How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[QUOTE=Tiny;1064005574]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...broken-budgets

From the article:

Loopholes benefiting the very wealthy should certainly be closed. The biggest problem in the American tax system is at the very top.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...broken-budgets

From the article: Originally Posted by Turner2099

Yes the economist has your the same biases as you. It hasn’t endorsed a Republican candidate for president in about 30 years. And your quote was from the editorial, not the research piece that I also linked to.

However, you selectively quoted the article. Here’s the whole paragraph.

“Loopholes benefiting the very wealthy should certainly be closed. The biggest problem in the American tax system is at the very top. The resetting of the basis for capital-gains tax upon death allows billionaires who hold on to assets, borrowing against them to fund spending, to avoid the levy entirely. The dodge is outrageous. Yet ending it would yield only a tiny amount of money, probably less than 0.1% of GDP annually. The same goes for raising inheritance tax, a good tax that has never generated much money.”

Of course loopholes should be closed.

Using the strategy above, the billionaire and his estate still pays a 40% tax on all the gifts he makes and what’s in his estate when he dies. Except donations to charity. Who would you rather have compounding capital and allocating money to worthy causes? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Or federal politicians? The politicians mostly won’t compound capital and grow the economy, they’ll spend it. And flush a lot of the money down the toilet.

How about allocating the share of taxes attributable to corporations founded by billionaires? That would be in the billions for a number of them. The billionaires pay far more than their fair share. And as the Economist says, the idea you’re going to be able to rob the billionaires to close the deficit and pay for the federal politicians wish lists is a pipe dream.

It’s a pipe dream for a simple reason, there’s just not enough people at that income level to matter. You could tax billionaires 100% and it’d be like pissing in the ocean, revenue wise. Math is math. To increase what’s coming in you’ve gotta go where the money is, the middle class, like Nordic countries do. There, joe average is paying 60% off the top, in an artificially inflated COL, surviving off whatever scraps the government leaves behind. Funny thing is that most there are fine with it because they’ve never known anything else. They’re fat and happy little lemmings in their tiny, overpriced apartment, driving their glorified lawnmowers full of $10/gal gas.

It’s a pipe dream for a simple reason, there’s just not enough people at that income level to matter. You could tax billionaires 100% and it’d be like pissing in the ocean, revenue wise. Math is math. To increase what’s coming in you’ve gotta go where the money is, the middle class, like Nordic countries do. There, joe average is paying 60% off the top, in an artificially inflated COL, surviving off whatever scraps the government leaves behind. Funny thing is that most there are fine with it because they’ve never known anything else. They’re fat and happy little lemmings in their tiny, overpriced apartment, driving their glorified lawnmowers full of $10/gal gas. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

While I could care less if billionaires get taxed up the ass, mostly you are close in your thoughts.

The fair answer is eliminate the current tax laws, and negotiate a flat tax across the board. Everyone and everything (Corporations are not people, no matter what Citizens United tries to justify) pays a single rate, say 10-15% on gross income.

Rate can be negotiated and moved, but everyone pays the same percentage.

Raises revenue fairly, and is easy to compute.

elg…..

I could get behind that.

While I could care less if billionaires get taxed up the ass, mostly you are close in your thoughts.

The fair answer is eliminate the current tax laws, and negotiate a flat tax across the board. Everyone and everything (Corporations are not people, no matter what Citizens United tries to justify) pays a single rate, say 10-15% on gross income.

Rate can be negotiated and moved, but everyone pays the same percentage.

Raises revenue fairly, and is easy to compute.

elg….. Originally Posted by elghund

I tell you what, I’ll agree to a flat tax on income when everyone gets paid the exact same amount.

Until then I’ll stick to the graduated tax system we have now.

If I make 50,000 a year and you make 120,000 a year we both still pay the exact same percentage on the first 50,000 we each make. You will have to pay a higher percentage on the next 70,000 you’ve made.

I tell you what, I’ll agree to a flat tax on income when everyone gets paid the exact same amount.

Until then I’ll stick to the graduated tax system we have now.

If I make 50,000 a year and you make 120,000 a year we both still pay the exact same percentage on the first 50,000 we each make. You will have to pay a higher percentage on the next 70,000 you’ve made. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Nice, as long as there is no top end cap involved.

elg…

I tell you what, I’ll agree to a flat tax on income when everyone gets paid the exact same amount. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

There’s a word for that. Actually an entire political philosophy, one that’s responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

If I make 50,000 a year and you make 120,000 a year we both still pay the exact same percentage on the first 50,000 we each make. You will have to pay a higher percentage on the next 70,000 you’ve made.

Why? The 120 guy still pays over twice as much as you. Sounds like garden variety jealousy and retribution.

https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-G.../dp/B07DBS8DL5

I think that people have missed the point of both my post and the WSJ article.

Data from the fed shows that billionaires pay a far less percentage of their wealth in taxes than the highest paid wage earners. People see that as unfair.

This issue isn’t going away and will need to be dealt with sooner or later. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Unfair? That's just how the tax code is written up. The rules favor the rich and businesses. Democrat leaders like it that way and I don't think the issue will be dealt with.

Yes the economist has your the same biases as you. It hasn’t endorsed a Republican candidate for president in about 30 years. And your quote was from the editorial, not the research piece that I also linked to.

However, you selectively quoted the article. Here’s the whole paragraph.

“Loopholes benefiting the very wealthy should certainly be closed. The biggest problem in the American tax system is at the very top. The resetting of the basis for capital-gains tax upon death allows billionaires who hold on to assets, borrowing against them to fund spending, to avoid the levy entirely. The dodge is outrageous. Yet ending it would yield only a tiny amount of money, probably less than 0.1% of GDP annually. The same goes for raising inheritance tax, a good tax that has never generated much money.”

Of course loopholes should be closed.

Using the strategy above, the billionaire and his estate still pays a 40% tax on all the gifts he makes and what’s in his estate when he dies. Except donations to charity. Who would you rather have compounding capital and allocating money to worthy causes? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Or federal politicians? The politicians mostly won’t compound capital and grow the economy, they’ll spend it. And flush a lot of the money down the toilet.

How about allocating the share of taxes attributable to corporations founded by billionaires? That would be in the billions for a number of them. The billionaires pay far more than their fair share. And as the Economist says, the idea you’re going to be able to rob the billionaires to close the deficit and pay for the federal politicians wish lists is a pipe dream. Originally Posted by Tiny

The Economist leans socially center left and economically center right. It endorsed Democrats in the last three elections because they weren't Trump, not because they were Democrats.

I quoted selectively from the article you linked because it said exactly what I wanted to say---close the tax loopholes. You agree with that. I was following up on txdot-guy's comment right before mine about perceived unfairness.

He and I have both posted about the "buy, borrow, die" strategy being unfair. He was reiterating the unfairness of how billionaires pay taxes compared to the rest of us and I was concurring. I don't think that makes me biased.

I think billionaires giving their money to charity is great and I see no problem with the money not being taxed. I am not arguing to take money from them to help the deficit, I just want to see fair taxation.

If you haven't had a chance yet, check out txdot-guy's post #1761 and the linked Wall Street Journal article. It's interesting.

Billionaires put less into the tax pot as a percentage of their wealth than wage earners. One working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the effective tax rate for the U.S.’s 400 wealthiest individuals is 24%—compared with 45% for top labor income earners.

Giving credit to billionaires for taxes paid by the companies they created is pretty much a red herring. It's really a matter of scale---many people create businesses. Many billionaires inherited their wealth. Besides, billionaires are compensated just fine. Jeff Bezos even has a smaller yacht following his larger yacht to carry tenders, jet skis, vehicles, and a helicopter.

If I make 50,000 a year and you make 120,000 a year we both still pay the exact same percentage on the first 50,000 we each make. You will have to pay a higher percentage on the next 70,000 you’ve made. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Why? The 120 guy still pays over twice as much as you. Sounds like garden variety jealousy and retribution. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

He sure does. Here is the income tax liability for 2025 on
$120,000 $21,646.00
$50,000 $5,914.00

The difference in take home pay is
98,354.00 vs
44,086.00

Be aware that this simple example doesn’t include payroll taxes.

Those who make more pay more. That’s the way it works. It’s not jealousy or retribution.

If we had a flat ten percent tax on income the revenue collected would be

$120,000 $12,000
$50,000 $5,000

quite the loss of revenue from the federal budget.

Flat taxes sound good but would leave gaping holes in the federal budget and make income inequality much much worse.

Unfair? That's just how the tax code is written up. The rules favor the rich and businesses. Democrat leaders like it that way and I don't think the issue will be dealt with. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

I’m certain that not just Democrats like (or dislike) the current tax laws…..

elg….

Unfair? That's just how the tax code is written up. The rules favor the rich and businesses. Democrat leaders like it that way and I don't think the issue will be dealt with. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Compare your statement with the One Big 'Beautiful' Bill...

What party pushed the OBBB thru?
What are the tax implications for the 'rich and businesses' of the OBBB?

Hint...it's not the Democrats.

He sure does. Here is the income tax liability for 2025 on
$120,000 $21,646.00
$50,000 $5,914.00

The difference in take home pay is
98,354.00 vs
44,086.00

Be aware that this simple example doesn’t include payroll taxes.

Those who make more pay more. That’s the way it works. It’s not jealousy or retribution.

If we had a flat ten percent tax on income the revenue collected would be

$120,000 $12,000
$50,000 $5,000

quite the loss of revenue from the federal budget.

Flat taxes sound good but would leave gaping holes in the federal budget and make income inequality much much worse. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

There’s always going to be “income inequality” some people are just better at life, smarter, harder workers, a million different other reasons. Trying to artificially eliminate that ALWAYS ends in disaster.

As for the treasury, they can fuck right off. Adapt and adjust the budget, like a couple hundred million others who can’t create resources out of thin air have to do when funds tighten up.

He sure does. Here is the income tax liability for 2025 on
$120,000 $21,646.00
$50,000 $5,914.00

The difference in take home pay is
98,354.00 vs
44,086.00

Be aware that this simple example doesn’t include payroll taxes.

Those who make more pay more. That’s the way it works. It’s not jealousy or retribution.

If we had a flat ten percent tax on income the revenue collected would be

$120,000 $12,000
$50,000 $5,000

quite the loss of revenue from the federal budget.

Flat taxes sound good but would leave gaping holes in the federal budget and make income inequality much much worse. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

What would be required would be a flat tax of about 25%. The best offset though would be for their to be a large standard deduction, like say 50K.

You’d still have the rich not taking income but rather stocks or something similar. They only way to fix that would be for it to be taxed as income at the general stock price on the day the stock becomes the property of the executive (whether through vesting of futures or whatever in order to avoid them gaming the system).