The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

Classic vicious, evil victim blaming.

<yawn> Speaking of getting basic facts right, how could that possibly be relevant to the fact that one must pay landowners for permission to exercise one's right to liberty?

 

<sigh> That was in response to your subsequent hypothetical example, not your original strawman, which was in post #388. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

<sigh> The word "wrong" made your later hypothetical example a strawman, not your original strawman in your response to Patricio. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

<sigh> Now you are trying to pretend your later hypothetical strawman was your original strawman that I called you out on. Pathetic.

Now you know this too, although I have no doubt you will deny this as well. I will not hold my breath waiting for your apology.

 

A fair tax system would recover the full publicly created rental value of privileges for public purposes and benefit instead of giving it away to rich, greedy, privileged parasites in return for nothing.

 

I am focusing on YOUR ASSERTIONS. You said they get to deduct this interest expense on these loans. WHERE on the tax return is this allowed because personal interest is NOT deductable. That was a key provision in your assertion.

Wealth is EVERYTHING you own. And yes capital gains are "deferred" until you realize them YOU are the one wanting to change that.

Not in any proposals I have read.

See in the one hand you say not all forms of wealth woukd be taxed then you say all forms would be treated equally. You cnyt even make up your mind how you would do it.

Proving my point that the government shares in the profits but not the loses.

This IS the matter at hand and will be a key platform for the Biden campaign but I can see why you want to try and dodge from it.

 

Why do you feel you have to falsely and disingenuously imply that I said they did? The most productive of the poor have nothing to do with the bottom 50% of earners, and you know it.

The constant, relentless dishonesty of the responses to my posts in this thread is making me physically ill.

 

So you were unable to provide evidence of me saying "wrong", which you used as your foundational reason for why you claimed that I made a strawman argument.

Just as I suspected.

Its time to move on and end this conversation. My point has long since been made, and I have no desire to bicker endlessly and aimlessly over nothing.

 

No I didn't. I stated the fact that saying "wrong" was what made your hypothetical argument a strawman, because it implied the other party had said something they did not say. Your original strawman was claiming a wealth tax would require an account of all possessions when Patricio had specifically stated the opposite.

Oh, sure you do.

 

Reference to; “When the top 1% pays 45%…..”

My rationale; In tax year 2022, if the top 1% only paid 40%, then an extra 5% isn’t asking for more.

 

Put that in the form of something that everyone can understand and compute their tax return. Enough with your wishy washy definitions. The law doesn't work that way so outline what you are proposing. You can't even define "poor" much less rewrite the tax code or even make suggestions. Time to put up or shut up.

 

Yes they do. Most seem to to have caps on the value though so that they only impact luxury or vintage cars. Other places have a tiered sales tax so that you pay a higher percentage for vehicles over a certain price point and function. So a farmer buying a new work truck pays little while the businessman buying a new Ferrari pays a lot.

 

I'm not 'dodging' anything. Nor am I aware of any 'plans' about for a broad based capital gains tax as policy if Biden wins this years. If there is such a plan ? Then (unlike you) I'd actually have to see the details first before commenting. That said:

1) 'Wealth' for the purposes of tax collection is defined by what the legislation intends to capture for the purpose of revenue collection. Hence my constant referral to caps below which capital tax is not taxed. (A point you seem determined to ignore.) For example real estate is real estate in the dictionary but not all real estate is treated the same for tax collection purposes even now.

2) Appreciating assets can be taxed, not all assets. So your undies are still safe. But most importantly? Stop taking everything so literally. Yes I said all appreciating asset should be treated equally for TAX purposes but I also made it plain that there would be exemptions i.e. mostly based around the value of the item concerned. The painting of a dog playing poker you inherited may be 'art' but unless your relative was named 'Monet' its not going to be subject to any kind of sanely drafted capital gains tax is it?

3) If I was 'doing it' as you put it there are any number of ways to frame what does and does not get taxed. Including a basic dollar value cap on the value of assets (indexed to inflation) below which assets are not taxed, a list of items that can be taxed e.g. stocks, bonds, real estate, art & collectables etc and different rates of tax for specific types of capital. I'd also vary when the tax is payed depending on the type of capital. For instance art and collectables should be taxed as per normal when they transfer ownership but capital gains on financial investments would be taxed annually as per usual. But what gets taxed and by how much is matter for the experts - I'm not writing the US Tax code! At the least? You want to capture as much funds by raising a capital gains tax as you lose when you decrease the level of income tax. In reality? You'd probably bring in more because the as wealth increases the proportion of wealth received as salary decreases and the amount locked accumulated as investments increases. The poor have no appreciating assets. The middle class have only a few outside of the family home and a 401K if they're lucky. The very rich? Where to start?

4) 'Proving my point that the government shares in the profits but not the loses.' Really? Are you seriously telling me you believe that BS claim? The government 'shares' losses in the value of capital investments every time one occurs! Because a capital means it's NOT getting it's any tax revenue from it. The Feds would be high fiving themselves every time you have a great year on the stock market because they'll be getting a piece of the action. You have a bad year? They bet bupkis! You might as well be trying to argue that the feds don't lose when someone is out of work and not paying income tax.

To repeat. The goal is to get the rich to pay as much as a % of their wealth in taxes as the middle class and working poor do. Not more, not less, just as much.

 

Republican response; “When the top 1% pays 45%…..it is obscene to ask for more”

IMO, snake oil when posting a 2021 percentage in the present tense, due to the fact that tax year 2022 and 2023’s percentages has yet to be released by the IRS.

Also, here’s a few question marks;

From 2001, to 2019, the share of income tax paid by the top 1% has increased from 33.22% to 38.77%, thus, by 5.5% over 19 years, and then, up 7% over 2 years??????

2020; 42.31%
2021: 45.8%……according to the IRS, we had 40-year record high of capital gains realization, over $2 trillion, 8% of Nominal GDP.

Therefore, I am more than certain that Republicans are promoting an ABNORMAL RATE, and in an effort to invalidate a tax increase.

 

For the purpose of covering shared costs. Agreed.

Completely disagree with this.

So, government confiscates the fruits of MY labor, and return for what was paid to them (which they added zero effort to create), i get the luxury of them controlling my behavior to suit them or the collective?

nah, no thanks. I dont need a nanny

Can you give examples here. Not sure I follow, but I want to understand your point.

 

Except that I didn't say "wrong". You even put it in quotes for some strange reason. You are talking gibberish. It never did make a lick of sense.

My point has long since been made and I refuse to bicker endlessly over nothing. Everything is there for the reader to decide for themselves.

It is time for us to move along.

 

I don't personally see this concept as relevant even if you had actual numbers, but being that you are just making a wild guess as to what would surely be an extremely complex calculation, it seems all that much more misguided. There is no use whatsoever in debating your hunch.

The truth of the matter is that someone making a million per year is going to pay the same tax rate from one year to the next assuming their income is the same. The average that you are referring to does not actually apply to an individual. If as your hunch is guessing the top 1% overall paid 40% instead of 45% that would be due to the aggregate dollars in the top 1%, it would not be because one individual paid a higher rate of taxation on the same dollars earned.

It is ultimately their tax rate multiplied by their percentage that determines just how much money they pay in taxes, not some percentage of the aggregate.

 

In more than three decades of economic debates on the Internet, I have learned that I am not able to make most people -- let alone everyone -- willing to understand facts stated in clear, simple, grammatical English.

My definitions are clear, accurate, and most importantly, valid.

Think of how property taxes work. You just get a bill. If you don't pay it, you lose the property. Not rocket science.

I don't pretend to be rewriting the tax code; but I am definitely able to define "poor" and make suggestions.

Read this thread. I've put up -- and put up with -- plenty, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

You can disagree with facts of objective physical reality all you like. That does not alter them, sorry. One purpose of taxes like the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco is to discourage drinking and smoking. That's just a fact.

It's absurd and disingenuous to claim that desirable public services and infrastructure -- education, roads, water and sewer infrastructure, police and fire protection, etc. -- are provided with zero effort or contribute nothing to value creation.

Sure you do: for the people who would otherwise violate your rights. Just as other people need nannies to make sure you don't violate theirs.

See how that works?

The biggest example is the subsidy to landowners. The entire value of desirable public services and infrastructure is taken by landowners as a subsidy (Henry George Theorem), which is paid for by taxes that bear on economic activity. That is why land costs so much. The economy would be far more efficient and productive if the taxes that bear on economic activity were removed, and desirable public services and infrastructure were paid for by landowners simply repaying the subsidies they are given.

 

<sigh> Once more: there are TWO strawman arguments involved: the one you initially made in response to Patricio in post #388, where you did not say, "wrong," and the hypothetical one you described in post #400, where you did. In the latter case, you said, "wrong, apples are 50 cents a bushel." If you had just said, "apples are 50 cents a bushel," that would not be a strawman fallacy because you would not be attacking any argument or pretending that the other side had said something they didn't say. The whole point of the strawman fallacy is to pretend that you are refuting the other side's arguments, not just to change the subject. Changing the subject is called, ignoratio elenchi.

 

Once again, reference to 2021’s 40-year record high of capital gains realization, and how much income tax was owed/paid on said realization during 2022’s tax season, you are correct that at this time, it is a guessing game based on preliminary data.

However, there are no complexities in determining a conservative estimate of how much income tax was owed/paid by the top 1% on said realization.

According to my estimates, and based on simple math and logic, the amount of tax owed/paid on said realization augmented the top 1% share of income tax by approx. 5%.

In a previous post, you stated that the top 1% pays 45% of individual income tax, ”present tense”, and tax year 2022/2023’s finalized data have yet to be released by the IRS.

Last, if you were to affirm a current percentage between 40 and 45%, then we are in agreement.

 

Im not interested in this topic even slightly and would prefer to simply move along.

 

Oh, I don't disagree it's happening.

Im saying its wrong, and is not the intention of taxation. It has been perverted by people who desire to impose their morality and will on others by use of force of the power of government.

They absolutely don't create value. They may have shared value, but they didn't create it. They private sector created the activity that provides that value.

Government, of all types, is historically terrible at even being able to retain value on their services that aren't subjected to massive inefficiency and loss.

It's not a coincidence that an agency, as government, who obtains their revenue not by value but rather by forced taxation does a bad job.

If i could force people to buy my service at the cost i deem appropriate, do you really think they are getting the same value of businesses that compete for their money?

You mean like cigarettes and alcohol?

You are attempting to use the legitimacy of certain government functions to validate ALL government functions and confiscation of taxes to fund that effort.

I support the legal system, and things like police to protect rights.

Using those functions to defend the use of forced taxation to social engineer other outcomes is pretty dishonest.

The "entire" value of public services and infrastructure is taken by land owners?

You don't drive down roads?

 

But in fact it is one intention of taxation, and it would be ridiculous to think taxation can't or shouldn't have such effects, or is not permitted to have any effect but raising revenue.

It's called democracy. Deal with it.

Yes, they absolutely do.

No, that's just baldly false. The private sector can't invest efficiently in public goods because it can't capture the value that landowners take.

No, that's just false. There are certainly too many bad governments, but democratically accountable government actually has an excellent record of providing value in goods and services that are subject to market failure conditions and can't be provided efficiently by private industry, such as transportation infrastructure, water supply and sewer facilities, electric power and gas service, police, fire, and military protection, health care and basic education, to name just a few.

Governments often do a pretty good job, and only use forced taxation because landowners refuse to repay the subsidies others are taxed to provide.

Private business can only compete efficiently in competitive markets. Some markets are natural monopolies, or have other market failure conditions that make private industry inefficient.

No. I mean like secure, exclusive land tenure.

No I'm not. I'm identifying the fact that government has proved itself a good solution to certain problems characterized by market failure conditions, and the fact that it is not a good solution to other problems that can by solved by private industry in competitive markets doesn't mean it isn't a good solution to the former problems.

But you don't understand how you benefit from other government programs, and you don't like paying taxes to fund them, so you oppose them, not realizing that you would be much worse off if they did not exist.

No it isn't. But to say that using government to solve problems that private industry can't solve efficiently is "social engineering" seems much more dishonest.

Correct.

I have to pay landowners full market value for permission to access them. The same goes for all other desirable public services and infrastructure. Even income support programs are subsidies to landowners, because the recipients have to pay landowners full market value for permission to access the shops, services, and other things they want to spend the money on.

 

Just a comment first:

When Democrats are in power, their appetite for raising taxes on the very rich somehow just disappears. But when they cannot raise taxes on the very rich (like right now because of the Republican House), then they like to howl about making the very rich pay their fair share. Mark my words: If the Democrats win back the House and keep control of the Senate, and Biden is re-elected, you will hear no more from them about raising taxes on the very rich.

And now something to discuss:

In 2023 the federal budget deficit was $1.7 trillion. It is projected to be $1.6 trillion in 2024, and $1.8 trillion in 2025.
In 2023 the interest paid on the federal debt was $659 billion. The CBO projects that number to increase to $870 billion in 2024.

Just to compare those interest payments to other programs, the 2023 defense budget was $857 billion, and Medicare spending was $944 billion. We can see that interest payments on the federal debt are on track to surpass the cost of our most expensive programs.

All of this federal deficit spending creates inflation by devaluing our money. This is inflation. Increased costs to consumers is not inflation. Increased costs to consumers is caused by inflation. Those increased costs to consumers are the result of inflation which is caused by this headlong deficit spending.

Bottom line on our financial situation:

We are headed underwater in a sea of deficit spending, inflation, and interest on the debt.

We are going to drown if we don't do something about it.

And if we want to do something about it, we must raise taxes or reduce spending or a combination of both. But one way or the other, the lines that show government revenues and government spending must come together or we are doomed.

Cutting spending: Where to cut?

Three areas of spending: Mandatory, Discretionary, and Interest on the Debt

Mandatory spending is the largest part of the budget, about two thirds of it. It consists largely of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, and food assistance. If we choose to cut spending out of the Mandatory side, we will be choosing to harm the most vulnerable in our society - our elderly parents and grandparents, veterans, and the poor.

We must pay the interest on the debt, or else we default.

That leaves Discretionary spending, the largest part of that being the Defense budget, almost half of it. This pie chart for 2021 was the most detailed look at it I could find. The numbers would be higher now, but the percentages about the same.



It is in the Discretionary Spending where we need to look for spending cuts. What I would suggest is that the present numbers be frozen for the time being, ordering the various heads of these departments to get along without increases for inflation. They should be ordered to prioritize all spending and cut the lowest priorities.

On raising taxes:

In these days of high inflation and rising costs, we cannot look to the upper middle income people and below for more taxes. There is just nowhere to look except to the very rich. I realize that they already pay the lion's share of the government's revenue, but we must not raise taxes on those who can least afford it. What I would suggest is that we leave the tax brackets as they are for incomes at or below $1 million, but that we go with 50% on the millions over $1 million. This means, for example, that if you earn $2 million, you pay the normal amount on the first million and half of the 2nd million, leaving you with $500,000 from that 2nd million.

What I would also suggest is that the increase I suggested be reduced in the years after we achieve a balanced budget. This could be done using money from a revenue surplus.

The political reality is that the only way Congress is going have fiscal discipline, short of a Balanced Budget Amendment being enacted, is to put the burden of their deficit spending on the very rich. Ask yourself: Who does Congress listen to? The $50k/year store clerk or a billionaire? I think we both know the answer to that.

My perspective:

I am a conservative. I don't enjoy raising taxes, even on the very rich. But I am also a fiscal realist. We as a nation are heading towards a fiscal cliff, and we must change course. We can only do that by cutting spending or raising revenue or both. In my opinion, the least amount of harm, and the most good, comes to the nation by doing both at once. It is no different than dealing with a revenue deficit at home, except that this has a political component. The sooner we stop this wild deficit spending, out-of-control inflation, and paying huge interest payments, the better for the country.

To my fellow conservatives, I say that we must stop hiding behind obsolete slogans and talking points and get real. And if we refuse to get real, then we are just as much a part of the problem as the liberals are, and we are part and parcel in driving our country into a ditch.



Seth

 

My topic relates to;

The U.S already soaks the rich in 2021, the richest 1% paid 45.8% income tax, up from 33.22% in 2001

The fact is; In 2021, the rich lavished themselves with a whole lot of gains, according to IRS data, over $2 trillion of capital gains realization, a 40-year record high, and a windfall taxed at a lower rate simultaneously increased their share of income taxes paid to 45.8%.

 

It's hard to read what are their ruses and what are their actual policy desires. Unfortunately if they do win the WH back and the Congress there are too many who do believe they can increase taxes on the high earners/rich and corporations and Biden is proposing HUGE increases. Unfortunately there are far too many voters who swallow the whole thing about taxing wealth and getting back at those evil rich and that they have a right to their money.

And the longer what keeping heading this direction the harder to turn it around.

we must raise taxes revenues or reduce spending increases in a combination of both.

That's how Gingrich and Kasich did it then Bush and his Rep Congress.



Cutting spending: Where to cut?

All spending is discretionary. Congress along with the President control ALL spending not a dime can be spent without their authorization. It's all a matter of prioritizing it.

For instance you said Defense is discretionary but Social Security mandatory. In fact Defense is the HIGHEST priority the highest responsibility of the government while one is hard pressed to find anywhere in the Constitution SS and other support payments, even under the guise of SS, are even authorized under the Constitution. Declaring spending that would be hard to rescind and very unpopular to do so to be mandatory is just giving them a hiding place. Right behind defense is paying the debts and obligations. That would included CURRENT obligation to retires but in now way prevents the government from dealing with future benefits, they just have to have the guts to be truthful about it and then do it.

The object is to grow the economy faster than the government. It worked during Reagans terms and during to two Republican periods with budget surpluses or almost there again before losing the Congresses. That means growing revenues while restraining budget growth.

What evidence do you have that would produce more tax revenue? What do you think will happen to the economy when the government takes all that capital out of the market and those people being taxed decide they must cut the risk in their investments at these lower returns they will see or simply leave it more long term to avoid the tax? It's not a zero sum gain.

And yes we need MORE taxpayers, you could tax every dollar the high earners make and it would not run the government for more than a few months.

What if it actually slows the growth of tax revenues as Clinton found out in his disastrous one?

Unfortunately that could take years. Congress should listen to the Constitution and rational fiscal policy. You tax away the capital and the incentive to earn it the economy goes to rubble and tax revenues FALL while more and more are demanding more and more from government so government inflates the currency and the we all go over the cliff.

Government MUST live within it's means and the American people must once again view self sufficiency as their DUTY not just to the country but to themselves. We all need to be revenue to the government not expenses. We should not expect the government by taxing other people to provide for us individually. Welfare to work as under previous Rep control must be put back in place. Stupid ideas like Biden's paying off the loans of our highest earners for instance must be exposed and halted.

My perspective:

Realize there IS a bell curve when it comes to tax rates. Simply raising taxes will NOT solve this and in fact would exacerbate it. The only way to turn it around is to pass PRO-grow tax and regulation policy and strict welfare requirements and then overhauling SS/Medicare for future beneficiaries by shifting more of their money into private 401-k like accounts.

There is nothing obsolete about economics and what works and what doesn't. There is also that thing about our founding principles which is that the citizens property and wealth is THEIRS and not to be subject to undue taxation and confiscation by the government especially to be used to buy votes through unauthorized unconstitutional spending.

Just because someone can earn lots of money and has managed to accumulate lots of money should not make them a target and fair game for government confiscatory policies.

Yes I am a fiscal conservative myself and I implore all conservatives to not forget those basic tenents.