The problem is that people with power are largely incentivized to push this rate lower than the optimal-for-the-median-person rate in order to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Yes, obviously. The bulk of work of the company is done by the workers. That is to say, most of the value is generated by the labor of the workers. If a commensurate share of the profit is not returned to the employees, they’ve clearly been undercompensated.
Most of the time these public companies do regular mass layoffs just to make their investors happy to do short term stock price manipulation so they can get a bump in their executive salaries. This happens all the time
Sure doesn't seem like an IPO makes anyone but the tops lives easier in my book...
Of course the rich tried to work around it. But culturally they also understood that paying a lot of taxes was considered their duty to society, especially in times of crisis.
Do tell, what is the effective tax rate that the rich pay today?
Worker wealth is absolutely not relative to the overall wealth in this country; that disproportionately goes to the top 1% (we're now at 1920s levels) and it's getting worse every year.
The average first home purchase age is 40 compared to the 20s then. Getting a college degree was free or cheap for many of our parents/grandparents, now it's mostly a luxury. Healthcare costs put people into permanent debt. Most people are struggling paycheck to paycheck.
Is your argument that life is all around better for the average person now because we don't tax the wealthy/let them accumulate most the wealth in this country?
Were there other factors? Absolutely but it's disingenuous to claim there was no difference in tax policy now vs then.
> widespread tax avoidance, capital flight, and a reduction in domestic investment
Do you not think the US has the capability to enforce their tax laws despite these efforts? It absolutely gets its tax dollars from foreign earned income, it can penalize such tax avoidance strategies (these companies operate in the unite states after all).
> The rich do not make the bulk of their wealth through a salary
Yeah, because it's a method to avoid taxation obviously. That's why we need to tax loans against assets ("buy, borrow, die") and increase capital gains to be at least above that of labor.
It's so incredibly obvious the wealthy do whatever they can to avoid taxation. Why are you so dead-set on furthering their agenda?
I'm curious, what's your solution to wealth inequality or do you think we should just let the super wealthy return to the robber barons/kings of yesteryear?
So if someone (you mean an entire, large company with many employees) offers public shares and people buy them, then what happens in your mind? I'm genuinely curious.
If I, this newly IPOed founder, 100x my company, now my paper wealth has 100x correct? Now, with that wealth I can follow "buy, borrow, die" so I pay near 0% taxation on these shares. Then, when I do need to liquidate some of my wealth I just pay capital gains. I pay myself $1y in salary so I pay no income tax. I now am 100x wealthier but pay little to no tax on that wealth while all my employees pay 30%+ on nearly every dollar they earn via their salaries.
This seems a bit... unfair... don't you think? The employees of this now very wealthy persons company are required for his wealth to continue but they pay at least 2-3x the taxes on a per dollar basis. Add to that the corporation also probably pays a 0% tax rate.
A reasonable bare minimum would be to make sure the wealthy and the companies they run pay their fair share in taxes as everyone including these companies benefit from the systems that taxation pays for.
It's amazing how many people are falling for billionaire taxation propaganda despite how blatantly obvious it is now...
I didn't realize the US was the Soviet Union, how ironic!
I’d much rather pay the prices corrected-for-supporting-livelihoods, than the artificially inflated prices used to line the pockets of the rich.
But unless you do central planning (which doesn't work) you can't really separate these two, can you?
Citation needed. Very little of what we buy today as a consumer are commodities whose price is determined primarily by the cost of production — and even then labor costs are rarely the most significant cost.
Most things we buy are priced according to what the consumer is willing to pay for it, and the balance sheet of the companies that sell most of the things we buy show there’s a lot of wiggle room there.
Services and goods where lots of human labor is required get much more expensive with larger cost of labor. E.g. fast-food, food delivery. And there's nothing wrong with that of course - I'd rather pay 2x more for delivery than have people working on wages that are not enough to even feed them.
Surely there is more slack in the system than the Epstein class wants to openly admit.