$1,000 will barely get you a hotel room in Jackson Hole.

They were going to test that basic income thing here too, but I believe it got axed by the new conservative (provincial) government.

Forced sharing is not sharing it’s theft. The top 5% pay the vast majority of taxes. I’m not actually against UBI, I’ve said before that we could eliminate the Fed reserve, the bloated welfare state, and introduce money into the economy bottom up through UBI.

Sure, just cut your military spending by 1%, that'll probably take care of most of that.

INcoMe TaX iS sTAte viOLeNce

Taxes don't pay for anything (at the federal level). States are revenue constrained, the Feds just print however much they want and give it to their 'friends'. At last count $22 trillion worth.

Oh, and for a bloated welfare state you need to have one first...

People are really against deficit spending when someone other than their candidate of choice is proposing it.

The US has been going strong for a long time. It is more stable than many/most parts of Europe. We have more opportunities. We have an overall better ability to move up the ladder. Why import shitty Euro entitlement politics when it has ruined the economy of many EU nations (except a few small northern ones and the one controlling the banks)?

Gonna need some citations on most of that.

What if we don't import the European ideas and instead reintroduce the ones America both implemented and proposed in the mid-decades of the 20th century? You know, when we actually did have a robust middle class and widespread upward mobility.

Taxes didn’t cause the prosperity of the middle class in the mid century. It was a combination of things including largely ww2.

You're right. Taxation alone doesn't solve or cause problems. But that doesn't mean that our current tax code isn't contributing to a problem or that tax reform won't contribute to a solution. 

But that wasn't my point. My point was that progressive taxation is not at odds with American ideals, as you implied by suggesting we shouldn't "import shitty Euro entitlement politics." We had them first. Nothing un-American about bringing them back.

Don't try to move the goalpoasts just because you're out of rhetorical hoop jumps. I can catch that shit in my sleep.

We had slavery as well and that was very unamerican . We should be moving towards realizing our ideals, and moving closer to the ideals that we haven’t always lived up to. Liberty being one.

It's what you do with those taxes what makes all the difference.

^I agree. We could solve many problems by reprioritization and probably be able to lower taxes. We just need to stop policing the world and getting involved in every war.

"We just need to stop policing the world and getting involved in every war."

*policing=bullying

*getting involved in every war=starting all those illegal wars

I find that if I support the wealthy and defend their right to keep hoovering up money they show me the same respect and support.

Of course they pay more (in total), they have all the money. The stats you want are the effective tax rates. W classified the IRS report that showed the richest people paying around 14%. I pay more than that in FICA alone. Remember Romney disclosing 11% tax on $250m income?

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

In 2016, 140.9 million taxpayers reported earning $10.2 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.4 trillion in individual income taxes.
The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell slightly to 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes fell slightly, to 37.3 percent.
In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

^per that article...

Thanks.

If only capital was taxed as much as labour...

Because it would be regressive.

At what number is it not regressive?

Any single number is regressive.

After 100k say...

This premise is simplified beyond the point of being useful.

Bluntly: we have too few tax brackets, and zero reasonable argument why there needs to be so few. Look back at marginal tax rates through the 60s and 70s. There were like 25 different brackets. Let's get back to that.

Look at this:

There's no reason why all of these people should pay the same rate on earnings over a few hundred thousand. It masks the outrageous proportion of hoarded wealth by an extreme few, and politically exploits the likes of doctors, laywers, and a few lucky architects as a shield against policies that would disrupt the comfort the *actual* wealthy.

AOC wants a tax of 70% after 10million. Let’s use that figure to keep things simple enough. So, should we tax earnings over 10million at 100%? If not what is an acceptable rate and why?

I'm not an economist so I'm not qualified to attempt a realistic answer to that. But, qualitatively, I do believe the current rate is too low and 100% is too high. So, I'd have to be convinced why 70% isn't the best option and why a different number would be more ideal. Until then, sure 70% on 10M why not.

And hey here's a paper by two economists concluding that 73% is an optimal top rate: https://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

A layperson explanation for those of us who don't want to read the full paper https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent

Yuck VOX.

Excellent counterpoint indeed.

Here it is in the quite conservative Wall Street Journal if you're going to be uppity about the ideology of a source and act like that gives you leverage to discredit its content. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160

It's increasingly clear from this and many, many other threads that you're stuck to an ideology and you have very, very little to provide in terms of justification. Back up your points or quit ranting & let the adults debate in peace.

We are arguing two different things. You are arguing for the ends, I’m arguing against the means. Regardless of the result, you don’t have a moral right to take 70% of someone else’s work. This is an ideological issue as well as a practical one. I’m not an economist, so I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt. Still, having a society where a small minority essentially supports a large majority through expansive entitlements and high taxes doesn’t sound stable. It also seems that such players would have even greater influence over politics in the global economy we live in. Take NY for instance. Millionaires pay something like 46% of the taxes. Of course NY is going to implement policies that cater to them, if they leave the high overhead city would be in trouble.

Back to the morality of it. My original point was that taking 100% of all/any income = immoral. Anything from there is a gradient of immortality. How much we are willing to accept is something to talk about, but framing it as a virtuous act is not being honest with what it is. Income tax is seizure and redistribution of property. How much, what it funds, how it’s acquired, the penalties, etc are all questions of morality not practicality.

the government isn't taking your work, they're taking your money, which is really your employer's to begin with, so it's not like they're stealing from you at all.

For arguments sake, change the billionaire in your mind from some old rich tycoon to a very successful artist like Jay-Z. What right do you have to 70% of his music. He hasn’t cost society anything. His music only added to the world like it or not. Do we tax him differently than some oil ceo?

^no.

so now you're talking about broken copyright laws?

Curt, here is an easy one...Floyd Mayweather is going to get in the ring, risk his body, and give Uncle Sam 70 million of his 100 million purse? His money is a result of his work, so yes they are entitling themselves to his work. I don’t make near that money, and likely never will, but plenty of people do, and not all are dirty scoundrels dumping toxins into streams. Lol when liberals in Hollywood get the bill. Guarantee they change their tune.

curtkram: You can't be serious. It's not your money after you've performed the work? I assume that means you hand your paycheck back at the end of the pay period and say, "Not mine, boss".

i never actually see a paycheck. it's automatically deposited, then people i owe bills to automatically take it away.

the distinction between labor and money is pretty important to understand if you want to develop an economic belief system.

aaaaand now we're talking about boxing.

Yes. Answer the question. Do you have a right to a portion of mayweathers purse? If so, what portion and why? It’s the simplest and most straightforward example of work resulting in large sum of money I could think of.

i've never met mayweather. me earning a portion of his income is in no way related to me paying taxes.

We are talking about the state taking 70+% of his money and redistributing it. I don’t mean “you” personally obviously. How about 99.99%? Why is one obviously immoral, and the other acceptable? Who are we to determine how much is too much? If someone fighting and entertaining gets 100% taken via taxation it is clearly immoral. Is 70% only 70% immoral or at some threshold does it enter into virtue? Our politicians on the left speak of seizing other people’s money as if it is an absolute moral good. I’m just questioning that logic.

if the tax bracket is say, over $10,000,000, then only money over that amount is taxed at that rate. none of your numbers are immoral. your understanding of morality seems just as bad as your understanding of capital and labor.

100% over 10,000,000 is that same as saying that no one can make more than 10,000,000.

first of all, 100% is being proposed by a clueless internet sprite, not an actual politician. second, you can still make 10 million dollars before that hypothetical (i.e. not real) tax bracket kicks in.

70% is the new position of most running on the dem ticket, and I believe Bernie said 77% to stay on top of the wack pack. Omar was talking about 90%. 100% is a hypothetical extreme I was using to make a point. I see you are trying to avoid it. So let’s say 70% since that’s what they are proposing. 10million is a lot to you and I, but a musician like Jay-z makes that on old albums. So, every new album he makes beyond that he is now getting 30 cents on the dollar. If it were 100% he would make nothing to produce new music. Get it? Probably not. I know you think that he doesn’t need more, but then you are making a subjective and morally based argument. More intellectual inconsistencies on the left...”there is no right or wrong...be a furry and piss in a litter box...”. “It is wrong to have a private jet and a big house...” The left applies a moral standard to lifestyle when it suits them, and then claims morality does not exist in other cases. I don’t believe in a divine morality. I rather let each person decide for themselves how to live as long as it isn’t directly harming someone else.

"and give Uncle Sam 70 million of his 100 million purse" No one is suggesting this and it's telling that you need to lie in order to make your case.

Here's a paper from Cato that makes your argument better than you can: https://www.cato.org/blog/punitive-marginal-tax-rates-partial-appeal-economics-literature

I disagree with it's conclusions but at least there's a competent thought process at work.

tduds, yes they are proposing a 70% tax.

Nope.

Ok, good article. I see what you are saying with that number. Point still remains the same though. What justifies a liberal tax view? It is a moral and philosophical argument. Saying “taking from the rich to help the poor is morally justified” is much different than saying “taxation is a necessary evil, unfair but necessary”. Even if the proposed rate is the same in both, the way that it is morally justified by the politicians reveals a deeper philosophical narrative. Of those 2 made up quotes, which is more divisive? Far-left politicians are flipping the narrative for the same reason far-right politicians are flipping the narrative-to feed identity politics and tribalism. This is bad for the country, and it creates an environment that is hostile and threatening to businesses and people who favor limited government. The question shouldn’t be what AOCs 70% rate actually amounts to, but why she would choose to use the 70% figure rhetorically.

Jeez, jla-x you really don't know what you're talking about. That 70% tax proposal is not for every dollar, but for every dollar above a certain established amount, that means all the money below that benchmark will have a lower % (and some of it even 0%)Therefore it will never be 70 million of taxes when one earns 100 million. You are just embarrassing yourself by not having your numbers straight in a discussion about numbers...that you even instigated yourself, lol.

I do know that. I didn’t think I needed to do the precise math to make the point. It’s called abstraction. See above my jay-z analogy. I stated that 70% after 10 million would be taken. Read better.

This post isn’t about precise math as I’ve stated several times. It is about the morality of the overall idea of being entitled to other people’s money and presenting that money grab as a virtuous act. You are nit-picking the math to avoid addressing the real point.

ok, morality - the overall idea that you can live and thrive all by yourself and presenting that privilege like something you earned?

What if, instead of framing tax as government theft of earned income, we frame it as the price of admission for participation in society? It follows then, that the people with the best station in society pay more for the continued security of that station. 

Expanding on that - a simple social contract theory would suggest that those with the most have the most to lose from revolution. Therefore a tax for the purposes of redistributing inequality should be whatever is sufficient to provide the basics of comfort to those with the least - to keep them from violently revolting against you.

 Now the moral argument is reversed - is it moral for someone to hoard several billion dollars when the people they employ are unable to feed themselves or visit a doctor?

True. We owe a certain fee for doing business within the US because we benefit from its infrastructure, security, etc. that’s a fair argument for taxation. “Rich people have too much” is not a fair argument.

How much do we owe? Why tax a rich boxer the same as a rich trucking company that burdens our infrastructure?

Or a rich artist vs a rich oil ceo? Do they really owe the same amount?

We're off topic now but I like this idea of tax incentives against destructive / unsustainable career choices.

“What if, instead of framing tax as government theft of earned income, we frame it as the price of admission for participation in society? It follows then, that the people with the best station in society pay more for the continued security of that station.”

Much better way to frame it. Not divisive or anti-capitalist, but practical. This used to be the way the Democratic Party spoke of taxation. They have moved to the far-left and now embrace the moral turpitude of Marxism.

This is evident in how taxation is being sold to the voter. This is also why the GND is viewed with suspicion.

You keep spewing the bullshit that 70% of income is taxed. That's wrong. curt spelled it out. 70% of money that NOBODY NEEDS is being taxed. I find it impossible to give less of a fuck. Venture capitalists plug money they dont need into pet projects that help nobody, hide it in tax shelters so they can keep more of it to give to their shitty kids who provide no benefit to our world.

Fuck that noise.

Yes, jla-x I'll read better if you write better...maybe stop typing like a Balkins on bath salts

That was funny:)

Pete, that’s your opinion that you are trying to impose.

It's not opinion that you continually misrepresent how our tax system works in order to misguide and confuse. I'll admit the rest is my opinion.

What did I misrepresent?

I just fucking told you.

Specifically or it didn’t happen.

Hahahaha. Ok.

"Moral right"?!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

" I rather let each person decide for themselves how to live as long as it isn’t directly harming someone else."

Corollary being you get to decide what "directly harming someone else" means, right?

My stance is that one does not become a billionaire without harming someone else. No one generates a billion dollars, they siphon wages from their exploited workforce.

wealth was invested in derivatives markets. imho, that's different than investing in the economy.

No, actually companies, manufacturers, developers ect. took advantage of the low rates and reinvested in their businesses and expanded. One example is the maritime shipping industry continuously building more capacity even though the indistry was overbuilt, the reason, historic low rates that allowed companies to invest in their fleets at a rate that historically had never happened. Almost every central
bank followed suit after it was apparent it was working. The economic stimulus package on the other hand....did jack.

i agree that when capital is cheaper it's easier to reinvest in a business, but the difference between the amount of money in derivatives v. the amount of money in maritime shipping is staggering. these people have a neat little chart: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18

Thus! Raise minimum wage! I’m just saying I think creating a framework to force that built wealth down vs taxing and redistributing it would accomplish the same goal but more effectively with less waste and less government corruption.

The problem with a framework that works more on its own is that nobody can say they are giving something and therefore deserve more power.

just jla exercising reductio ad absurdum

+++ curt

That’s my favorite kind of absurdism.