The XYZelensky Affair and the Whole Impeachment Shebang

[Greyblades]

I thought we were talking about the economically successful, to whome income inequality is a marginal concern at best in the face of seeing a marked drop in livelihood.

[edyzmedieval]

We are talking about that, yes - but the rise in the people advocating for income equality far outstrips those who have a marginal concern.

The issue at hand is that people with money in the USA are against bridging even the slightest gap between them and those who don't have, hence why the capitalistic anger.

[Montmorency]

We are talking about that, yes - but the rise in the people advocating for income equality far outstrips those who have a marginal concern.

The issue at hand is that people with money in the USA are against bridging even the slightest gap between them and those who don't have, hence why the capitalistic anger.

Is it time to point out that the highest earners pay the lowest effective total tax rate now? Not even the notorious 1% mind you, but the very richest billionaires.



Not even Sanders' 8% wealth tax poses any threat to the livelihoods of the affluent, only to their relative power.

(Here's the full graphic history, in video.)

EDIT: I thought I had linked the source.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I do applaud Sanders for actually putting out a tax idea that seeks to specifically redistribute wealth from the wealthy to those less wealthy. At least he has the courage to actually propose something in honest terms. Credit where it is due.


I have argued numerous times on this forum that income taxes, especially as loop-holed and special-interest written as they are, do nothing aside from punish the middle class and discourage wealth accumulation among the working and middle class while doing nothing to tax the wealthy (whose putative incomes are gamed away in accounting slight of hand games unavailable to those without significant wealth).

I am a flat taxer/'fair' taxer by inclination, which I know many of you are not, but the extant system is a cocking shock-up.

[Montmorency]

I do applaud Sanders for actually putting out a tax idea that seeks to specifically redistribute wealth from the wealthy to those less wealthy. At least he has the courage to actually propose something in honest terms. Credit where it is due.


I have argued numerous times on this forum that income taxes, especially as loop-holed and special-interest written as they are, do nothing aside from punish the middle class and discourage wealth accumulation among the working and middle class while doing nothing to tax the wealthy (whose putative incomes are gamed away in accounting slight of hand games unavailable to those without significant wealth).

I am a flat taxer/'fair' taxer by inclination, which I know many of you are not, but the extant system is a cocking shock-up.

How is it that throughout the 20th century (well, since FDR) effective tax rates on the "1%" were much higher than they are now? Low effective tax rates, due to loopholes or whatever identifiable cause, are a choice, not an inevitability. One corporate tax solution, for example, would be to require issuance of non-voting shares to the government and calculate tax liability as the same common dividends due to typical shareholders. 20% corporate tax rate? Give the government 20% of the stock. No evading that one without simultaneously welching on the Friedman-approved ownership class. Sound good?

It is not the government’s obligation to structure its tax law around corporate practices. It is the obligation of corporations to structure their practices around the law.

Before Sanders' wealth tax Warren proposed a smaller 2/3% one, btw.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's a good piece on the tax burdens of various income levels -- it factors in fed, state, local, property, estate, etc..

Link

In 1913, the 1% had an effective tax rate of about 14% compared to the lower 50% income households rate of 6%. In 2013, a 36% rate was noted for the 1%, while the lower half rate was 24%. One could argue that the gap had increased "against" the rich by 50%, going from 8-12 points...

I would, I suppose, reluctantly note that the comparative rates for 1% v lower 50% were a factor of 2.33 in 1913 but have shrunk to a factor of 1.5 in this millennium; or I could note that the effective taxes on the wealthy have not quite tripled whereas the taxes on the lower 50% households have fully quadrupled...but those interpolations wouldn't let me continue to think of myself as deserving of government largesse despite my affluence.

Perhaps I should follow Idaho's line of thinking and disdain the lower 50% because of their melanin difference from me? If I just accept that I can never be anything but a bigot because I am white and not poor then this would all be so much easier. I can be trapped in someone else's label of me and pilloried forever. Beats thinking I suppose.

[Montmorency]

Hi everyone, ♪ look at this 'graph ♪, then look at the graph on total tax rates I posted above. Then think about how one factor depressing wage growth for a generation has been the skyrocketing of employer health-insurance premiums. Then knock together a tumbrel.




Also, read this massive expose (disclosure: too long for me) entitled "Welcome to Coffeyville, Kansas, where the judge has no law degree, debt collectors get a cut of the bail, and Americans are watching their lives — and liberty — disappear in the pursuit of medical debt collection." I can't tell you what to do then.

Here's a good piece on the tax burdens of various income levels -- it factors in fed, state, local, property, estate, etc..

Critically, the analysis I referenced factors not just the "1%" but the 0.01% - and the Slate article notes, "moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights" - and the very richest 400 households (0.00...1%); their effective tax rates are much diminished. It is convenient that Greenberg from the Slate article uses data from Saez & Zucman just as the new article I linked does, because it helps reinforce the same point. To say that the high marginal tax rates for earned income did not affect many people has little meaning, because as we see the people who were affected felt the full force of the high tax rates, paying the vast majority of their income in taxes. Now these tax rates do not exist, the number and proportion of households who would be affected by their existence is orders of magnitude greater, and the truly wealthy make off astonishingly well. What inferences do you draw from this information?

Perhaps I should follow Idaho's line of thinking and disdain the lower 50% because of their melanin difference from me? If I just accept that I can never be anything but a bigot because I am white and not poor then this would all be so much easier. I can be trapped in someone else's label of me and pilloried forever. Beats thinking I suppose.

Support redistributive policies? I don't see why you would treat this as some inscrutable mystery. From a rational perspective it's very little to ask, unless it gets to the tumbrels phase.

[edyzmedieval]

In 1913, the 1% had an effective tax rate of about 14% compared to the lower 50% income households rate of 6%. In 2013, a 36% rate was noted for the 1%, while the lower half rate was 24%. One could argue that the gap had increased "against" the rich by 50%, going from 8-12 points...

One problem over here - tax loopholes.

Loopholes are so widespread in the American fiscal code that you can effectively negate your own taxation by a significant margin if you go through the "company" route. A lot of CEOs forego salaries for PR (of course) but also for taxation purposes. Capital gains tax is encouraging top leaders who can go without the salary to ditch it completely.

Furthermore, since I'm working closely with the financial industry, tax optimisation (as it's called) is widespread and EU nationals can use various fiscal havens like the United Kingdom (yes, the UK) to lower their tax rates significantly. How does 5-10% taxation on a 300-400.000 USD annual income sound?