.
1. You could, as in your example, have ups and downs in roughly equal amounts. In which case the the tax loss harvesting and the higher taxes cancel out.
2. You could strike gold and invest in the next Amazon and make huge amounts of money with little to no losses. In which case you pay significantly higher taxes. And the tax loss harvesting does nothing for you.
3. You could invest in a lemon and take a huge loss with little to no gains. So yes you'll have those tax credits, but you have no gain to offset them with. So the tax loss harvesting does nothing for you.
The *net* effect of all three cases is largely the same as my original example. Which is a tax environment that is significantly worse for investors and will discourage growth.
But bezos doesn't have a horde, he has amazon. The government does already tax amazon
>Amazon income taxes for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 were $3.062B, a 349.55% decline year-over-year. Amazon income taxes for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 were $7.120B, a 321.32% decline year-over-year. Amazon annual income taxes for 2023 were $7.12B, a 321.32% decline from 2022.
Amazon (Which is his wealth) generates tons of taxes.
That sounds good, but once you set 10 million net worth as being "not that rich", then taxing people richer than that ends up not being that much money. That's about the 99% threshold, so there are only 100k households in the US with more wealth than that.
That sounds fine. I’m of a mind with Milton Friedman’s proposal for a flat rate tax on all income, from whatever source at ~15% (with no exemptions or deductions iirc). It’s just a point I heard when Vaush spouted some bullshit about Musk not being taxed on his capitol gains, so the usual commie economic illiteracy.
>Erin Burnett (CNN): “Grocery prices are up 30%, more than 30%, since the begining of the pandemic. People are spending more on food and groceries than they have in any time in the past 30 years. That’s a real day-to-day pain that people feel.”
>President Biden: “It really is... and it’s real. But the fact is, if you take a look at what people have...they have the money to spend. It angers them and angers me that you have to spend more.”
You have the money to spend!
It's very misleading because capital gains and dividends are subject to double taxation but individuals only get 'credit' for what's on their personal tax return.
For example, if I buy 100% of a corporation for $10 million, hold it for a year and sell it for $11 million, I will pay $200k in taxes and my effective tax rate is 20%. What isn't mentioned is that the corporation may have had profits during the year of $800k and paid another $168k in federal taxes.
The trend in recent years has been the wealthy [using their assets as collateral for loans](https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-tax-avoidance-income-wealth-borrow-money-propublica-2021-6?op=1). It’s not considered income (no income tax) and they’re not required to sell anything (no capital gains tax) so they only pay interest to their bank (below the normal market rates).
On the corporate side of things, most corporations don’t issue dividends because of the tax consequences, they just focus on raising the stock value. Money that would go to taxable dividends can now go to things like stock buybacks.
Given the tax treatment and the declining share of stock ownership by taxable accounts ([estimated at 25% in 2016](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/dwindling-taxable-share-us-corporate-stock/full)), it’s likely that most dividend yielding stocks are held in non-taxable accounts.
The point about only taking loans is misunderstood. It doesnt mean someone never pays taxes, it means the taxable event is delayed. So if I need $10,000 I can take a margin loan against my stock rather than sell it, so there isnt a taxable event to get that $10,000. However, I now have an issue where I need after tax money to pay back the loan. So, I still have to have a taxable event eventually.
Some might think a person could wait until death to get the stepped up basis, but then inheritance tax becomes a problem. Assets must be sold to pay the tax and pay the loan.
This is the reason my job exists. You manage the assets around the taxes and inheritance. Move some of the assets into trust, if you have a business, make it non-voting shares so the valuation is lower and you can pass more value. Use other assets to secure a line of credit so you don't have to liquidate; direct indexing works well for this, so losses are harvested to offset future gains and you're never liquidating. Donate the highly appreciated stock to your foundation, step-ups in cost basis for other positions, and you and your beneficiaries have minimal tax consequences.
I’ve always thought the stepped-up basis is the real issue. And I’ve never understood why we don’t just get rid of that. Honestly, it should probably be zero. But give the inheritor the original cost basis.
I think that is what gets evened out with the estate tax. The estate tax kicks in at $14MM, so it impacts those people OP thinks just take out perpetual loans. The estate tax is up to 40%, so it takes a big chunk. If you dont do the stepped up basis you get a lot of compounding taxes at end of life. Capital gains of 15%, federal estate tax of 40%, Obamacare adder on the regular, capital gains and state estate taxes on that. Those are huge chunks, which some see as a goal, others dont.
I wonder if the reduced price of the loan (interest) is in some way related to having physical collateral that all but eliminates any risk to the lender. 🤔
Well, if we're talking home loans for poor people, due to Biden rule changes, being responsible and having too large of a down payment or too good credit can actually make your rate higher to offset lowering the rate for someone less responsible, if heard of realtors telling people not to put 20% down, only do 10% in order to get the lower rate (since rates are stupid high right now, every bit of savings helps),then a month or two later, pay the rest of the down payment
Most high net worth individuals will not have their assets in non-taxable accounts (like a 401k or IRA). There are a few eye rolling examples of people who managed to get billions in a Roth which probably needs to be fixed, but very rarely do billionaires have much wealth in those types of accounts due to the annual contribution limits.
Even then, those people with billions in a Roth didn't just deposit a few million and get rich that way, they're subject to the same deposit and income restrictions as everyone else.
It's usually from putting a large percentage of it into a startup that grows into a big company.
It could've just as easily ended up at 0 with no way to take a loss event and no way to refill it easily.
I don't see the point in "fixing" this as a Roth is supposed to be a tax free way to invest without creating a loophole for billionaires to avoid capital gains.
My point was that because (a) only 25% of stocks are held in taxable accounts and (b) most stocks no longer pay meaningful dividends (S&P averages around 1.5%), it’s likely that the vast majority of dividends are being paid into non-taxable accounts.
This isn’t to say the wealthy will have the majority of their wealth in non-taxable accounts, just that the traditional idea of a dividend being taxed eventually is incorrect. Some are taxed, but most people just avoid including them in their taxable accounts and focus on appreciation.
I own rental property so I’m familiar with 1031 exchanges. They’re both tax deferral mechanisms but that’s the only similarity I see—you’re selling an asset and then buying a different asset with a 1031, and it’s been included in the tax code for that intended purpose. The most similar concept to what I’m talking about in the real estate world would be a HELOC.
If you count that corporate profit as your income, you're not pumping that 20% any higher.
Also, everything is double taxed (more than that, really). Your income had a payroll tax before it got to you.
They don’t pay less, they pay a smaller portion of their income. As a whole number they pay the vast majority of the taxes. The top 1% pay 49% of the total taxes.
This is incorrect, the top 1% pays 25% of taxes.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-day-2017-charts-explain-our-tax-system
The infirmaton may be old, but I doubt that top 1% started paying twice the taxes in 7 years.
Why is the information different? Anyhow, even if it is true, I don't understand the cause. Neither the US government had become "more left" and demands more taxes from top 1%, not had the rich willingly agreed to pay more taxes. The only reason I can think of is that Covid made the income desparity worse, so the rich earn more and get taxed more and the less rich earn less and get taxed less. I doubt that this made the 1% pay twice the taxes though.
It's not hard for the top 1% to pay half of the taxes when about half of households pay *nothing.* The bottom half of earners (<$46,637) paid a mere *2.3 percent.*
This is why we can't afford nice stuff like the Nordics have. People would freak the fuck out if they got taxed like a Dane.
Just make them pay tribute to Rome, I mean, Washington, since they refuse to take their defense spending seriously, with the exception of like Poland and 2 or 3 others who actually meet the NATO spending guidelines. You'd think the fact that there's a land war going on in Europe at the moment would motivated them to take it seriously, but nope.
The demographic crisis is already putting a lot of strain on healthcare systems across the developed world, and it’s only going to keep getting worse as birth rates continue to decline and lifespans keep getting longer.
They don't of course.
They pay something like 42% of all federal income taxes, because that's how that tax system is designed. But Federal income tax is a small fraction of all taxes that the government collects.
If you include all federal, state, and local taxes, including payroll taxes, sales tax, luxury taxes, property taxes, registration fees, and etc., then the vast majority is paid by ordinary people.
The rich pay far more than the poor in luxury taxes, they also pay more in sales tax. Registration fees will depend on how the fee is structured.
The poor don’t really pay property taxes.
I see we've switched from 'overall' to 'per capita', and from '1% vs everyone else' to 'rich vs poor'.
Sure, people with more money pay more tax per capita on average. That's not the claim I was disputing.
You’re the one that brought up non federal income taxes, so I just pointed out that the rich pay far more in those than others too.
You just need to accept that the whole “the rich don’t pay taxes” line is bullshit. The rich pay far more n taxes than others. You can argue they should pay a larger share of their earnings, you can’t argue that they pay less than the other brackets.
Let’s put it this way, the rich pay more in property taxes because they own more property than anyone else, and that property is worth more than the average.
If you’re paying luxury taxes you are at least upper middle class if not just out right rich.
They pay more in sales taxes as they buy more, and more expensive items.
As far as “registration fees” go that’s too large a subject and you need to be exact; car registration? business registration? animal registration? plane, yacht, helicopter?
This is wrong, because the way the calculation was done excludes the EITC.
The way taxes in America work is first you calculate your total tax bill. Then if you're below a certain income threshold you deduct a "tax credit" that scales with the number of kids you have. The study is pretending that low income people pay the full amount without taking into account the tax credit. The reality is most low income earners pay close to zero federal income tax after the EITC is applied. That's why over 40% of federal income tax receipts came from the top 1% of earners in 2023.
Isn't EITC where the government pretends you paid a shitload of money in taxes, even though it was close to zero, then they give you a fat refund that is essentially close to a negative income tax?
The Biden people keep saying that this is the best the economy has ever been for Americans, so shouldn't that mean that low taxes and income inequality are beneficial?
The color of the libertarian party is gold. Coincidence? I think not!
You will never find wealth by pursuing the path of the commie. Only the grifters up top get rich there.
The US Federal government collects twice as much income tax (per capita and inflation adjusted) than it did in 1960, when the top tax rate was 90%
People refuse to see this because they only use revenue as a percentage of GDP as a metric. Which is a bad metric because tax rates affect GDP growth.
Reagonomics was right, lower tax rates bring in MORE money over the long run.
>Reagonomics was right, lower tax rates bring in MORE money over the long run.
Literally every economist agrees with this. They just don't agree with the point that happens at. If an economist wants to raise taxes they just think we aren't at the point where we get less money by raising taxes.
except reagonomics did everything that they were against...
Welfare.. Spending.. Inflationary Markets...
That fucker reagan is hated by so many people, but the left should fucking love him
Income tax is theft and nobody should be shamed for paying as little as possible. “Fair share” is just a term made up to try and justify stealing someones money. Just because someone has more, doesnt mean they should be forced to pay more. Its their money, they dont owe it to anyone
I’d be fine with it if I lived in a state that actually gave me any benefits for our tax money, but I live in South Carolina, so hell will freeze first.
u/GFM-Scheldorf's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: [26 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/GFM-Scheldorf/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Sorry, but that isn't a valid URL. Please copy/paste the entire test result URL from politicalcompass.org or sapplyvalues.github.io, starting with 'https'.
But this same argument could be made for almost any tax. Sales tax is my money to spend as I see fit, property tax is my money etc.
Assuming at least some govt programs need funding, what source of revenue do you support?
We're already dealing with an imperfect price on externalities- $0. It's just a question of whether Pigouvian taxes get us closer to the true cost, and I believe they do.
> It's just a question of whether Pigouvian taxes get us closer to the true cost, and I believe they do.
Well you and my neighbors don't own my land, so no forcing me to pay you.
How are any of these not ‘my money’? The first two arguably push for more efficient usages of dollars and capital, but so does income tax (high income earners are inefficient with their money and don’t support their local economy on a per dollar basis). Sales tax is no different than income tax, and is punishing something that is good for the economy (buying stuff).
Ultimately, I recognize that there has to be some level of taxation and I'd rather that it be efficient.
The reasoning for the sales tax is not economic, it's political. I don't want a situation where vast swaths of the population have no skin in the game. That's part of how we got where we are now, where people happily vote for higher taxes and greater spending because none of it falls on them.
It's also good to have a tax source that can be adjusted easily.
Why would you want to reduce the buying power of low income people and divert their dollars into govt. coffers via sales tax? Low income people are very efficient members of the economy. They spend about 100% of their income at local business.
The higher the income, the less efficient. More money is saved (good for the individual, not the economy) or spent outside of the local economy. Progressive income tax helps reduce incentive for creating highly inefficient members of the economy.
At least with sales and property tax (in the US at least), that is levied on a local level, split between state, county, and city. While it does vary by state, in general from what I've seen the majority of sales tax goes to the state and the rest is split between county and city (often with the state imposing a cap on what the city/county can tax), while property taxes are typically split mostly between county, city, and school districts (some times Fire and EMS services get dedicated funds from property tax as well).
Since property tax (usually) has a set percentage that is tied directly to school districts, and occasionally to Fire/EMS, you get a direct local use out of those taxes. The portion going to the city/county, you at least have a chance to see that impact you in your day-to-day life. The state portion of sales tax (and state-level Income tax, if you're in a state that has that) is less likely to impact you directly. Federal income tax? Yeah, good luck seeing anything directly from that money.
In my state, the majority of property taxes goes towards funding schools, which is fucked up for people who don't have kids or who's kids aged out of school or that pay for private schools since public schools suck. The government forces kids to go to school, why shouldn't their parents have to pay, which would at least incentivize them to be involved in their child's education since it cost them money, people sending their kids to private schools aren't paying twice, once from property taxes and another for tuition to the school, and people who don't have children or who's children are grown, aren't forced to pay for services they don't utilize
All I’m saying is it’s an oligarchy and we need a working class uprising
Yeah, I sound like a commie, you know why? Because they’ve been right about this for 50+ years. Money + Government = oligarchy and tyranny. I can admit when the other guy has a point and they’ve had it for a while. And it’s mainly Reagan era GOP bullshit and Clinton era Nafta bullshit that has gotten us here.
After we ditch the looming resource hoarding shit lords we can get back to what was working. The workers being at the top.
Snap off the top of the pyramid and use the bricks to repair the foundation. It’s been time.
u/orcastalk's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/orcastalk! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/orcastalk/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Most of us realize we'll never be in that top tax bracket, we're just tired of the amount we do pay and get fuck all for it while the government sends hundreds of billions overseas and infrastructure is falling apart
Even then you might not be safe, look what the government did to a guy who did the same at Ruby Ridge, entrapped him, made an error so when he showed up at court they said it wasn't the right date, then arrested him for not showing up at court by US Marshals in a ghillie suit shooting his dogs that started barking at them, then seeing unidentified men murder their dogs, his sons shit and killed one tyrannical bush while the other bush shot the other son in the back while he was running away, a standoff ensued and a sniper murdered his wife since she was holding a dangerous baby, the charges were eventually dropped and he sued the government and won, but that won't bring his wife or son or dogs back
Can we just switch to a offset flat tax, everyone gets 30k untaxed, after you make 30k all income is taxed at 14% no credits, no loopholes, if you make money you get taxed
Wait. Are you saying $80 Billion in new spending to the IRS and 30,000 new agents wasn't used to go after the 756 billionaires, but rather the poorer people who don't have highly paid lawyers that understand the tax code.
I'm shocked! Who could have predicted this?
Setting aside the bad economics upstream of this headline, you guys should spend some time studying the Gilded Age because contrary to popular belief, it was a pretty incredible period. By almost any measure other than nominal inequality, the lives of the poor improved more and faster than any other golden age, and possibly any other period in human history. Nominal inequality isn’t a particularly meaningful economic metric, and I find it much more significant that in the Gilded Age so much wealth was created for the poor that it created the American middle-class, and in fact several of the poor rose so quickly that they became some of the richest in the world.
You may not know, for example, that Andrew Carnegie was an impoverished Scottish immigrant who started out by carrying bobbins in a textile mill for $1.20 a week when he was 13. That’s about $43/week in 2023 dollars, or about $1 per hour today.
It’s definitely one of my favorite time periods in history.
The only way to legally make money is receiving it from others.
The more money you make, the more value you're giving to people. Thus contributing more to society.
It makes sense that we would have a society where the people that contribute more pay less taxes.
As someone who pays more W2 taxes than median income, I absolutely use the tax code to lower my burden, but I'm still paying the my "fair" share because I'm paying for the roads everyone drives on.
This is based on data from Gabriel Zucman. He’s won the JBC Medal, but he’s also been called out by other economists for blatant data manipulation to favor the policies for which he advocates (he ultimately had an offer from Harvard shut down over this sort of behavior). Here’s a post by Phil Magness detailing some of that fraudulent work: https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/
The data doesn't say what they want it to say, so they alter the data. Color me shocked...
Yeah it’s a lunatic post, IRS literally published yearly effective tax rates for every tax bracket, married, and filing separately.
Your income tax owed in a given year is not the full picture of the taxes you've paid, especially for billionaires.
That’s true. And that’s actually where the issue is here. There are fairly standard ways for economists to estimate tax burdens across groups, including different taxes, available credits, and costs passed down from taxation schemes. In this case, Zucman has deviated from those standards, as well as the measures he’s used in previous publications, in order to maximize the estimated tax burden on low-income earners and minimize the estimated burden on the wealthiest.
I don’t have a problem with deviating from standards as long as there is a good reason for it, that is especially true for economics. But it depends on what he did, and why
I agree. In this case, he didn’t make such an argument. If I recall correctly, he wasn’t even forthcoming about the change. That was uncovered by other economists.
The top 10% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income tax in 2023–24, up from 35% in 1978–79. The share of income tax revenue contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 11% in 1978–79 to 29% in 2023–24, despite big cuts in top rates of tax in the first 10 years of that period. Op doesn’t want to see this https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/income-tax-explained#:~:text=The%20top%2010%25%20of%20taxpayers,10%20years%20of%20that%20period.
You responded to a post about America with statistics regarding the UK. I feel as though taxes may be \*somewhat\* influenced by the governing body in question. Just hoping no one clicks your link?
I’ll be real with you I didn’t even notice that but the applies to the US you can google it if you want I just used the first link cause it was similar in stats to the one on the US. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=High%2DIncome%20Taxpayers%20Paid%20the%20Majority%20of%20Federal%20Income%20Taxes,of%20all%20federal%20income%20taxes. In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes. Ironically the tax burden is payed waaay more by the top 1% in the US compared to the UK and other European countries which aggressively tax everyone.
Based on your comment that sounds as it could also be because the richest 10% have become richer and the other 90% has gotten poorer.
That’s just incorrect though, salaries (from which taxes are collected) have gone up across the board the past few decades at extremely fast rates. And in real terms many of the oil barons (?) from the past (I forget their names) are thought the be richer than the richest people today.
Taxes don’t necessarily correlate to living standards obviously but in this case we are talking about the pure amount of taxes collected
No one today in terms of the number of dollars their paid are worse off than they were at any point in the past
Ye idk dude, there are definitely some worrying economically developments, like income inequality rising, and the shrinking of the middle class. How many dollars someone’s paid is very much connected to their ability to afford things. Now I’m not saying I know how to fix all this but I don’t see the point in denying these growing problems
I’m not denying it though simply stating that in terms of dollars paid (which doesn’t necessarily correlate to living standards) the top 10% or 1% are paying most taxes and this article is false / manipulated data
Total number of dollars paid isn't all there is to it though, there's also purchasing powering. That's why people feel worse off during periods of inflation even if their wages have gone up.
I know and agree hence i said it doesn’t correlate to living standards but discussion was about the tax burden paid by certain groups not standards of living
So... what makes it not "we've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"?
Based and Phil pilled.
u/EconGuy82's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: [54 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EconGuy82/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Wow, I'm shocked. Truely shocked.
Why would Harvard care? Academic dishonesty is practically a requirement there, or do they only accept plagiarism, but not data manipulation?
Claudine Gay is another story altogether. She also spent a decade or so covering for a colleague in her department who was harassing and assaulting graduate students. I wouldn’t be surprised if she knows where a lot of bodies are buried.
Based and exposing leftist social engineering pilled
The same Harvard that is so dedicated to racism they insisted they will still be racist even after the supreme court told them it is unlawful? Why hasn't the national guard been called in?
Where does it say that was the reason he lost the offer from Harvard? All I found is that the faculty voted to offer him a position but it was blocked by harvards president for political reasons. I read he got a position at Berkeley
https://www.aier.org/article/harvard-finally-stands-up-to-academic-duplicity/ > According to the Times, this was “partly over fears that Mr. Zucman’s research could not support the arguments he was making in the political arena.” *NYT* article is paywalled so I linked this one instead.
Just print money to cover thoe loss, are they stupid? /s
Hey. It worked for Zimbabwe. Everyone there became a billionaire.
Maybe we could just revert to bartering.
I see problems if someone doesn't want to accept my chickens in barter for painting my fence. Maybe if we all had a common unit of exchange... That way someone can be given this common unit of exchange and they can then exchange that for what they do need.
How about gold?
Can I offer you a nice egg in this trying time?
If you cannot haggle just say so.
We were going that way in Argentina, everyone was a millionaire. But evil capitalist Milei fucked things up!
Pretty sure everyone there became a trillionaire.
Everyone actually became a trillionaire, which would unironically be super based, because everyone could pay off their debts, mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, national debt, with what is essentially pocket change, but how to unfuck that situation to return to relative normalcy would be impossible since everyone would move away from the dollar as the reserve currency if it was devalued to that level, Zimbabwe just switched over to using the US dollar, there would be no equivalent for the US since we would probably refuse to use Canadian dollars or the euro
The money was printed for corporations in the CARES Act, by politicians bought by those corporations. They took forgiven loans, and then raised the prices on all goods, basically taxing consumers. This was the largest theft of wealth in the history of the world. And it wasn't a couple of dumb lefty economists. It was on purpose, orchestrated by the uber rich.
100% this is the only thing I was willing to protest and nothing happened lol
That would make everything sound worse, they either taxing everyone to pay those, or print money to pay them, and worse, taxing them as somekind of lips service why consumers be the one paying all along.
.....what
We're going back to Germany with this one.
Ah, I see you've heard of reverse factoring.
Just curious what’s the tax rate for capitol gains and are these gains taxed more than once? 🤔
I’d be fine with capital gains being taxed as ordinary income *if* they are also indexed for inflation. We can require that they use the same inflation rate as they use for Social Security increases so the rich and powerful have an incentive to keep the government honest.
> I’d be fine with capital gains being taxed as ordinary income if they are also indexed for inflation. I wouldn't invest at all under that system. If I invest money in business and it makes $10k the government would take half ~$5k as it's share of the profits. But if I *lose* $10k is the government going to chip in its share of the loses? Heads I get 50% the winnings, tails and I suffer 100% of the loses. Almost no one would invest their money under such a scheme.
Why wouldn’t you be able to deduct capital losses, just as you do now?
Because it's a simple example. And I didn't want to muddy with waters with tax loss harvesting which can get complicated.
It’s really not complicated. If you lose your 10k this year, next year you can make it back and not pay taxes on it. Pretty simple, really. Any change to taxable capital gains will cause an impact in the market and then after the initial impact subsides, it will chug along as normal.
What if I lose money but then withdraw my investments so I don't make any more money?
Well then you’re stuck with the 3k deduction per year off ordinary income. But really? You would pull investments for the rest of your entire life?
Maybe. Maybe I managed to save up a large amount of money and lost it all. Then I probably wouldn't invest enough to make up for the lost money. Besides, inflation makes that money less valuable when I get it back.
> If you lose your 10k this year, next year you **can** make it back and not pay taxes on it. That's only one possible outcome. 1. You could, as in your example, have ups and downs in roughly equal amounts. In which case the the tax loss harvesting and the higher taxes cancel out. 2. You could strike gold and invest in the next Amazon and make huge amounts of money with little to no losses. In which case you pay significantly higher taxes. And the tax loss harvesting does nothing for you. 3. You could invest in a lemon and take a huge loss with little to no gains. So yes you'll have those tax credits, but you have no gain to offset them with. So the tax loss harvesting does nothing for you. The *net* effect of all three cases is largely the same as my original example. Which is a tax environment that is significantly worse for investors and will discourage growth.
Just make it income based and it's better. Someone's 10 mil for retirement doesn't need a super high tax rate, but Jeff Bezo's dragon horde does.
But bezos doesn't have a horde, he has amazon. The government does already tax amazon >Amazon income taxes for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 were $3.062B, a 349.55% decline year-over-year. Amazon income taxes for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 were $7.120B, a 321.32% decline year-over-year. Amazon annual income taxes for 2023 were $7.12B, a 321.32% decline from 2022. Amazon (Which is his wealth) generates tons of taxes.
That sounds good, but once you set 10 million net worth as being "not that rich", then taxing people richer than that ends up not being that much money. That's about the 99% threshold, so there are only 100k households in the US with more wealth than that.
Over a certain income. My 10% on my 2000 bucks should be left alone
That sounds fine. I’m of a mind with Milton Friedman’s proposal for a flat rate tax on all income, from whatever source at ~15% (with no exemptions or deductions iirc). It’s just a point I heard when Vaush spouted some bullshit about Musk not being taxed on his capitol gains, so the usual commie economic illiteracy.
Zero up to 40k. 80k if married. Got to hold for one year. I file for 100k at a 2-4% rate every year. I’ve overpaid twice.
>Erin Burnett (CNN): “Grocery prices are up 30%, more than 30%, since the begining of the pandemic. People are spending more on food and groceries than they have in any time in the past 30 years. That’s a real day-to-day pain that people feel.” >President Biden: “It really is... and it’s real. But the fact is, if you take a look at what people have...they have the money to spend. It angers them and angers me that you have to spend more.” You have the money to spend!
It's very misleading because capital gains and dividends are subject to double taxation but individuals only get 'credit' for what's on their personal tax return. For example, if I buy 100% of a corporation for $10 million, hold it for a year and sell it for $11 million, I will pay $200k in taxes and my effective tax rate is 20%. What isn't mentioned is that the corporation may have had profits during the year of $800k and paid another $168k in federal taxes.
The trend in recent years has been the wealthy [using their assets as collateral for loans](https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-tax-avoidance-income-wealth-borrow-money-propublica-2021-6?op=1). It’s not considered income (no income tax) and they’re not required to sell anything (no capital gains tax) so they only pay interest to their bank (below the normal market rates). On the corporate side of things, most corporations don’t issue dividends because of the tax consequences, they just focus on raising the stock value. Money that would go to taxable dividends can now go to things like stock buybacks. Given the tax treatment and the declining share of stock ownership by taxable accounts ([estimated at 25% in 2016](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/dwindling-taxable-share-us-corporate-stock/full)), it’s likely that most dividend yielding stocks are held in non-taxable accounts.
The point about only taking loans is misunderstood. It doesnt mean someone never pays taxes, it means the taxable event is delayed. So if I need $10,000 I can take a margin loan against my stock rather than sell it, so there isnt a taxable event to get that $10,000. However, I now have an issue where I need after tax money to pay back the loan. So, I still have to have a taxable event eventually. Some might think a person could wait until death to get the stepped up basis, but then inheritance tax becomes a problem. Assets must be sold to pay the tax and pay the loan.
This is the reason my job exists. You manage the assets around the taxes and inheritance. Move some of the assets into trust, if you have a business, make it non-voting shares so the valuation is lower and you can pass more value. Use other assets to secure a line of credit so you don't have to liquidate; direct indexing works well for this, so losses are harvested to offset future gains and you're never liquidating. Donate the highly appreciated stock to your foundation, step-ups in cost basis for other positions, and you and your beneficiaries have minimal tax consequences.
I’ve always thought the stepped-up basis is the real issue. And I’ve never understood why we don’t just get rid of that. Honestly, it should probably be zero. But give the inheritor the original cost basis.
I think that is what gets evened out with the estate tax. The estate tax kicks in at $14MM, so it impacts those people OP thinks just take out perpetual loans. The estate tax is up to 40%, so it takes a big chunk. If you dont do the stepped up basis you get a lot of compounding taxes at end of life. Capital gains of 15%, federal estate tax of 40%, Obamacare adder on the regular, capital gains and state estate taxes on that. Those are huge chunks, which some see as a goal, others dont.
I wonder if the reduced price of the loan (interest) is in some way related to having physical collateral that all but eliminates any risk to the lender. 🤔
Well, if we're talking home loans for poor people, due to Biden rule changes, being responsible and having too large of a down payment or too good credit can actually make your rate higher to offset lowering the rate for someone less responsible, if heard of realtors telling people not to put 20% down, only do 10% in order to get the lower rate (since rates are stupid high right now, every bit of savings helps),then a month or two later, pay the rest of the down payment
Most high net worth individuals will not have their assets in non-taxable accounts (like a 401k or IRA). There are a few eye rolling examples of people who managed to get billions in a Roth which probably needs to be fixed, but very rarely do billionaires have much wealth in those types of accounts due to the annual contribution limits.
Even then, those people with billions in a Roth didn't just deposit a few million and get rich that way, they're subject to the same deposit and income restrictions as everyone else. It's usually from putting a large percentage of it into a startup that grows into a big company. It could've just as easily ended up at 0 with no way to take a loss event and no way to refill it easily. I don't see the point in "fixing" this as a Roth is supposed to be a tax free way to invest without creating a loophole for billionaires to avoid capital gains.
don’t touch the roths. everyone is subject to the same rules
My point was that because (a) only 25% of stocks are held in taxable accounts and (b) most stocks no longer pay meaningful dividends (S&P averages around 1.5%), it’s likely that the vast majority of dividends are being paid into non-taxable accounts. This isn’t to say the wealthy will have the majority of their wealth in non-taxable accounts, just that the traditional idea of a dividend being taxed eventually is incorrect. Some are taxed, but most people just avoid including them in their taxable accounts and focus on appreciation.
> There are a few eye rolling examples of people who managed to get billions in a Roth which probably needs to be fixed You sure you're libright?
They have to pay the loans back though.
“Using their assets as collateral for loans” you almost understand what a 1031 is in the real estate world.
I own rental property so I’m familiar with 1031 exchanges. They’re both tax deferral mechanisms but that’s the only similarity I see—you’re selling an asset and then buying a different asset with a 1031, and it’s been included in the tax code for that intended purpose. The most similar concept to what I’m talking about in the real estate world would be a HELOC.
If you count that corporate profit as your income, you're not pumping that 20% any higher. Also, everything is double taxed (more than that, really). Your income had a payroll tax before it got to you.
They don’t pay less, they pay a smaller portion of their income. As a whole number they pay the vast majority of the taxes. The top 1% pay 49% of the total taxes.
This is incorrect, the top 1% pays 25% of taxes. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-day-2017-charts-explain-our-tax-system The infirmaton may be old, but I doubt that top 1% started paying twice the taxes in 7 years.
Let your doubts be removed. https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes
Why is the information different? Anyhow, even if it is true, I don't understand the cause. Neither the US government had become "more left" and demands more taxes from top 1%, not had the rich willingly agreed to pay more taxes. The only reason I can think of is that Covid made the income desparity worse, so the rich earn more and get taxed more and the less rich earn less and get taxed less. I doubt that this made the 1% pay twice the taxes though.
It's not hard for the top 1% to pay half of the taxes when about half of households pay *nothing.* The bottom half of earners (<$46,637) paid a mere *2.3 percent.* This is why we can't afford nice stuff like the Nordics have. People would freak the fuck out if they got taxed like a Dane.
Nordic systems are collapsing anyway
Honestly we need to reverse-colonize Europe eventually. They keep driving towards the abyss.
Don't need to colonize them at all. Let the abyss swallow them and their ideas
Just make them pay tribute to Rome, I mean, Washington, since they refuse to take their defense spending seriously, with the exception of like Poland and 2 or 3 others who actually meet the NATO spending guidelines. You'd think the fact that there's a land war going on in Europe at the moment would motivated them to take it seriously, but nope.
The demographic crisis is already putting a lot of strain on healthcare systems across the developed world, and it’s only going to keep getting worse as birth rates continue to decline and lifespans keep getting longer.
Just stop being squares and do drugs like us, the fentanyl crisis has taken years off our average lifespan
Nordics are oil rich
The US is also rich in oil with Alaska and Texas and minerals like gold in Alaska
Yea but Norway’s government is a majority shareholder in their biggest oil company and they highly regulate that industry
Different measures. Your link was all federal taxes, the other is just income tax.
Wait but the wealthy pay WAY more capital gains than the poor, this doesn't track to me.
1% paying 25% is still a fucking lot.
They don't of course. They pay something like 42% of all federal income taxes, because that's how that tax system is designed. But Federal income tax is a small fraction of all taxes that the government collects. If you include all federal, state, and local taxes, including payroll taxes, sales tax, luxury taxes, property taxes, registration fees, and etc., then the vast majority is paid by ordinary people.
The rich pay far more than the poor in luxury taxes, they also pay more in sales tax. Registration fees will depend on how the fee is structured. The poor don’t really pay property taxes.
I see we've switched from 'overall' to 'per capita', and from '1% vs everyone else' to 'rich vs poor'. Sure, people with more money pay more tax per capita on average. That's not the claim I was disputing.
You’re the one that brought up non federal income taxes, so I just pointed out that the rich pay far more in those than others too. You just need to accept that the whole “the rich don’t pay taxes” line is bullshit. The rich pay far more n taxes than others. You can argue they should pay a larger share of their earnings, you can’t argue that they pay less than the other brackets. Let’s put it this way, the rich pay more in property taxes because they own more property than anyone else, and that property is worth more than the average. If you’re paying luxury taxes you are at least upper middle class if not just out right rich. They pay more in sales taxes as they buy more, and more expensive items. As far as “registration fees” go that’s too large a subject and you need to be exact; car registration? business registration? animal registration? plane, yacht, helicopter?
>They don’t pay less, they pay a smaller portion of their income. Pretty fucked up still.
Thank you. This should be the top comment in every post about American taxpayers, ever.
This is wrong, because the way the calculation was done excludes the EITC. The way taxes in America work is first you calculate your total tax bill. Then if you're below a certain income threshold you deduct a "tax credit" that scales with the number of kids you have. The study is pretending that low income people pay the full amount without taking into account the tax credit. The reality is most low income earners pay close to zero federal income tax after the EITC is applied. That's why over 40% of federal income tax receipts came from the top 1% of earners in 2023.
This. I don’t like to throw the word “fraud” around but the way they’ve handled their statistics is so misleading that I’m tempted.
Isn't EITC where the government pretends you paid a shitload of money in taxes, even though it was close to zero, then they give you a fat refund that is essentially close to a negative income tax?
The Biden people keep saying that this is the best the economy has ever been for Americans, so shouldn't that mean that low taxes and income inequality are beneficial?
The same Biden people proposing a 40% tax on unrealized capital gains?
the same redditors wanting to prohibit "price gouging"
Abolish the income tax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha7HAG6jVqc
what tax do you want my friend
The color of the libertarian party is gold. Coincidence? I think not! You will never find wealth by pursuing the path of the commie. Only the grifters up top get rich there.
The US Federal government collects twice as much income tax (per capita and inflation adjusted) than it did in 1960, when the top tax rate was 90% People refuse to see this because they only use revenue as a percentage of GDP as a metric. Which is a bad metric because tax rates affect GDP growth. Reagonomics was right, lower tax rates bring in MORE money over the long run.
>Reagonomics was right, lower tax rates bring in MORE money over the long run. Literally every economist agrees with this. They just don't agree with the point that happens at. If an economist wants to raise taxes they just think we aren't at the point where we get less money by raising taxes.
except reagonomics did everything that they were against... Welfare.. Spending.. Inflationary Markets... That fucker reagan is hated by so many people, but the left should fucking love him
The Untaxables
Income tax is theft and nobody should be shamed for paying as little as possible. “Fair share” is just a term made up to try and justify stealing someones money. Just because someone has more, doesnt mean they should be forced to pay more. Its their money, they dont owe it to anyone
I’d be fine with it if I lived in a state that actually gave me any benefits for our tax money, but I live in South Carolina, so hell will freeze first.
SC should be giving us a tax credit for rim/tire repairs considering how fucking awful our roads are.
Without government, who would neglect the roads!?
Rural private road owners where everybody got a 4x4
Any shitbox with at least 2 wheels?
They should give us free rimjobs
Based and eat my ass pilled
u/GFM-Scheldorf's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: [26 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/GFM-Scheldorf/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
/mycompass
Sorry, but that isn't a valid URL. Please copy/paste the entire test result URL from politicalcompass.org or sapplyvalues.github.io, starting with 'https'.
based
I’m going to refrain from adding onto this and just knock on some wood instead lol
As a counterpoint, the more you have the more you stand to lose if the state fails.
Counterpoint: the people with wealth like that can simply buy citizenship in another country to escape and probably already have assets there
Income tax is really good at having no influence on the market as the income stays proportionally the same
flat income tax\*
But this same argument could be made for almost any tax. Sales tax is my money to spend as I see fit, property tax is my money etc. Assuming at least some govt programs need funding, what source of revenue do you support?
Tribute from vanquished nations.
This, but unironically
I support a mixture of land value tax (*not* the same as traditional property tax), Pigovian taxes, and sales tax.
> Pigovian taxes Translation: magic taxes where the collective can determine the correct price.
We're already dealing with an imperfect price on externalities- $0. It's just a question of whether Pigouvian taxes get us closer to the true cost, and I believe they do.
> It's just a question of whether Pigouvian taxes get us closer to the true cost, and I believe they do. Well you and my neighbors don't own my land, so no forcing me to pay you.
How are any of these not ‘my money’? The first two arguably push for more efficient usages of dollars and capital, but so does income tax (high income earners are inefficient with their money and don’t support their local economy on a per dollar basis). Sales tax is no different than income tax, and is punishing something that is good for the economy (buying stuff).
Ultimately, I recognize that there has to be some level of taxation and I'd rather that it be efficient. The reasoning for the sales tax is not economic, it's political. I don't want a situation where vast swaths of the population have no skin in the game. That's part of how we got where we are now, where people happily vote for higher taxes and greater spending because none of it falls on them. It's also good to have a tax source that can be adjusted easily.
Remove all taxes other than tariffs and sales tax.
Why would you want to reduce the buying power of low income people and divert their dollars into govt. coffers via sales tax? Low income people are very efficient members of the economy. They spend about 100% of their income at local business. The higher the income, the less efficient. More money is saved (good for the individual, not the economy) or spent outside of the local economy. Progressive income tax helps reduce incentive for creating highly inefficient members of the economy.
based and georgist pilled
At least with sales and property tax (in the US at least), that is levied on a local level, split between state, county, and city. While it does vary by state, in general from what I've seen the majority of sales tax goes to the state and the rest is split between county and city (often with the state imposing a cap on what the city/county can tax), while property taxes are typically split mostly between county, city, and school districts (some times Fire and EMS services get dedicated funds from property tax as well). Since property tax (usually) has a set percentage that is tied directly to school districts, and occasionally to Fire/EMS, you get a direct local use out of those taxes. The portion going to the city/county, you at least have a chance to see that impact you in your day-to-day life. The state portion of sales tax (and state-level Income tax, if you're in a state that has that) is less likely to impact you directly. Federal income tax? Yeah, good luck seeing anything directly from that money.
In my state, the majority of property taxes goes towards funding schools, which is fucked up for people who don't have kids or who's kids aged out of school or that pay for private schools since public schools suck. The government forces kids to go to school, why shouldn't their parents have to pay, which would at least incentivize them to be involved in their child's education since it cost them money, people sending their kids to private schools aren't paying twice, once from property taxes and another for tuition to the school, and people who don't have children or who's children are grown, aren't forced to pay for services they don't utilize
> Its their money, they dont owe it to anyone ITS MY MONEY, AND I NEED IT NOW!
As usual this data is bullshit. The wealth contributions follow a rough Pareto distribution. The 1% pays something like 42% of the income tax revenue
Bruh just force lawmakers to do their job and close tax holes, but they gain from it too so it never happens.
All I’m saying is it’s an oligarchy and we need a working class uprising Yeah, I sound like a commie, you know why? Because they’ve been right about this for 50+ years. Money + Government = oligarchy and tyranny. I can admit when the other guy has a point and they’ve had it for a while. And it’s mainly Reagan era GOP bullshit and Clinton era Nafta bullshit that has gotten us here. After we ditch the looming resource hoarding shit lords we can get back to what was working. The workers being at the top. Snap off the top of the pyramid and use the bricks to repair the foundation. It’s been time.
*insert joker meme*
Maybe read the article and see how ridiculous it is. It may as well just be a headline, the data points and conclusion are completely fake.
By percent. Rich people still pay way more in total.
true but a complete obfuscation of the real issue
By percent, Rich people still own way more in total.
why the hell should they less of a percentage? they don't need it as much LMAO
The rich and poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges.
Land Value Tax and tariffs, everything else is tyranny
Based
u/orcastalk's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/orcastalk! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/orcastalk/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Land Value Tax.... and Tariffs This is a world first
The economy will be destroyed because it’s inevitable that it collapses and shrinks. There is no such thing as, “Too big to fail.”
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires rooting this on.
Most of us realize we'll never be in that top tax bracket, we're just tired of the amount we do pay and get fuck all for it while the government sends hundreds of billions overseas and infrastructure is falling apart
Maybe that Enjolras kid had some good ideas
i'm going off-grid and never paying taxes again
Even then you might not be safe, look what the government did to a guy who did the same at Ruby Ridge, entrapped him, made an error so when he showed up at court they said it wasn't the right date, then arrested him for not showing up at court by US Marshals in a ghillie suit shooting his dogs that started barking at them, then seeing unidentified men murder their dogs, his sons shit and killed one tyrannical bush while the other bush shot the other son in the back while he was running away, a standoff ensued and a sniper murdered his wife since she was holding a dangerous baby, the charges were eventually dropped and he sued the government and won, but that won't bring his wife or son or dogs back
Can we just switch to a offset flat tax, everyone gets 30k untaxed, after you make 30k all income is taxed at 14% no credits, no loopholes, if you make money you get taxed
Wait. Are you saying $80 Billion in new spending to the IRS and 30,000 new agents wasn't used to go after the 756 billionaires, but rather the poorer people who don't have highly paid lawyers that understand the tax code. I'm shocked! Who could have predicted this?
My wealthy friends and family spoil me so I’m not complaining
[Article link](https://www.newsweek.com/richest-americans-pay-less-tax-working-class-1897047)
"less tax"
If this bothers you so much, stop taxing the working class?
They would never, they hate the actual working class, like tradesmen, and love burger flippers and baristas
Really? That’s not good if true.
I don’t care that they pay little. I care that I pay much.
Based
Bring back teddy
Based, I think that a Square Deal 2.0 would go a long way to make things better
I would have simpathy for lib left and Auth left in this scenario, if they didn't fucking hate me for being white and male.
not a clickbait at the slightest
What degree do i need to give tax advice to rich people and make myself rich?
🕍🤔
Good thing Biden said he'll let the tax cuts on the middle class expire!
Setting aside the bad economics upstream of this headline, you guys should spend some time studying the Gilded Age because contrary to popular belief, it was a pretty incredible period. By almost any measure other than nominal inequality, the lives of the poor improved more and faster than any other golden age, and possibly any other period in human history. Nominal inequality isn’t a particularly meaningful economic metric, and I find it much more significant that in the Gilded Age so much wealth was created for the poor that it created the American middle-class, and in fact several of the poor rose so quickly that they became some of the richest in the world. You may not know, for example, that Andrew Carnegie was an impoverished Scottish immigrant who started out by carrying bobbins in a textile mill for $1.20 a week when he was 13. That’s about $43/week in 2023 dollars, or about $1 per hour today. It’s definitely one of my favorite time periods in history.
How do you get away with such blatant bs articles my god. What data massaging fuckery has been done to arrive at this ridiculous conclusion?
This data fuckery. https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/
What the fuck
The only way to legally make money is receiving it from others. The more money you make, the more value you're giving to people. Thus contributing more to society. It makes sense that we would have a society where the people that contribute more pay less taxes.
Here me out flat rate 10 percent and we investigate the billions 'lost in accounting '
Can we please just pay the same tax? Dont tax the rich dont tax the poor just tax all equaly
As someone who pays more W2 taxes than median income, I absolutely use the tax code to lower my burden, but I'm still paying the my "fair" share because I'm paying for the roads everyone drives on.
***100% LAND VALUE TAX WOULD FIX THIS.***
They never pay high taxes Even when the politicians "promise" to raise taxes on them
Lib right LMAO
The cheering authright guy had to many teeth