To be fair I don't know your wealth at all but its just an observation I've had from talking with others about this. The end result of this would be to make these people some of the wealthiest in the country by dragging the wealth curve to just above their level. It sounds like a moral hazard to me.
I haven't observed that, and it's very unlikely the GP is a "notch" below $10-15 million.
I bet you've discovered the cause of this effect. I suspect we're seeing people who live comfortable lifestyles say "this seems about right" and then hedge a bit.
This was on full display back in 2017-2018 when tax code was changed to limit the amount of State and Local taxes (SALT) that could be deducted from your Federal tax liability. The original SALT deduction, before the change, clearly benefited the wealthy, with large mortgages and living in high-tax (read: expensive) areas.
Cue articles like this one [1], which shows just how out of touch the wealthy can be:
> estimate the tax law’s impact on the value of a theoretical house in the New York City suburb of West Orange, New Jersey, purchased for $800,000 in 2017 by a theoretical family with a $250,000 annual income. Those home value and income numbers are very high by national standards — but middle class by the standards of large parts of suburban Essex County.
In 2017, $250K/HHI was in the top 5% of the entire US. Someone living in a house that cost 3X the median house, in one of the richest areas of the country, making more than 95% of everyone else considers themselves 'middle class'.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-trillion-dollar-hi...
They don't consider themselves middle class, statistically they are middle class based on (income, wealth, purchasing power, etc.). They aren't out of touch - nobody asked them - they just live where there's a higher cost of living. But it pays off, or they would move someplace less expensive, and housing would cost the same nationwide.
The average US locality's economy produces more wealth and requires more expense to live in than the average locality in a low-income country. You can't just move the Americans to the low-income country; they wouldn't be nearly as productive, and thus have less income. NYC's economy is more productive than almost any place in the world.
We could widen the scope to all of human history, and then we're all unimaginably wealthy compared to hunter-gatherers we were until 10K years ago. But does that mean we're just as wealthy here and now?
Cue comments like these that show just how out of touch people can be I guess.
These people are not meaningfully wealthy. They have no more power than the next 5% down the ladder. Even among the top 1%, 90% are not meaningfully wealthy in terms of the power they can exert.
The idea that some poor bozo with a mortgage on an $800k house is wealthy for any useful definition of the term is nonsense.
I'm a tech worker in the public sector.
To be blunt: tax me more, please.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Reporting and Analysis Branch 2
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328
Progressive taxation is a good idea...
Are Elon’s rocket and car company infringing on your well-being? What about the pensioners holding Tesla shares? Are they stifling your ability to come up with some funds for the public good?
Oh, I forgot, poor victim Elon! The right-wingers pull out this rhetoric so consistently, it's a parody of itself every time. But now Elon Musk is a victim? Whose next? Trump?
And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?
(I think we both are in good faith. No need to imply I'm a thief or oppressor.)
> And if we jointly pay for them, don't each of us have a share to pay?
Yes, but despite them paying orders of magnitude more than you do, you still complain they don't pay their "fair share", the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more. I don't see any justification for claiming this has anything to do with "fair".
That's exactly what I was thinking. I am the owner of your money, in fact. Hand it over. Post your BTC here (nobody else touch it, it's mine).
> "I want to do X therefor it's fair that Elon Musk will pay for it, and if he doesn't, he is evil and must be jailed"
We are equal under the law and we all should pay for it, nobody treated differently.
> the definition of "fair" being based solely on the fact that you want them to pay more.
When did I tell you what my basis was?
The image of Musk whining 'it's not fair' like a 6 year old is pretty incredible, but in fairness to Musk, someone else is doing it. But for reasons unknown - why are you advocating for this complete stranger?
Your surprise that somebody can object to untruth where it's not personally beneficial to him tells yet more about your approach to fairness.
What he really means is tax me (and certain others I deem appropriate) more.
But if you want to contribute more to the government directly, others here have pointed you to some good resources.
Currently, over half of all federal personal income tax collected is paid by under 5% of taxpayers, and the bottom 50% of income earners as a whole pay under 3% of all federal income tax collected.
What percentage of annual cash flow in the USofA do they earn?
Is it more than 3%?
[0]: https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...
If you want to actually contribute to society you are better off investing it in some productive way or giving away to people in need as directly as possible. Government is a necessary evil, don't give it a dime more than what's absolutely needed as it can get out of control with little room to escape.
I work 60 hours a week and volunteer for 20 more.
Not only do I want everyone in my "class" to contribute at least as much as I do, I want them to actually contribute something, not just voidposting about how they have too much money and wish the government would take more of it.
Unless, of course, you, as usual, meant that it's me that is going to be taxed more? While you are already getting paid from my money?
Another way would be to ask for pay reduction. Same effect on the public money, much less friction and transactional expenses. I'm sure your boss can find a way to make it happen.
It would make for better discussion if these social justice warriors were at least honest about what they actually want.
Ergo, arguing justice (FSVO justice) for society.
As such, I am of the position that this is one of those rare situations where the term "social justice warrior" is meaningful and accurate.
The people complaining about these things are literally self-identifying themselves as the bad guy. We're not making you use these words. We're not making you self-identify as the bad guy. We didn't put the rake there, but they're proudly stomping on it anyways.
Take for example the aforementioned grandparent: It's justice to redistribute wealth from those above some arbitrary line to those below (grandparent is presumably below it). That's only justice for him, it's bullshit to everyone else.
And you know what happens when differing senses of justice collide? Possibly made worse by fervor? Very Unpleasant Things(tm).
This is why we use legal justice rather than social justice: There is one and only one standard of justice that we all agree to accept after much deliberation.