Tax the rich!

In My Humble Opinion
81

I’m not the one who brought Somalia into the conversation. You did. And it’s a standard trope that’s trotted out every time someone objects to pay taxes. “Well dontcha like ROADS!” Yes, I like roads. I’m willing to pay for roads. I’m also fine with paying taxes, but I think it’s gotta a bit out of hand. Now people are calling for even high taxes and wealth taxes. Well sorry but I don’t agree we need more taxes.

Well for one thing it doesn’t do any good. The US will tax you no matter where you live. Without that rule I would expect you would see a great many people relocate somewhere like Monaco. It’s just simply not available as an option for people in the US to do that and avoid the taxes.

Again, I’m not disagreeing we should have taxes. I’m arguing they are too high. Your argument here might hold some water if I wanted everything for free, but I don’t. So why would I engage in arguing against your strawman Somalian lover? It’s pointless.

Basically your opinion is charge people as much as possible right up until the point where they decide to bail. Good policy you got there. I personally find it extremely distasteful.

Again banging the move to Somalia if you don’t like it drum. What a waste of time.

82

Since you are fine with paying taxes, but you have some idea of their maximum amount, how much is that? Have you even attempted to figure out what a standard rate should be, or do you just know it should be lower than you pay? I guess I’m asking whether you base your opinion on a sense that you are being gouged or some particular calculation.

You don’t actually have to be an American, you know. Why are you so beholden to this country?

I think it’s a mistake to address the tax issue by asking how high taxes should be. I think we start with, “what do we need?” then figure out how to pay for it. That’s why I think Somalia is relevant - it’s an example of a society that barely provides for anything; it’s plainly not something you or I would tolerate. So, now we need to figure out how much a better society costs; only at that point can we discuss tax rates.

Instead, though, you seem to be limiting yourself to the tax rate, and are unwilling to discuss the larger social standard that those taxes pay for.

More distortion. Where do you get that from? Instead, I am asking why people don’t bail when they are in your situation, where they are making lots of money but appalled at how much tax it causes them to owe. You don’t seem to want to answer the question.

I can use another country, if you prefer. Anguila looks to have pretty low taxes, too. Why not move there?

The point isn’t to cast you to some god forsaken shithole. It’s to ask you to consider why taxes matter.

It’d be like if you were complaining about the cost of a meal but refuse to talk about what restaurant you will eat at. I suggest going to McDonalds if you think a $100 dinner is too much, and you get all offended because I told you to eat fast food. But I’m not really doing that; I’m simply pointing out what a cheap meal is like, and trying to figure out why that isn’t to your taste. And, if you are going to insist on certain features (like an appetizer menu), I’m going to argue that you aren’t being realistic about your price complaints.

83

Moved goalposts ignored. You queried my statement that “nobody AFAIK is seriously suggesting that taxation should take away all or even most of the money rich people have” with a mostly-irrelevant remark about the effects of a proposed tax plan on 400 individuals, I pointed out the irrelevance of your remark, and you changed the subject.

If you would like to include in this thread a discussion of a possible wealth tax and its effects on a tiny super-elite, feel free to raise the issue as a general remark.

84

As little as we need to get the job done. And it should be done in a way that most people pay a similar amount in taxes. Note, not percentage, amount.

What can I say about being a patriot?

I disagree. Instead I think we should pick a tax method and then live within our means. The tax revenues will grow with the economy. There shouldn’t be a need in the long run to tinker with the rates much.

Correct. I think we should live within our means and be conservative in how much of the economy the government gets to take over.

What part of “they can’t” don’t you understand?

What utter nonsense you are spewing.

85

You don’t get it, because you continue to ignore the fact that I, and most other taxpayers, are also fine with the tax system “soaking” us more heavily than the people who make less than we do. Because the declining marginal utility of wealth/income applies to everybody, not just the wealthiest.

Carry on; you’re doing an excellent job of demonstrating the fundamental emptiness, impracticality, and groundless emotional resentment underlying your position.

86

We already live in a plutonomy where a handful of rich people drive consumer spending. I don’t like the economy like that and its probably not sustainable. A system where we’re supposed to be happy that a rich person spends millions on luxury items while large numbers of people can’t afford health care doesn’t interest me.

Also reinvestment overseas will eventually benefit America. As other nations rise in wealth they buy US goods as well as contribute to science and technology, creating cures for the future. If people invest in Vietnam or Africa, that’ll benefit the US by increasing our exports and people in those areas will eventually contribute to solving global problems as they become wealthy the same way China is starting to do so.

87

There are plenty of rich people that are also fine paying higher taxes. That doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to whine about it.

I really think the only true argument here is “might makes right” and “suck it up buttercup” which is about all I can do. I’m outvoted. I get it. But that doesn’t stop me from cringing when writing the checks.

88

That’s quite the claim.

89

You and I agree that we should only pay the amount of taxes needed to get the job done. I find it perplexing how you can say that but then dismiss a call to figure out how much is needed to get the job done.

In a thread where you are complaining about the cost of your life in America, it is odd that you would revert back to some notion of loving the country to explain why you live there, instead of just admitting that it provides you the lifestyle you like by offering you the opportunities you need to succeed as much as you have.

Other than a vague notion about paying less, have you given this any thought at all. What would this tax amount be?

Normally, when people spend money, they first figure out what they want to buy, then consider the cost, then figure out how to pay for it. It sounds like you are suggesting that a better tactic is to just say, “I only need whatever I can afford based on how much is in my wallet.” How would that work in national cases of war or natural disaster, for example?

This “live within our means” is so vague as to be meaningless. Should the US have an air force? Saying we need to ‘live within our means’ provides absolutely no guidance on such an issue, but a nation can live within its means both with and without an air force. What, then, is your standard for determining how much is necessary, other than just “whatever amount the government takes in is enough”.

The part where you seem to take the position that people can’t leave the US and become citizens elsewhere, even when they have millions of dollars at their disposal. Earlier, you used patriotism to explain why you insist on staying in America. Now, you explain that people do this because they have no other option.

I’m confused by the contradiction; why can’t people bail and go to other countries? If paying money is so distasteful, why is it overcome by an amorphous ‘love of country’, instead of the more likely answer that ‘they can’t’ because then they’d lose their income stream?

How so? I’ve tried to get you to explain why America is an important place for you, since it is so unfair in how it treats you. You won’t give a clear answer other than to repeat your right to ‘whine’.

Well, I’m saying that you have no basis to whine about the costs you have unless you are willing to give up the benefits you enjoy (and I’ll go further by saying that a person makes millions per year enjoys greater benefits than somebody making far less).

You, however, won’t even acknowledge what those benefits are, let alone what they should cost. You seem to want 5 star service for the cost of a value meal.

90

Not at all. Pick a rate for everyone and stick with it. That’s the amount the government has to spend. If they want to use the markets to float a bit of debt that makes some sense in certain situations as well.

Again, what part of they can’t don’t you understand? There is no way to avoid your tax liability by leaving.

Because US law.

It’s really just if you want to go to jail or not. I don’t want any trouble so I pay my taxes. Compliance doesn’t in any way mean I give up my right to complain. Compliance doesn’t in any way imply someone should move to some other country with lower taxes when it’s not really possible to do so.

The best think about the USA is the right to free speech. At least I can complain to all the people want to tax my wealth away.

Good thing you don’t make the rules!

And yes having a Ferrari and a beach house does rule.

91

I find this very insightful, and answers my own questions about high tax rates affecting people who would just stop working once they reached the “100%” tax rate threshold. Thanks!

On a side note, I can’t believe someone who makes $2M a year comes to this board and complains when members here are actually homeless.

92

Seriously? What does that have to do with anything.

Someone else started this thread btw, not me. I thought it would be interesting to give my perspective. I will go away now and leave all ya’ll to continue to think of ways to get more money out of me. Because taxing the rich will totally just magically solve everything including homelessness.

93

Yeah, your perspective is whining that you make so much money you have to pay $500K in taxes. If only all of us had that problem.

94

Neutro, it’s not illegal to renounce your citizenship and become a citizen of another country where you no longer have to pay American taxes.

You’ll give up your American dividends and capital gains, of course, but that’s no big deal when you consider the tax savings!

95

Your problem here is that you haven’t convinced anyone that your $500k tax bill is ridiculous. Nobody else seems to think it’s excessive. In fact, some have said it’s too low. Perhaps you should justify your position that it’s too much.

96

According to your theory, there is no incentive to slow down - your sales people example were people who were going to sell as much as possible even if they didn’t get to collect anything above a certain amount.

To over-simplify, my theory is that people tend not to want to work for free, and your theory is that they are too driven to care if they are working for free or not. So under your theory, my surgeon wouldn’t slow down at all - he would continue to produce at a rate of $3M a year even though the marginal utility of the work required to produce the extra $1M declines as tax rates increase.

Or, as mentioned, if your sales people’s company didn’t pay commissions above $2M per year - would the sales people continue to sell as hard as possible?

That’s the theory that I disagree with - that there is no such thing as diminishing returns, or that people don’t need to be paid overtime - if they are going to work 60 hour weeks, they will work those weeks whether they get paid for them or not.

Regards,
Shodan

97

So you are whining about being taxes on income that you largely don’t have to “do” anything to create, aside from already having enough wealth to acquire those appreciating, dividend producing assets?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think people should pay a similar amount in taxes but not receive a similar amount in income? I don’t think many, if anyone here has suggested outrageous, confiscatory levels of taxation for the wealthy. Just that they pay their fair share.

Also, there is a bit of debate on what the actual “job” is that Government needs to get done, which would also tend to drive how much people should be taxed.

Yeah, we get it. Writing a check the size of the family income of ten average American families to the government each year is painful. But on the plus side, you get to keep the equivalent income of fifteen average American families.

As they say, it’s the best alternative to actually having a large penis.

98

Good point. You aren’t born driving a Ferrari but you can earn one, unlike a giant penis which is just luck.

99

You are wrong. Well, wrong in the sense that it’s a fixed pie. It’s really more about how the pie is sliced. But slicing the pie the wrong way inhibits the growth of the pie. Then you get into a whole philosophical debate on whether it’s better to have a smaller piece of a large pie or a large piece of a smaller pie.

It’s a complex economic issue.

100

Why is it that investment capital is do disregarded?

Without the capital invested in those appreciating, dividend producing assets, there would be no jobs that those companies create, no products that society consumes or enjoys, and no corporate income taxes paid on the income that those companies’ generate.

Do you believe that all companies should be ESOP’s? If people can’t even pony up money for 401k contributions, where do you think the capital will come from to invest in companies?