People who have already made their money love to call for this sort of thing. They're rich enough to be insulated from it; it hits those who might actually try to get rich in the future.
I'm not sure what you're criticizing but Dalio's post is explicitly about economic mobility, i.e. reducing barriers preventing more people from getting rich in the future.
Talk is cheap.
Or perhaps, you dream of being mega rich yourself and want things to stay the way they are now so you can make it?
Is this a serious question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
Ray Dalio has taken his chunk, is retiring, but senses the social and political winds are changing. Being a billionaire is no longer something people "respect", and is very rarely "earned". I'm sure he doesn't want the Proletariat knocking on his door in his old age.
Billionaires who advocate for higher income tax, but not a higher capital gains rate, are just pulling up the ladder behind them. The article isn't explicit with what Dalio is advocating for here.
Maybe it’s in his proposal but I didn’t see any mention of bringing back the estate (death) tax on the rich or increasing capital gains.
It is clear that these people are uninterested in paying higher taxes as it is completely legal to pay more taxes without any legislation. Thr website pay.gov accepts money for those who would like to contribute to the operations and debt costs of the united states government.
Until buffett and others make actual extra tax contributions to the government (as opposed to their own private charity), I'll continue to ignore them
Does anyone know if there is a term for this? It's a bit reminiscent of 'regulatory capture' but that doesn't seem quite right.
This is solved by taxing very high wealth, not just very high income.
> it hits those who might actually try to get rich in the future.
Not those who try, just those who actually get very rich. None of the current tax increase proposals target the wealth or income of even slightly rich people (low millions of net worth or low 100ks of income), just the very rich (> 50mil net worth).
That still leaves a ton of room for incentivizing getting rich below that number.
IMO, calling for higher taxes is the same thing to do, rather than performing some sort of empty virtue signaling.
How does it do that? These are just words. Dalio and his hand-wringing clique have no issue speaking platitudes about economic justice, and turning right around and lobbying politicians for more tax cuts, less regulation and fewer consumer protections.
How are you going to get rich in the future when real wages for consumers haven't budged in 4 decades? Do you plan on delivering a product people can actually afford, or simply engage in the financial chicanery that made the 2008 recession possible?
Where did you read that? Tax policy is ludicrously complex by design. Simply saying "we should pay higher taxes" is broad enough to be meaningless. Increasing income tax for example would barely make a dent in their take-home, because the majority of their wealth comes through capital gains tax.
Not to mention the numerous documented loopholes in the tax system that allow people in Dalio/Buffet's position to move money around the world at a moment's notice and pay nothing in federal tax.
The loopholes are there, but they never get fixed, thanks to lobbying from the big 4 audit firms that depend on blue chip clients like him to fatten their paycheques.
Just because Dalio has an arms-length connection to the dysfunctional tax system doesn't mean he;s ignorant as to why the system is the way it is.