[the_gastropod]

> Poor people seem pretty powerful to me. In a world where rich people are infinitely powerful...what percentage of tax revenue do you think they'd be paying? 0%? 10%? The top 3% if earners paid over 50% of income tax in the US in 2016 [1]. That doesn't seem particularly powerful to me. Or, if it is, that power isn't wielded especially self-interestedly.

Oh, give me a break. This is silly statistic often dragged out by right-wing pundits. If the entire US population earned $0 and one guy (pick anyone!) made $1 Trillion per year and paid his ~$400 Billion in taxes each year would you see him as a victim, too?

Another silly example: New York, California, and Florida contribute 25% of the U.S's tax revenues, yet they don't account for 25% of congress. They don't get 25% of the electoral college votes in presidential elections. Poor them, right?

[darawk]

> Oh, give me a break. This is silly statistic often dragged out by right-wing pundits. If the entire US population earned $0 and one guy (pick anyone!) made $1 Trillion per year and paid his ~$400 Billion in taxes each year would you see him as a victim, too?

Did I say anyone was a victim? No. You made a specific point: That the wealthy are disproportionately powerful due to income inequality. My point is: They don't seem to be powerful enough to not pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. I didn't say they were victims, or that they shouldn't be paying more in taxes. It was a counter-example to your point.

> Another silly example: New York, California, and Florida contribute 25% of the U.S's tax revenues, yet they don't account for 25% of congress. They don't get 25% of the electoral college votes in presidential elections. Poor them, right?

Well, actually, I would argue that yes, poor them. California and NY should be better represented in Congress and nationally, through electoral college reforms and other things, but that is pretty far afield from this discussion.

[Retra]

"How much tax you avoid" isn't a reliable measure of political power. Firstly, if paying taxes can work in their benefit, then there's no reason they shouldn't pay them. Secondly, "I pay your wages" is a pretty good way to influence people, and I don't see why it would fundamentally be different in congress. Thirdly, wealthy people do have more ability to avoid paying taxes. Thus the concept of "Tax havens."

[darawk]

> "How much tax you avoid" isn't a reliable measure of political power

Erm, is it not? Do you think rich people enjoy paying taxes? I don't. The fact that the poor manage to force them to pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, in order to subsidize social services that they don't even consume is a tremendous defeat for them.

> Firstly, if paying taxes can work in their benefit, then there's no reason they shouldn't pay them

How do they work in their benefit? And secondly, why is it to their benefit to have a progressive tax system? If I were a rich person that could set the rules by fiat, i'd say "sure we should have income taxes, we should all pay a flat tax of 20%". And in fact, you see many rich people and libertarian organizations advocating for exactly this. They get precisely zero traction, because they don't have the political power to do it.

[Retra]

Well, gee. You got me. I guess all those rich people would just move to Somalia and pay no taxes, but they can't do it because they have no power. Poor them. Having to pay taxes to participate in a society that secures their massive accumulated wealth. What could possibly be the value in that, I wonder.

[darawk]

Why do you keep trying to argue against a straw man? I'll say it again: I'm not saying they're victims. I'm not saying that they have less power than they should. I don't feel sorry for them. You made a specific claim: That they had a massive amount of power. I made a counter-claim: That if that were true, they'd be paying less in taxes. Do you have a response to that? Because it seems like you don't.

[Retra]

They are paying less in taxes. US tax rates have been dropping for almost 70 years.