Current Events > Tax billionaires. They can afford it.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The absolutely most diabolically brilliant thing the GOP has accomplished is to have young, low income earners spend their time defending tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. We need more people calling them out like the Twitter user above did here.

---

Im at the point where Ive stopped caring. I feel like anything I try to do is fruitless and pointless.

The question is whether it will even work, and what are the secondary consequences, not whether they can afford it.
---

But but but...they worked hard to get there...but but but...shut the fuck up!

---

The most diabolically brilliant thing progressives have accomplished is to convince young people that economic illiteracy is virtuous.

BadderHare posted...

The most diabolically brilliant thing progressives have accomplished is to convince young people that economic illiteracy is virtuous.

Nah, our economy was better when billionaires were taxed. We used to tax them until some crooks came along and rigged the system even worse than it already was.



---

As much as I agree that billionaires should be taxed more (since taxes should be proportional to an individual's wealth), there's also the real possibility of them picking up shop and settling in some other country with more lax tax laws if we try to implement this.


---

Shablagoo posted...

Nah, our economy was better when billionaires were taxed. We used to tax them until some crooks came along and rigged the system even worse than it already was.

And it's rather amazing how poor Republicans defend these billionaires, as if said billionaires would give two shits about them.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Nah, our economy was better when billionaires were taxed.

They are taxed and you should know Zucman and Saez are notorious in the economics community and were rightly torn apart for that "study" of theirs.

PS Not everyone who is economically literate is a Republican, in fact very few are. Get an actual argument.

I think every billionaire could easily survive being less of a billionaire.

---

konokonohamaru posted...

The question is whether it will even work

lol it worked for decades when the top 1% paid shit loads more in taxes

oh and everyone was fine with it and no one bitched

this new republican greed is disgusting

Solar_Crimson posted...

And it's rather amazing how poor Republicans defend these billionaires, as if said billionaires would give two shits about them.

Speaking as an independent, my fear is that "let's tax the billionaires" will morph into "let's tax anyone making a decent income" while the millionaires get to exploit loopholes and get out from paying their statutory share

I'd love if billionaires ended up paying a greater share of their income in taxes, I just don't know if I trust any of the politicians to carry it out
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I think every billionaire could easily survive being less of a billionaire.

But their 5th yacht

---

Snickers_Pls posted...

lol it worked for decades when the top 1% paid shit loads more in taxes

It is common knowledge that no one ever actually paid those rates.

Less talking points guys.

BadderHare posted...

It is common knowledge that no one ever actually paid those rates.

Less talking points guys.

this is such a stupid talking point because even though they didn't pay their marginal tax rates (btw, no one pays their marginal rate, that's not how they work) they did pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, which is the point

---

Shablagoo posted...

Nah, our economy was better when billionaires were taxed. We used to tax them until some crooks came along and rigged the system even worse than it already was.

That graph is from the flawed study where they basically picked and chose data to bump up lower income taxes while reducing rich taxes to make this big headline to tout.

Like they didn't include the earned income tax credit as a tax benefit and included unrealized gains are income.

---

BadderHare posted...

It is common knowledge that no one ever actually paid those rates.

Less talking points guys.

Lol no

HellRatUFO posted...

Tax revenue is higher when taxes are lowered lol. This isnt exclusively a Republican thing either, as this applied to both John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton when they signed tax cuts.

lmao

Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, what are you talking about

---

HellRatUFO posted...

Tax revenue is higher when taxes are lowered lol. This isnt exclusively a Republican thing either, as this applied to both John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton when they signed tax cuts.

Ah the Laffer Curve comes out to play
---

Snickers_Pls posted...

Lol no

Oh man nevermind this never happened since you said lol no my mistake.

That's crazy. Raising taxes and cutting spending leads to the government having more tax money. Who would have thought.

---

BroodRyu posted...

Im at the point where Ive stopped caring. I feel like anything I try to do is fruitless and pointless.

Millennial thinking.

---

look, the tax foundation is admittedly conservative and even they don't say that raising rates reduces taxes



this is the talking point you were looking for, but you fumbled it because you can clearly see that tax revenue goes up when rates go up and go down when rates go down

---

It should also be noted that the "research" done by Saez and Zucman was part of a book they were about to release and they also work for Warren's campaign, so they got a lot of mileage out of a false claim that the media parroted endlessly.

BadderHare posted...

Oh man nevermind this never happened since you said lol no my mistake.

Nobody is obligated to thoroughly work through a rebuttal until you actually back up your original statement with evidence.

Until there's something more than "everyone knows" to your argument, lol no is all you get.

---

Balrog0 posted...

look, the tax foundation is admittedly conservative and even they don't say that raising rates reduces taxes



this is the talking point you were looking for, but you fumbled it because you can clearly see that tax revenue goes up when rates go up and go down when rates go down

To be fair you're only showing that their average rate goes up when their marginal rate goes up, not that tax revenues increase.

Not that I disagree with your overall point
---

konokonohamaru posted...

To be fair you're only showing that their average rate goes up when their marginal rate goes up, not that tax revenues increase.

lol fair enough

---

DrizztLink posted...

Nobody is obligated to thoroughly work through a rebuttal until you actually back up your original statement with evidence.

Until there's something more than "everyone knows" to your argument, lol no is all you get.

My bad I forgot common knowledge isn't common knowledge on CE. Got to talk a little slower in these parts.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent/

26.9% is not that low of an effective tax rate tbh. I just looked at mine (total tax divided by AGI), and it was 12.0% last year. My marginal rate was 24%.

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

26.9% is not that low of an effective tax rate tbh. I just looked at mine (total tax divided by AGI), and it was 12.0% last year.

this was before the TCJA that skewed benefits to the rich fwiw

---

BroodRyu posted...

Im at the point where Ive stopped caring. I feel like anything I try to do is fruitless and pointless.

Welcome to the club fam
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

As much as I agree that billionaires should be taxed more (since taxes should be proportional to an individual's wealth), there's also the real possibility of them picking up shop and settling in some other country with more lax tax laws if we try to implement this.

Fuck 'em.

---

I imagine most of their wealth is tied up in investments/capital gains, so if you're thinking they're going to flee the US, you'd want to look at similarly developed nations and their respective rates

treewojima posted...

I imagine most of their wealth is tied up in investments/capital gains, so if you're thinking they're going to flee the US, you'd want to look at similarly developed nations and their respective rates

fuckin ireland

---

If you get a chance read Secrecy World. The amount of stuff the rich will do to avoid paying taxes is unbelievable.

Balrog0 posted...

fuckin ireland

Can't blame them tho can you?
---

SauI_Goodman posted...

If you get a chance read Secrecy World. The amount of stuff the rich will do to avoid paying taxes is unbelievable.

They don't even have to do it themselves. Just pay a tax advisor a small percentage commission and they'll do it all for you
---

SauI_Goodman posted...

If you get a chance read Secrecy World. The amount of stuff the rich will do to avoid paying taxes is unbelievable.

Netflix made a movie based off it too, The Laundromat. Not sure if its any good though, and its a fictional drama not a documentary.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

This article highlights how the ultra rich paid much higher effective rates than they currently do. Youre not making the argument you think youre making.

it's also not a great comparison for the purposes of federal income tax rates because they are discussing state and local taxes (and other federal taxes) in that article as well


---

shockthemonkey posted...

This article highlights how the ultra rich paid much higher effective rates than they currently do. Youre not making the argument you think youre making.

The takeaway from the history lesson of the 1950s is not the golden age of high taxes and prosperity that supporters of the Green New Deal imagine it to be. Rather, the tax policy of this period strongly suggests that high statutory rates are only sustainable when they are accompanied by massive legal tax shelters that are written into the tax code by design.

The high statutory tax rates were just a facade obscuring a more tempered reality.

These legal loopholes reduced the effective tax burden on top earners to a manageable level. While apples-to-apples comparisons between the 1950s and the tax system today require making several assumptions about the reliability of tax-reported income data, a recent report from the Tax Foundation used an estimate of the top 1 percent income share to calculate its associated effective tax rates over time. Its findings show that this groups effective income tax rate in the 1950s was only slightly higher than today: 42 percent versus 36.4 percent.

6% really isn't "much higher" and it certainly doesn't justify what progressives are asking for.

Balrog0 posted...

treewojima posted...

I imagine most of their wealth is tied up in investments/capital gains, so if you're thinking they're going to flee the US, you'd want to look at similarly developed nations and their respective rates

fuckin ireland

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/capital_taxes/capital_gains_tax.html

this says 33% compared to the max of 20% in the US

BadderHare posted...

The takeaway from the history lesson of the 1950s is not the golden age of high taxes and prosperity that supporters of the Green New Deal imagine it to be. Rather, the tax policy of this period strongly suggests that high statutory rates are only sustainable when they are accompanied by massive legal tax shelters that are written into the tax code by design.

The high statutory tax rates were just a facade obscuring a more tempered reality.

These legal loopholes reduced the effective tax burden on top earners to a manageable level. While apples-to-apples comparisons between the 1950s and the tax system today require making several assumptions about the reliability of tax-reported income data, a recent report from the Tax Foundation used an estimate of the top 1 percent income share to calculate its associated effective tax rates over time. Its findings show that this groups effective income tax rate in the 1950s was only slightly higher than today: 42 percent versus 36.4 percent.

6% really isn't "much higher" and it certainly doesn't justify what progressives are asking for.

You understand more than just billionaires are in the 1%, right? Way more, actually.

---

treewojima posted...

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/capital_taxes/capital_gains_tax.html

this says 33% compared to the max of 20% in the US

I was joking because ireland has low corporate tax rates; I think the higher capital gains taxes make up for the difference, though ireland is a pretty low-tax country still (Just not as low tax as the US)

---

Balrog0 posted...

lmao

Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, what are you talking about

lets run the numbers a bit

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.CN?end=2018&locations=US&start=1972&view=chart

---