Again, the “complaint” isn’t that the yield is so low, it’s that taxes are so high.
By his numbers, he is paying out $24 bill in total taxes.
This is on a revenue of $164 bill, and and a gross of $87 billion.
If he is actually paying out that much in taxes, then it is only 27% on gross. And that’s total. And, as I said, it is very likely that he is including payroll taxes in that, as income taxes actually only account for about 6 billion, or a little less than 7% of gross.
I absolutely disagree that 7% is too high for taxes.
You need to understand that in a capitalist system, money is the information bus of the economy. Money, and the free exchange of goods and services based on prices, is how we figure out relative value and coordinate economic activity. Money is an information transfer mechanism that enables a massively parallel exploration of efficiency and invention. That’s the main reason why capitalism works so well, and why price controls and wage controls are so destructive - they screw up the very mechanism by which we coordinate economic activity.
The root word of capitalism is capital. That is, for the system to work at all, people need to have the ability to accumulate capital to reinvest where they see fit. A system which taxes the ‘rich’ an inordinate amount of capital is a system in which citizens are now unable to invent, produce, and invest the production and investments of others. Without rich millionaires and billionaires, there would be no Silicon Valley. There would be no Amazon, no Tesla, no SpaceX. There probably wouldn’t be an internet as we know it. Venture capital would not exist, and so people without their own capital but with good ideas would not be able to get them funded unless they were part of the establishment that receives government money.
Anyone who thinks that we can replace the dynamism of a capitalist economy with a centrally managed socialist economy should take a real hard look at what has just happened in Venezuela. And anyone who thinks this isn’t an inevitable result of removing the ‘excess’ capital from the rich needs to study some economics.
So don’t fool yourself - you can’t maintain a capitalist economy in a world where capital cannot be accumulated in private hands. Some have made much of the fact that the highest tax brackets in the 1950’s were up in the 90% range, but the truth is that no one paid that much. The effective tax rate for millionaires was more like 50% at the start, and was around 30-35% by the end of the 1950’s. Even so, when Kennedy lowered the crazy high tax rates, the economy benefited dramatically.
But what’s even more important is that the crazy high rates meant that millionaires paid a smaller share of the overall tax burden than they do today. Because those high rates came with all sorts of tax credits for the rich. The people who got screwed were those who were doing okay, but not well enough that they could take advantage of such credits.
What such high tax rates do is force government to insert many loopholes into the tax code to keep the economy functioning. Those in turn are influenced and gamed by the rich who have access to lawmakers. This distorts economic activity and puts the bulk of the cost on the politically disadvantaged. But it does give government more power and control over business.
By the way, the system of government in which the government dictates how business is run without actually owning the means of production is known as Fascism.
What and how much are the companies “getting”? Show your work.
Already did. Right below what you quoted.
That quote says nothing about companies getting anything. That’s money to workers. If my employee has a kid and suddenly qualifies for SNAP, I have received nothing.
[deleted.]
Sorry, posted in wrong thread.
The government is supplementing the income of Walmart employees.
So, your tax dollars are paying the cashier at Walmart.
You ok with that or do you think Walmart should be the one to pay that salary?
The idea that taxpayers are subsidizing companies like Walmart makes the same leap that is made with the claim that renters are paying property tax. It’s not accurate and is framed in a way to be favorable to the one making the claim.*
The decision to provide a social safety net in the form of transfer payments is independent of the decision by the employee of Walmart to work there, and the decision of Walmart to hire them. You could have two workers doing identical jobs, one who is a well off pensioner who works there to pass time, and the other a struggling 20 something year old. The younger person may qualify for government assistance, but that doesn’t mean that Walmart receives a subsidy for one worker and not the other.
*This excepts the example where businesses do in fact receive a direct subsidy for hiring certain employees like in redevelopment areas, etc.
I’m curious what you think would happen if tomorrow the government passed a law that withdrew all government benefits from Walmart employees?
My tax dollars are paying the person. By working at Walmart, he or she needs less of my taxes.
Your linked article includes people who are working 10 hours per week. It includes people who chose to have three kids. A single earner in a three-person household who only works 10 hours per week would need to earn nearly $100/hr to hit the SNAP income limit. Walmart pays plenty enough for most individuals to live on. But given that the poverty line doesn’t actually have an upper limit, you can get some unexpected results as you approach clowncar vagina territory, with limits over $50k for a household of 8. A worker going all quiverfull isn’t Walmart’s problem. But we’ve decided to make it our problem. And I am ok with that.
I’m curious if you can make and defend your own argument instead of JAQing hypotheticals. What do you think, and why?
Except that taxpayers are subsidizing low pay by companies like Walmart because We the People end up bearing all the real and social costs of their low wage workforce.
I think the issue is if you say raising wages causes higher prices how is that different than lower prices but you subsidize Walmart through your taxes?
And good job not answering my question.
No, they’re not.
Workers are paid for the value of their work, nothing more. If said pay is not a so-called living wage, that’s not the company’s problem.
There would be a disparate impact ruling against the government?
Let me ask you: if the government decided tomorrow that social benefits should be paid to anyone making $100,000 or less, would you say then that every company paying less than that was suddenly being subsidized by the government? Even if they had nothing to do with the change, or even opposed it?
The idea that companies are being subsidized if their employees receive social assistance is completely daft.
So you are fine with sweatshops? If people are willing to work there under those conditions and for a pittance no problem?
I’m not your monkey; you can make your own argument without asking me to do it for you.
I don’t think this one came out as you intended it. I might actually be interested in addressing it but I’ll give you a moment to rephrase.
We are in a forum called “Great Debates”.
“Debate” does not work if you refuse the give and take.
But if you’ve got nothing a debate tactic is to deflect. That’s your choice to make but then neither do I need to respond to you further if you choose to do that.
You claimed that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart and friends. Bone and I showed how this is not the case. Instead of countering, you came back with a hypothetical. If you think that hypothetical helps your arguments, then just make the damn argument.