📈Is the correction over? What cards look attractive with an upside potential?📈

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

It doesn't matter because the wealthy will use every single tax loophole or wealth-management strategy to avoid paying taxes and increasing their wealth.

You do know the data on effective tax rates (federal and/or overall) at various income levels, right?

These days, top earners pay around 40% of their income, and I assume that would have to be federal only since we hear about them paying at least half of their income in taxes.

Is paying half of one's income in taxes good enough, or should it be more, and how much more?

I personally don't think any one person should have billions of dollars.

Most of the wealth at the highest end is financial instruments, especially stocks, which represent value production. The image of Scrooge McDuck swimming in a vault of gold coins isn't the reality.

It is amazing the sympathy that people have towards billionaires. They keep on getting richer and people want them to pay less money in taxes.

As someone else has pointed out, the choice is between them directing where economic resources go, and the government doing it. I fail to see much evidence that government is better at value production than billionaires are, beyond public goods like national defense.

The widening wealth gap in wealthy countries can be explained by globalization: wealthy people invest overseas, get their returns, but maintain residence in their home countries. Effectively it's a diversion of productive capital from their home country to countries that in some instances are desperately poor. According to measures at ourworldindata.org, economic inequality globally isn't rising or might even be falling. (Whether widening within-nation gaps are good for their internal politics is another matter.) It isn't as though the inherent dynamic of capitalism is greater inequality globally; it could be a local dynamic though.

[discodanman45]

The top earners don't pay 40%. That is what the table says, but they have tricks to get it much lower than that. Last report I have seen is was in reality 23% for the wealthiest people. If you are a billionaire paying 50% of your income in federal/state taxes, you need to fire your team of idiotic accounts immediately.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

The top earners don't pay 40%. That is what the table says, but they have tricks to get it much lower than that. Last report I have seen is was in reality 23% for the wealthiest people. If you are a billionaire paying 50% of your income in federal/state taxes, you need to fire your team of idiotic accounts immediately.

I don't have the time to go down the rabbit hole of figuring out what data are the most correct & meaningful. Perhaps rich folks are fooling us when they say they pay half their income in taxes.

As for my question: what's the appropriate tax rate beyond which we say it's too much? How much of a billionaire's income/wealth/time rightly belongs to the state? Provide some figure.

(The only reason we're even talking about billionaires, is because of the enormous productivity of market-based systems over the past couple hundred years. That generates enormous amounts of tax revenues. But it never seems to be enough for those who like bigger govt. When was the last time the bigger-govt party in the USA lowered taxes? '64 was it? Then again I think the '09 stimulus did include tax relief. It would have been kinda dumb not to do so in a deep recession. Aside from that, though)

[ninjabum87]

Government's purpose isn't simply value creation. At least back in the old days some Rockefeller would build public infrastructure and amenities and give to the poor because it behooved them to do so. Modern billionaires don't often seem to engage in the same degree of philanthropy, people like Gates and Bezos' ex-wife aside.

Lowering taxes on the wealthiest of us does little to nothing for the rest of the population, so the real question is why do it at all if it just enables them to acquire even more land, stocks, cars, etc? What's the point besides 'I don't trust the government to use our billionaires' taxes well" from the underclass proponents and "I want more money" from the 1%ers?

[1980bust]

The Western wealth creation model has come completely off the rails via incentivising housing as the money-making vehicle, rather than productive assets or businesses.

Globalisation and remote work is just pissing all over us all while laughing.

Replace the Australian flag here with almost any other Western nation's and it works just as well. Some places are further along the timeline than others, but they all have the same destination.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

Government's purpose isn't simply value creation. At least back in the old days some Rockefeller would build public infrastructure and amenities and give to the poor because it behooved them to do so. Modern billionaires don't often seem to engage in the same degree of philanthropy, people like Gates and Bezos' ex-wife aside.

Lowering taxes on the wealthiest of us does little to nothing for the rest of the population, so the real question is why do it at all if it just enables them to acquire even more land, stocks, cars, etc? What's the point besides 'I don't trust the government to use our billionaires' taxes well" from the underclass proponents and "I want more money" from the 1%ers?

Well it’s pretty simple.

Giving more money to the state is worse for everyone.

It’s clear that people have learned nothing from history. Y’all are begging for big daddy government to steal money from billionaires because you’re bitter, without realizing that you’re going to be worse off, not them.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

Government's purpose isn't simply value creation.

Its primary function is to secure inalienable rights, and if it's anything beyond that, it's to carry out societally essential functions that the private sector has no way of doing adequately.

Somehow for 140 or so years that worked well enough for the country. Then we got big and ever bigger government, and dubious, far-from-consensus social science and moral philosophy to support it. And clearly dubious judicial rulings such as Wickard v Fillburn and plenty of Oliver Wendell Holmes dubiousness (like characterizing shouting fire (falsely) in a crowded theater as relevantly akin to a speech act)

[jcardstore]

The state pisses away trillions of your money with nothing to show for it and you still want them to take more of it away from you

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

Lowering taxes on the wealthiest of us does little to nothing for the rest of the population, so the real question is why do it at all if it just enables them to acquire even more land, stocks, cars, etc? What's the point besides 'I don't trust the government to use our billionaires' taxes well" from the underclass proponents and "I want more money" from the 1%ers?

What business is it of yours what someone else owns?

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

...big and ever bigger government, and dubious, far-from-consensus social science and moral philosophy to support it.

Which is to say that if you're going to force your preferences upon others by force of law, which involves regulating their activities and taking their stuff, it would have a strong flavor of legitimacy (or "democratic legitimacy") if you used arguments with reasons good enough to persuade reasonable beings, consensus-like.

Hardly anything like that has occurred from the "liberal-left" vis a vis the rest of the country; it's mainly been strength in numbers. It isn't like Rawls clearly beats out Nozick.

And the bed-pooping from the "liberal-left" has gotten really extreme lately, like turning Higher Ed into a cancel-culture, anti-meritocratic farce. For starters. (Real liberals like Prof. Dershowitz want no part of it, and to prove the point further the bed-poopers unaccountably ignore his arguments nowadays. And those of many other highly qualified and pedigreed thinkers who disagree with them. Nothing resembling democratic or institutional legitimacy is going on here. https://www.google.com/search?q=crisis+of+legitimacy)

edit: And the percentage of income/wealth billionaires should pay is what now? 50 percent? 80? 90? Whatever a majority decides? I would like specifics on just how much of one's time rightly belongs to the state/People

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

It doesn't matter because the wealthy will use every single tax loophole or wealth-management strategy to avoid paying taxes and increasing their wealth.

I personally don't think any one person should have billions of dollars. I think a 1/2% tax on net worth for the ultra-wealthy should be implemented with our current tax guidelines. This way they can't use loopholes to pay lower tax rate percentages than the average American. What is happening now is obviously not working. It may look like the average American is gaining its share of national wealth, but this will be short lived. Low-interest rates and 12 years of housing appreciation has helped the typical American. However, once house prices start to drop with these high interest rates, the top 10% will again push forward the inequality in this country.

It is amazing the sympathy that people have towards billionaires. They keep on getting richer and people want them to pay less money in taxes.

It’s not sympathy to billionaires. It’s sympathy to capitalism and what is fair.

Since you think it, tell me exactly how you’d institute a tax on net worth. I mainly want to know what assets are included, how you account for possible future depreciation, and how you avoid taxation of the same assets in perpetuity.

[ninjabum87]

If the top 30% of wealth is held by 1% of people that 1% of people should shoulder 30% of the tax burden. Seems reasonable to me.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

If the top 30% of wealth is held by 1% of people that 1% of people should shoulder 30% of the tax burden. Seems reasonable to me.

You should really do some research because you'll find your opinions aren't backed by facts. Stop blindly regurgitating political talking points and do some due diligence

The 1% already pay 45.8% of all federal taxes. They earned only 26.3% of AGI to pay that 45.8% (more than all of the bottom 90% combined)

So how much more should the state steal from them?

[ninjabum87]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

What business is it of yours what someone else owns?

If the order if operations is cut taxes in said people who make up the wealthiest of us followed by "ope, looks like we need to cut services"/"maybe we should cut medicare"/anything similar because we took in less money then it's the business of everyone who needs any of said services or infrastructure.

I notice in the most recent Trump-era tax cuts that the top 5% of the population are basically matching the net tax relief of the other 95%. Seems wonky to me personally.

If we want fairness why do these efforts so often disproportionately "relieve" that upper crust while it's often status quo for normal people?

[ninjabum87]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

You should really do some research because you'll find your opinions aren't backed by facts. Stop blindly regurgitating political talking points and do some due diligence

The 1% already pay 45.8% of all federal taxes. They earned only 26.3% of AGI to pay that 45.8% (more than all of the bottom 90% combined)

So how much more should the state steal from them?

So what impact does LOWERING their taxes do for the rest of us exactly? Besides giving the government "less to piss away"? You'll notice Im generally saying "stop cutting their taxes" and not "keep raising their taxes", I'm mostly baffled why we keep pretending dropping their taxes is anything other than politicians helping to enrich their rich friends.

Student loan forgiveness is buying votes but lowering the taxes of corporations and the wealthiest is...what exactly?

Politicians giving themselves and other business owners PPP loan forgiveness is... what exactly?

The whole thing is just one big money spigot for politicians and their wealthy pals.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

So what impact does LOWERING their taxes do for the rest of us exactly? Besides giving the government "less to piss away"? You'll notice Im generally saying "stop cutting their taxes" and not "keep raising their taxes", I'm mostly baffled why we keep pretending dropping their taxes is anything other than politicians helping to enrich their rich friends.

You’re moving the goalposts now.

Also back to the opinion not based in reality

First off, I never suggested we SHOULD lower taxes. I said we SHOULD NOT raise taxes. Very different discussions.

Your comments are very typical of the “tax the rich” crowd. You don’t know the facts, and when presented with the facts you simply deflect and move onto something else and that just goes in a circle

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

So what impact does LOWERING their taxes do for the rest of us exactly? Besides giving the government "less to piss away"? You'll notice Im generally saying "stop cutting their taxes" and not "keep raising their taxes", I'm mostly baffled why we keep pretending dropping their taxes is anything other than politicians helping to enrich their rich friends.

Student loan forgiveness is buying votes but lowering the taxes of corporations and the wealthiest is...what exactly?

Politicians giving themselves and other business owners PPP loan forgiveness is... what exactly?

The whole thing is just one big money spigot for politicians and their wealthy pals.

Did you occupy Wall Street?

[dunkindutchmen]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

As someone else has pointed out, the choice is between them directing where economic resources go, and the government doing it. I fail to see much evidence that government is better at value production than billionaires are, beyond public goods like national defense.

I don't want to wade into this mess, but this is just blatant propaganda.

People, theoretically, have control over the state -- we can get into reasons why that ownership is so dysfunctional and fragmented -- but they at least have a means to steer the ship. With billionaires, there is no mechanism for control. They are 100% maximized for wealth extraction and accumulation.

Look at what private equity is doing right now across the US. They legitimately go in, piece out business, sell off the real estate, force the business to take on a host of new expenses, loading them with debt, and then leave the carcass.

[ninjabum87]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

You’re moving the goalposts now.

Also back to the opinion not based in reality

First off, I never suggested we SHOULD lower taxes. I said we SHOULD NOT raise taxes. Very different discussions.

Your comments are very typical of the “tax the rich” crowd. You don’t know the facts, and when presented with the facts you simply deflect and move onto something else and that just goes in a circle

My comments were initially targeted at Trump era tax cuts that disproportionately favored corporations and the top income bracket and not average Americans.

Your comments are typical of the "taxation is theft, gubment bad" crowd where you present facts that you think are slam dunk "gotchas" but are overly simplistic and lacking any nuance.

[ninjabum87]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

The 1% already pay 45.8% of all federal taxes. They earned only 26.3% of AGI to pay that 45.8% (more than all of the bottom 90% combined)

So how much more should the state steal from them?

Not any less, that's what I will say since you want an answer so badly.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by ninjabum87

My comments were initially targeted at Trump era tax cuts that disproportionately favored corporations and the top income bracket and not average Americans.

Your comments are typical of the "taxation is theft, gubment bad" crowd where you present facts that you think are slam dunk "gotchas" but are overly simplistic and lacking any nuance.

You’re the one that was making up numbers.

Of course when you got corrected on them now there needs to be “nuance”

[ninjabum87]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

You’re the one that was making up numbers.

Of course when you got corrected on them now there needs to be “nuance”

I made a simple statement that if they hold that much wealth they should shoulder a commensurate load. Nothing wrong with that belief at all. If they already do then great. I still don't want their taxes slashed while everyone else gets boned.

Like I said earlier, nothing I say is going to convince anyone who thinks the nation would be better if we privatized all government services where cash could be made and abolished everything else, just like nothing you say posting piecemeal "taxes are theft" graphics will convince me. Shoulda stopped at that point really.

I just got to Venice so I'm gonna go enjoy myself for a few days. I'll check back in here to see how many times Nomad/GoatCards quotes his own replies in the days to come.

[discodanman45]

Everyone keeps on quoting the top 1%. The biggest problem is the 0.1% in this country. However we are taxing this group doesn't hurt them at all. They have continued to acquire more wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the US.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

Everyone keeps on quoting the top 1%. The biggest problem is the 0.1% in this country. However we are taxing this group doesn't hurt them at all. They have continued to acquire more wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the US.

So taxes should be applied to hurt people? Is it a problem that LeBron James is accumulating wealth at a faster rate than the rest of the US?

[bkcardcollector]

it's called leverage, you can do it too