[pekk]

Sure, if the wealthy voluntarily decide to do this, or if they can be convinced to do so in civil conversation.

Given the heat of pushback on small tax increases, I wouldn't bet on this happening without chaos. I wouldn't bet on it happening with chaos either.

[rsync]

"Given the heat of pushback on small tax increases, I wouldn't bet on this happening without chaos."

There's a big difference between pushback on increasing taxes from zero to five percent, or ten to fifteen percent ... and pushback on increases from 40 -> 42% or 45 -> 48%.

In the US, it is the latter that we are most frequently discussing and it is the latter that gets all of the pushback that you find so familiar.

If you think your chlorine level is too high in your pool, shouldn't you oppose all increases, no matter how minute ?

If your blood pressure is too high, shouldn't you be opposed to all increases, regardless of how small or how much "you can afford it" ?

Some people (like me) think that effective tax rates of roughly 50% (US, California, Marin County) are too high. I would then, ipso facto, be opposed to further increases and I am troubled by the fact that this is considered a definite political marker. It's not.

[Throwaway23412]

>Some people (like me) think that effective tax rates of roughly 50% (US, California, Marin County) are too high.

Wealthy people aren't getting taxed 50%. You're thinking of income taxes. Wealthy people don't make income. Genuinely wealthy people make their money from land they own and rent out and from stock they invest and hold.

[rsync]

"Wealthy people aren't getting taxed 50%. You're thinking of income taxes. Wealthy people don't make income."

Income tax is indeed what I am talking about and people do indeed get taxed at (roughly) 50%. You can use whatever term you'd like for those people.

The income limits for the top tax brackets are in the low six figures. Presumably you'd see those raised significantly to avoid these punitive rates on the "non wealthy" ?

[coredog64]

If you own an apartment building and rent it out, you have to pay taxes on the income it provides.

The grocery store won't take stock certificates in payment for a gallon of milk. Instead, you have to sell it. As soon as you do, you are recognizing a capital gain and are taxed on it.

[Throwaway23412]

>If you own an apartment building and rent it out, you have to pay taxes on the income it provides.

Which is why the most common advice among long-term real estate owners is "buy more property".

Wealthy people don't have a higher need for milk (or any basic necessities) than the average person. So why would they need to sell any significant portion of their wealth? As someone said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is we don't tax wealth directly, only when it's transferred.

[Frondo]

Sure, except the wealthy were doing just fine when taxes were significantly higher for them. They weren't suffering--they were still extremely wealthy, far more than everyone else.

For them to complain that their chlorine level is too high, when in the past it was twice as high or higher, and they were still living high on the hog? Sorry, don't care how they feel, tax the heck out of them.

[rsync]

"Sure, except the wealthy were doing just fine when taxes were significantly higher for them. They weren't suffering--they were still extremely wealthy, far more than everyone else."

Income taxes were never significantly higher than they are now in the United States.

You are thinking of the anti war profiteering tax brackets that were put into place after the entry into WW2. This was not a tax increase in the way you think of it and it was not designed to generate revenue or redistribute wealth - it was a patriotic act to ensure that nobody benefited financially from the prosecution of the war.

If you compare tax rates and use those as an anchor, you don't know what you're talking about.

[jack9]

> Income taxes were never significantly higher than they are now in the United States.

Uh...you might want to check on that.

[Sacho]

Does your plan account for wealth escaping your attempts to tax it, leading to less taxes overall? We had the Apple money thread yesterday here..

[ed_balls]

Do you know was the effective tax back then? (it was much easier to hide money and the deductions were greater)

[charlesdm]

Wealthy people (generally) are able to pay very little taxes on their capital gains if they structure things properly. Depending on the citizenship they hold and the country they live in, this can go from absolutely nothing (i.e. Monaco) to 25-35% (UK, Belgium, Spain, etc)

[hexane360]

So you think both that rich people would be willing to give more money, and that rich people think they're already giving too much money? Or is there some fundamental difference between marginal tax systems and what OP was discussing?