In America, the top 1% paid 45.7% of total income tax in 2015 [1] (earning 17% of "expanded cash income"), so you're already talking about a rate over proportionally double.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fed...
In America, the top 1% paid 45.7% of total income tax in 2015 [1] (earning 17% of "expanded cash income"), so you're already talking about a rate over proportionally double.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-fed...
the wealthy
Income taxation and wealth taxation are not the same thingThe tax system provides tons of ways the wealthy can skip taxes, progressive or not.
Even if a black market developed, at some point that money flows back into the economy and is taxed whereas today it does not (aka tax havens and many other schemes).
It's also very logical to be taxed for what you take from society vs. what you give to society. But that's just a minor point.
The simplest way to think about it I guess is that regardless of wealth, everybody needs a certain number of calories to live. If you are poor and can only afford subsistence, you are paying a much larger portion of your overall wealth just to stay alive.
That may be ok with you, but for a lot of people it's not.
Something like a wealth- or income-based tax credit would possibly correct this, although poor people are also less likely to know how to take advantage of such tax breaks.
The fact that the rich can afford to save more of their income proves that isn't true.
A more pedestrian proof would be that even if I make 10 times as much money as someone else, the most expensive gallon of milk I can buy is still only double or triple what a poor person would pay.
Not so minor! Taxing based on how money are spent is very reasonable (but goes again consumerism).
It also ties very well into resource-based taxation. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle )
Regressive taxation schemes don’t take into account the disproportionate advantages that the wealthy get from having sound infrastructure provided by the government.
How does a sales tax properly impact the monopolist who is getting advantages from state sponsored research and educational subsidies?
They also don’t take into account that the wealthy can pay more in taxes without it substantially affecting their quality of life, whereas a poor person it will make a huge difference in their diet and ability to save.
It may be logical on a simple level, but logical at face value doesn’t make it sound public policy.
Sure, the tax can't go back in time and make up for the poor system we have now. But you have to start somewhere - at least we could get on the right track.
Simple: you just make a deal with someone saying that, if you pay cash, they won't report or charge the tax. Maybe you'll even pay them a bit more (but less than it would've cost you with the tax) to do so. With cash, how can you trace it?
But, a sales-tax based system is absolutely awful regardless; it does nothing but hurt those who can least afford it.
Not only that, if that money is then used to purchase legitimate goods the tax is still received. However, in the case of not reporting income you can consume whatever you want to from society without incurring any tax.
You can easily do the same thing. Just take the cash from selling stuff and don't report it as income. Hell, you could report it as a loss at that, and maybe even get some benefit from that. There's still ways around it, and they will be found by those who have the money to find them.
> Not only that, if that money is then used to purchase legitimate goods the tax is still received.
But it's not. The tax on what the new person bought is, but not on the original purchase. The tax of the original purchase still isn't received.
Either way, it hurts honest people and the poor, who likely don't have the connections or money to get around paying taxes; not to mention it's a much higher percentage of their income that's being taxed, so it doubly impacts them if it's sales-tax only.
If anything, it allows the poor to pay less tax and save more of their paycheck if desired. It puts the choice in their hands.
Before it is claimed that the poor don't pay tax now anyways - that is only true if you consider gross income to be representative of financial status. You can make an above U.S. average salary and still be poor depending on where you live. This system does not discriminate based on gross income. It's like a no-limit IRA that you can withdraw from at any time.
> This system does not discriminate based on gross income.
But it does. It still impacts those who make less more. It costs more of what little income they do get to keep after bills, and applies it to all necessities. It's a horrible idea.
Wealth gets "consumed" by bad investments. Those "bad" investments might even be considered as expenditure, almost as consumption, by the wealthy, e.g. subsidizing a newspaper - but what does sales tax (or some other consumption tax) look like when it's applied to journalists' salaries? Doesn't really make sense, does it.
Actually if you dig deeper into fair tax it is theorized that cost of goods would largely remain the same. this is due to the removal of corporate income taxes altogether. Also companies would not pay any sales tax on goods/services.
That would be even less fair. For a rich person, spending (even with luxuries in) is a small percentage of their income.
For a poor person rent for a small apartment, plus food, plus basic clothing for the kids basic healthcare, etc eats most of their income (or all in most cases).
Rich people also don't need to spend as much. For most of their fortune, they can accumulate and wait. For the rest, they can arrange all kinds of schemes (e.g. their car is leased by their company, not them personally, and so on) to appear not to spend themselves.
Plus, a lot of what they do is buying influence, which you can do with political donations, "charity", and other such things, that are low or not taxed (and in some cases, are even tax deductible).
Ayn Rand explores a world where the rich value creators go on strike when people and the government “loot” and plumber their wealth, through regulations and restrictions in her economic dystopian book Atlas Shrugged.
I mention this merely to suggest we could be careful about overtaxation ‘because they’re rich and won’t miss it.’ We ought to discuss the boundary where we go too far and steer very clear of that boundary.
There’s no real evidence to support that. Why must gross overcentralisation of capital be the only way to invest in productive activity?
If the rich went on a strike today; within a couple of years, they'd all be replaced by a different batch of newly rich people and the economy would be right back where it was before... Then after maybe a few more years, the economy would be in a better shape than it has ever been.
For every rich person, there are hundreds of even more talented people just waiting for an opportunity to take their place.
There have been many cases in history where all the rich people in a country lost their wealth and then they were replaced by a completely new class of rich people; Germany after WW2, Russia after the collapse of the USSR...
But if the capital were sensibly redistributed (I advocate for spending some on things like univeral healthcare, and then directly sharing the rest out) it would also enable a vast group of people to take entrepreneurial risks that are not in a position to do so now.
But let's say someone is advocating for that 80%-90% tax-rate on income:
1. Why should I try to make more money if I'm going to be taxed at 80%-90%, forking over such a massive sum of my money as to make it mostly worthless?
2. Even if this advocate believes the rich don't need the money, what makes the government entitled to take the vast majority of their income? That was money the rich income earner made for themselves. I'd argue that it should be their decision how to spend the majority of it.
I'd argue that advocating for seizing such a high amount of money is very anti-capitalist. It's not really a government's position to regulate how much wealth someone "needs" when you have a high degree of freedom.
2. What makes them entitled to that money in the first place? Surely nothing other than the economic system which is grounded in a democratic negotiation. You may be interested to know that other languages don't use the word "earn" for income. For example, Spanish uses "ganar" which means "win". Just because you complete a task for which you are rewarded with money by our current economic system doesn't mean you have earned it (see also: people who think things are immoral just because they're illegal)
Sure, it's anti-capitalist. Why do you think that is a bad thing? I believe it's the government's role, because that extra freedom granted to the rich is taking what I consider to be far more important freedoms away from the poor.
Before or after it was gutted earlier this year?
Very few people get wealthy from income (in part because it's taxed so heavily). Usually, wealth comes from capital growth.
Wealth taxes focus on wealth. Unfortunately, it's very hard to reliably tax wealth because making wealth tax efficient is highly incentivized at every level: not just offshore vehicles, tax exiles etc., but also governments trying to encourage investment effectively subsidize wealthy people increasing their wealth.
I don't understand what the srawman you think I was making is supposed to be. The quote is what I was replying to. He was referring on taxation focusing on the rich (not the well off). My original reply was commenting on that.
Is the strawman supposed to be that 1% is too high a bar of entry to be considered rich? Or something else?