Spending is the problem...

[Seattle]

It's a pretty common complaint that the "rich" need to pay their "fair" share of taxes. My view is that they already do pay more than their fair share. However, let's look at US debt. As I recall it's something like $35 trillion. If you took all the wealth of US billionaires (less than $5 trillion) then the debt would still be more than $30 trillion.

Let's say you taxed capital gains at the ordinary income rate since this is what many want. That would raise about $100 billion. Our budget deficit is about $1.8 trillion So even if you did that, the deficit would still be $1,7 trillion.

Even if you made the tax rate 90% on income above $1 million and raised $800 or so billion, the deficit would still be $1 trillion.

Clearly over-spending is the problem. Our tax rates are within a "normal" range of other developed economies. Our spending is way outside of that norm.

 

[Sarkus]

It's a pretty common complaint that the "rich" need to pay their "fair" share of taxes. My view is that they already do pay more than their fair share. However, let's look at US debt. As I recall it's something like $35 trillion. If you took all the wealth of US billionaires (less than $5 trillion) then the debt would still be more than $30 trillion.

Let's say you taxed capital gains at the ordinary income rate since this is what many want. That would raise about $100 billion. Our budget deficit is about $1.8 trillion So even if you did that, the deficit would still be $1,7 trillion.

Even if you made the tax rate 90% on income above $1 million and raised $800 or so billion, the deficit would still be $1 trillion.

Clearly over-spending is the problem. Our tax rates are within a "normal" range of other developed economies. Our spending is way outside of that norm.

While I understand that spending is the problem, at least in so far as reducing the deficit, I'm not sure anyone is particularly saying that taxing the rich more is the panacea to all the US problems.
Taxing the rich more is one of addressing inequality. The deficit is one of overall tax receipts versus spending. They clearly overlap but their objectives are mostly different.
So, if spending was under control and there was no annual deficit, there would continue to be a call to tax the rich more, and redistribute accordingly.
Different targets, different approaches. Neither policy in isolation addresses both.
If you see "tax the rich" as the policy to address the deficit then I would suggest you're not correctly understanding what they're looking for with that policy.

Note, I'm not saying that taxing the rich more is the solution to inequality, but it is a policy that works towards that.

And if TL;DR: I'm not sure your premise is correct, that they're considered solutions to the same problem.

 

[Seattle]

While I understand that spending is the problem, at least in so far as reducing the deficit, I'm not sure anyone is particularly saying that taxing the rich more is the panacea to all the US problems.
Taxing the rich more is one of addressing inequality. The deficit is one of overall tax receipts versus spending. They clearly overlap but their objectives are mostly different.
So, if spending was under control and there was no annual deficit, there would continue to be a call to tax the rich more, and redistribute accordingly.
Different targets, different approaches. Neither policy in isolation addresses both.
If you see "tax the rich" as the policy to address the deficit then I would suggest you're not correctly understanding what they're looking for with that policy.

Note, I'm not saying that taxing the rich more is the solution to inequality, but it is a policy that works towards that.

And if TL;DR: I'm not sure your premise is correct, that they're considered solutions to the same problem.

Every election new spending is proposed and taxing the rich is how it is proposed to pay for it, When talking about the debt it's claimed that the debt went up more under Trump due to tax cuts for the rich.

Inequality of outcome is a benefit and not a problem to fix.

 

[parmalee]

It's a pretty common complaint that the "rich" need to pay their "fair" share of taxes. My view is that they already do pay more than their fair share. However, let's look at US debt. As I recall it's something like $35 trillion. If you took all the wealth of US billionaires (less than $5 trillion) then the debt would still be more than $30 trillion.

This is perhaps the dozenth thread you've created in which you say exactly the same thing. And? What's your point? Can you point to me a post wherein anyone here has ever claimed that taxing the rich would address the debt?

Let's say you taxed capital gains at the ordinary income rate since this is what many want. That would raise about $100 billion. Our budget deficit is about $1.8 trillion So even if you did that, the deficit would still be $1,7 trillion.

Even if you made the tax rate 90% on income above $1 million and raised $800 or so billion, the deficit would still be $1 trillion.

Clearly over-spending is the problem. Our tax rates are within a "normal" range of other developed economies. Our spending is way outside of that norm.

Clearly, yeah, whatever.

And yet our wealth inequality and income inequality vastly exceed that of pretty much every other "developed" country. That word you're so fond of--nuance--involves looking at things from multiple perspectives. When you consistently ignore wealth and income gaps, and focus solely upon taxes--like how people like Jeff Bezos pay taxes on a reported income of less than 90 thousand dollars per annum, for the past two decades--you're not being very nuanced.

 

[Sarkus]

Inequality of outcome is a benefit and not a problem to fix.

The extreme inequality seen in the US is, for many, a problem that they want to fix. If you don't see it as a problem then you won't see, or agree, that anything needs fixing. That's not right or wrong, that's just a difference of opinion. An opinion not everyone shares, though. Many do. Many don't.

It also doesn't mean that those people want to remove inequality entirely, and that they think everyone should get the same income, the same assets, irrespective of input to the system. It's what they see as the problem of extreme inequality that they're trying to fix. And not really to the detriment of the ultra-rich, but to the benefit of those poor sods at the bottom.

 

[parmalee]

It also doesn't mean that those people want to remove inequality entirely, and that they think everyone should get the same income, the same assets, irrespective of input to the system. It's what they see as the problem of extreme inequality that they're trying to fix. And not really to the detriment of the ultra-rich, but to the benefit of those poor sods at the bottom.

It's both the extreme inequality and the fact that those at the bottom simply do not have enough. Estimates vary, but I have seen several sources that state that roughly 50 percent of Americans have less than 500 dollars in savings. They live paycheck to paycheck, they cannot afford to get sick, and they have few or no options for mobility of any sort, i.e., different jobs, different housing situations, etc.

 

[(Q)]

Clearly over-spending is the problem. Our tax rates are within a "normal" range of other developed economies. Our spending is way outside of that norm.

When Dems spend money, they make investments in America that benefits people which in turn create a better economy and thus more tax money available. When the GOP spends money, it is to give themselves tax breaks at the expense of America and the economy.

The problem is GOP spending.

 

[TheVat]

It's a pretty common complaint that the "rich" need to pay their "fair" share of taxes. My view is that they already do pay more than their fair share. However, let's look at US debt. As I recall it's something like $35 trillion. If you took all the wealth of US billionaires (less than $5 trillion) then the debt would still be more than $30 trillion.

Strawmannish. National debts take decades to bring down, and usually it involves more taxation of the entire upper class not just billionaires. It would also involve reduced spending where the US spends way more than other developed countries - the military capacity to annihilate the entire planet and play geopolitical world cop springs to mind. Subsidizing corn so that everything processed can be full of minimally nutritious corn derivatives is another. I'm sure many here can add to that list.

Also, most people who make over say 250K /year, do so thanks to the labor of other people who are doing most of the actual work. So them paying a higher tax rate for all that infrastructure and education/training of workers that helped them carry home their bags of money is quite fair. The government is shelling out quite a bit to assist their large paychecks, so giving some back is reasonable.

 

[Seattle]

National debts take decades to bring down, and usually it involves more taxation of the entire upper class not just billionaires.

Irrelevant but true. It takes time to bring down the debt.

I gave several extreme examples to show that even those examples weren't enough to do the job. I have an example of taking all the assets from every billionaire. I gave the example of eliminating all capital gains taxes on everyone and I gave the example of taxing all income over $1 million at 90%.

It would also involve reduced spending where the US spends way more than other developed countries - the military capacity to annihilate the entire planet and play geopolitical world cop springs to mind. Subsidizing corn so that everything processed can be full of minimally nutritious corn derivatives is another. I'm sure many here can add to that list.

I agree with the overspending comment, obviously and I agree with the military comments. Social Security, Medicare (both run poorly) and the military (much too large) are the largest contributors to the debt.

Also, most people who make over say 250K /year, do so thanks to the labor of other people who are doing most of the actual work. So them paying a higher tax rate for all that infrastructure and education/training of workers that helped them carry home their bags of money is quite fair. The government is shelling out quite a bit to assist their large paychecks, so giving some back is reasonable.

These comments border on the Marxist "labor" theory of economics. It's ridiculous as is dividing people into those who do the "actual work" and the rest. The use of "bags of money" shows how unserious you are with this argument so I'll leave it at that.

 

[parmalee]

These comments border on the Marxist "labor" theory of economics.

So? You've said what it "borders" on, how or why does that invalidate it? Your strawman thread, which you've created at least a dozen times within the past year alone, is entirely dependent upon a fallacy.

It's ridiculous as is dividing people into those who do the "actual work" and the rest.

How is that ridiculous? What "work" does the person at top, typically (in the US, but nowhere else as your OP falsely suggests--your "'normal' range" bs) making 300 to 500 times as much as the average employee to warrant that disparity?

The use of "bags of money" shows how unserious you are with this argument so I'll leave it at that.

Right. Because metaphors are unacceptable by your terms?

 

[Seattle]

So? You've said what it "borders" on, how or why does that invalidate it? Your strawman thread, which you've created at least a dozen times within the past year alone, is entirely dependent upon a fallacy.

What is the fallacy, in your opinion? If you agree with the Marxist labor theory of value, please describe and defend it.

How is that ridiculous? What "work" does the person at top, typically (in the US, but nowhere else as your OP falsely suggests--your "'normal' range" bs) making 300 to 500 times as much as the average employee to warrant that disparity?

This is nonsense since I didn't speak of pay, CEO or otherwise and therefore didn't use "normal range" in that context.
If you want to describe how everyone at Apple isn't "working" except for the people assembling the phone, please do so.

Does anyone who takes 10 hours to sweep the floor deserve more than someone who takes 5 hours to sweep that same floor?

 

[parmalee]

What is the fallacy, in your opinion? If you agree with the Marxist labor theory of value, please describe and defend it.

Already addressed in posts 2, 4 and 8. Repeating it yet again will do nothing to address the real issue, which is your functional illiteracy.

This is nonsense since I didn't speak of pay, CEO or otherwise and therefore didn't use "normal range" in that context.
If you want to describe how everyone at Apple isn't "working" except for the people assembling the phone, please do so.

Oh, so we can only address what you wrote in the OP? Taxing income and/or capital gains, got it. Nothing that follows the OP is to be discussed here.

Also, no one said anything about anyone at the top not working, that's your strawman. Yet again. Address what is written, not whatever feeble nonsense is going on inside your head.

However, you can't even make sense of your own writing, how on an earth do you expect to discuss anything with other people?

 

[parmalee]

Does anyone who takes 10 hours to sweep the floor deserve more than someone who takes 5 hours to sweep that same floor?

This comment includes words that Hitler probably used at one point or another over the course of his lifetime; therefore, your observations are utterly ridiculous and your "argument" is wholly invalidated. Thread over. I "win".

 

[billvon]

And if TL;DR: I'm not sure your premise is correct, that they're considered solutions to the same problem.

Agreed, mostly.

"Taxing the rich" is just one part of the solution to the massive deficits we are running. Other solutions on the revenue side (tax reform etc) are also only part of the deficit solution. Reducing spending is the largest part of the solution.

Reducing income inequality is a different goal, but shares the "taxing the rich" solution.

 

[billvon]

Also, most people who make over say 250K /year, do so thanks to the labor of other people who are doing most of the actual work. So them paying a higher tax rate for all that infrastructure and education/training of workers that helped them carry home their bags of money is quite fair. The government is shelling out quite a bit to assist their large paychecks, so giving some back is reasonable.

Yep. And usually the opposite is true - towns/states often REDUCE taxes on large corporations they want to attract. Their thinking is that if they attract more business, they get more taxes overall even if the rate they charge is reduced.

This often leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation where the largest users of services pay the least (on a per-person basis) for the services the government provides them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sometimes I think the US is like one Mom with 346,336,097 kids, each of whom needs.

 

[candy]

The problem is not the tax rate structure.
The inequity is from the tax preference items that result in a high income taxpayer paying a lower percentage of their income than other taxpayers.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the h.i.t. pays 2% of their income in taxes and that 2% is equal to 5% tax on each of 25 low income tax payers is there a problem?

 

[parmalee]

Yep. And usually the opposite is true - towns/states often REDUCE taxes on large corporations they want to attract. Their thinking is that if they attract more business, they get more taxes overall even if the rate they charge is reduced.

This often leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation where the largest users of services pay the least (on a per-person basis) for the services the government provides them.

As with Obama Care and the ACA, Americans seem to get easily confused by names. The wealthiest corporations have long been the biggest beneficiaries of what is, essentially, welfare, but because it goes by other names most people seem wholly unaware of this. Amazon benefits enormously from the Federal Highway Administration and the USPS, for instance, but that's not "welfare" to most people.

 

[Ken Fabian]

FWIW my own view is that no-one benefits - directly and indirectly - more from taxpayer funded infrastructure and services and good governance than the wealthy. It isn't just the roads their limos get to drive on - 'just like other people' - it is roads their businesses drive on and depend on to be viable and profitable. Having a pool of employees who are literate and numerate increases the productivity of their businesses - something prior taxpayers funded and given the choice they would defund on the basis that not paying in the present advantages their profitability; the longer term consequences are not their responsibility. Those services don't appear on their books but they depend on them all the same. Yet they insist that governments do it their way, not for the sake of the national good, but for their own. Taxpayers pay to protect their businesses and properties from crime and from foreign invaders - and sometimes protects their assets in other nations as well. And whilst at the company level paying lower wages appears to increase profitability, when every company does it consumer demand is affected and businesses suffer.

It is clear from real world examples that nations are not impoverished nor wealth accumulation by wealthy people impeded by them paying higher taxes than in nations where the wealthy make the tax rules. There needs to be governance that looks beyond the success of the successful as the measure of success of the nation.