[eloff]

That's factually incorrect. It's easy to make a list of rich people specifically saying tax the rich more.

Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily.

I'd rather the focus be on compliance. Close the loopholes and catch the tax evaders.

Wealth taxes, if you look at examples elsewhere both present and historically, are hard to do well. I worry the government is not sufficiently competent ( now or in the future) to implement it correctly and it does more harm than good. It's very easy to drive capital offshore and take the potential investment and job creation with it.

[medvezhenok]

I think we're missing the forest for the trees by focusing on exactly what the tax rates are and how much is "fair".

Money at the top levels is not at all like money for the rest of us. For a middle class citizen, money is about consumption and freedom to do what you want (with enough of it).

At the top end of the distribution, money is no longer about consumption or freedom (since you can never realistically consume as much as they have, and you don't have to work after you've saved like $10M). Money at that level is a proxy for power - a group of oligarchs can basically have the power of a shadow government, but unelected. And the real question to ask is "how much power/leverage do we want an individual (or a group of rich oligarchs) to have in a democracy."

So taxing the rich is not even about spreading the wealth, necessarily - if you redistributed it directly you might get inflation by redirecting investment money into consumption. It's more about limiting the amount of power that a person can accumulate over others.

[etherael]

> It's more about limiting the amount of power that a person can accumulate over others.

Does this not beg the question why not just limit power itself rather than limiting wealth with the target side effect that the wealthy will not easily purchase power as a result?

Why is almost the entire species seemingly addicted to the idea that the power itself is not the problem? You can erect regulations on the corrosive influence of money in politics until the cows come home but as long as the ROI on lobbying is positive, it's a given that's going to be the result.

On the other hand when there's no power to buy nobody buys it by definition. Adjust above extreme observation appropriately in order to justify the minimal possible tolerable conglomeration of power availability in any given system to find whatever tolerable level the reader ends up comfortable with. Or viewed uncharitably, arrive at the conclusion that's exactly what's already happened and the human affliction of slavish devotion to power is near universal and continuously growing and there's no way to escape it short of completely opting out of modern global civilization given the observed distribution of the population constantly seeking to increase it.

[gwright]

One rationale for limited government is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the power ceded to government and the incentive to control/steer that power. By limiting the power of government you reduce the incentive to usurp or corrupt that power.

An extreme example of this would be a dictatorial regime where control of the government becomes a life-or-death concern for warring groups.

[etherael]

I agree, that's what I'm getting at. But instead contrast that idea with the more broadly accepted one that it's wealth that's the problem not power even though the former seems like a much more accurate description than the latter.

Maybe it's just a bug in humanity; control the world with this one weird trick.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

I’ve always theorised that distribution of wealth would cause inflation directly or indirectly (e.g price hikes out of line with inflation).

Are there any credible studies on what would happen?

What about if you capped everyone’s net worth at 10m? Would that impact on the economy directly (e.g destroying money)?

[eloff]

I think actually this a valid concern. A billion dollars is a ridiculous level of wealth that no person should need.

But if you implement higher taxes at the to end, past what point do those people just leave, or leave on paper. There is an inflection point where the tax would actually do more harm than good. And nobody knows where it is. I'd like to see us get closer to it though, there is room to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

A bigger problem at that level is loopholes and compliance though.

[watertom]

The tax code is lopsided in favor of the rich, it's not about paying a fair share, it's about the burden of the taxes. The burden of taxes on the non-rich is significantly greater than it is on the rich.

If I make $400K and I only need $75K to live, the burden of my taxes is negligible.

If however I make $80K and I need $75K to live, taxes are an unimaginable burden.

We fix the problem by evening out the burden, forget about loopholes, eliminate all but 2 deductions, dependents and primary residence, that's it.

Because the deductions have been eliminated lower the tax rate for each bracket to the effective tax paid for each bracket, the IRS has this data.

Then end capital gains tax, all income is taxed as earned income.

These changes will give 99+% of the population a tax break, and it will simplify taxes drastically for everyone.

The final step is to add 2 new brackets,

>$5M with a tax of 45% >$10M with a tax of 69%

The rich won't need to be making decision about if and when to eat, but the burden of taxes will get leveled out.

We'll also have enough money to pay for Universal Healthcare, and probably college tuition for everyone.

Go lookup the charts for income inequality for the U.S. When the GOP tax cuts from Reagan's first term took effect the income inequality gap started in earnest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...

[alasdair_]

> Then end capital gains tax, all income is taxed as earned income.

Wealthy people can keep their money growing inside a corporation essentially forever. It never becomes “income”; instead they just borrow against the assets at exceedingly low rates of interest as well as classifying personal consumption items (like a private jet) as a corporate expense.

It’s possible to keep doing this until death, or even longer.

[andrepd]

A surprising number of things wrong with the world today started in the Reagan/Thatcher/etc era.

I agree with the general sentiment of your post (though I disagree that capital and labour should be taxed the same way). I'll also add the following: implement an LVT. It is the most economically “efficient” tax there is, and morally perfect at the same time. Then with the money you collect through LVT you can lower income tax.

[refurb]

You do realize that the percentage of all taxes paid by the top 1% has only increased, not decreased over time?

If you include transfer like EITC, the US tax code is highly progressive and the tax burden on low income earners has only gotten less (e.g. Trump’s doubling of the standard deduction).

I would argue your plan to “fix” the tax code is already flawed if the basis of your changes is wrong.

[5etho]

.gov did moon landind, but right they are incompetent...

maybe they are because conservatives design it that way? irs dont go after big corps because of luck of funds

[geggam]

> Leaving that aside, the 1% pay 38.5% of taxes, which seems quite fair as is. We already tax the rich quite heavily.

Given the fact the top 1% hold 43% of the global wealth I think they aren't paying their fair share...

There is no need for someone to have 100 billion dollars they an struggle by with 10 billion easy enough .. or even 1 billion

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/top-1-percent-of-household...

[eloff]

Don't compare global wealth to share of US taxes. That makes no sense.

[ccn0p]

so what's fair? 50%? 60? who decides? when does it stop?

[Tarsul]

we should look at the big picture not just the percentages that those people are taxed at the end. Because in many cases the leading question is: How come they earn so much more than every one else? Is it through sheer talent and grit or is there something else going on? Inheritance, structures that benefit those with capital over those who labor, connections with the right people etc. etc. And after analyzing all that coming back to the question whether someone should earn 10.000 as much as another person who works the same hours? Should someone earn billions in a year and then use it for moon shots like going to mars? Is that what the society needs or can afford right now? Maybe. But for as long as there are people who work 40 hours a week and cannot afford a healthy life (e.g. having no trouble coming up with emergency money, dont have to commute 2h just to get to their minimum wage job etc.), there certainly is a structural problem going on. This structural problem can only be solved if - and that's the most important point - wealth is shared more equally. Meaning taxation (and all the structures that lead to income) has to take more from those who earn more and give to those who cannot give more. Well, that's if we want to live in a social society, if not forget what I said.

[andrepd]

>who decides? when does it stop?

Us? The people? That's how you do decisions in a democracy.

[lapinot]

I think any wealth (not income!) over something like 1M should be confiscated. :) There's no reason to have that much money and there's no way you personally have generated that wealth, most likely you just invested money early enough in something sucessful to extort money from it. This may sound provocating but it's actually quite a sound model, but which would also mean reconstructing what we mean by the economy... No capitalistic ownership (eg investment is at most a loan, you don't get propriety shares in exchange), no for-profit renting, ...

And obviously funnelling all that money and economic capital to some central state isn't gonna go well so levels below and above the state need to be reinforced.

[eloff]

This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history.

First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money. But that aside, you'd stifle most incentive to innovate, provide jobs, and live in your country. Anyone who thought they might pass your 1M limit will just leave to a country that doesn't do that. No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US and you'd have to pay me quite a lot to accept a green card. I certainly wouldn't take it if offered freely, because it comes with a major tax liability. There are nicer places in the world by a variety of metrics.

So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that!

Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.

[lapinot]

> This is a terrible idea put forward by people with no grasp of either economics or history.

Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said). Go study for yourselve before insulting right and left. I know i did, i'm reading monthly issues of "le monde diplomatique".

> First off you can't buy a home in some parts with that kind of money.

Perhaps instead of 1M$ you'd prefer if i say "the equivalent of 100K ton of wheat at retail price"? Obviously i'm talking from the perspective of my local living standard which is west-european 500M people city.

> No offense, but I've never been interested in living in the US

None taken, me neither.

> So if you chase away everyone with wealth you'll be left paying 100% of the taxes instead of 60% and with no jobs to pay them with. Good luck with that!

Ok so that's the only argument of your comment. It has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal. Corporations do that. And it can be fought by taxing international transactions (which every sane economy but the EU does anyway). Yes, in the end, it becomes a frontal fight between the financial and industrial establishment and your local economy, which obviously will need some negotiation because they can hurt you, but let it be clear that without them, it would work quite well (and in reverse, in my economy, it would be quite hard to practically be capitalistic). I don't even want to eradicate capitalism, i'd just want to not mainly depend on it for living and tip the balance to a much more reasonable state.

> Look to Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela for examples of how that plays out.

You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point. And obviously i'm not defending dictatorship (and please note i'm not using this strawman of the numereous capitalistic dictatorship against you).

[andrepd]

>I guess you must know better than Picketty

>(he doesn't exactly say what i said, but does promote very aggressive taxation of capital, which is the same goal more gently said).

Well true, he doesn't say exactly what you said, because he doesn't anything like what you're saying. Taxing wealth above the relatively low ceiling of 1M USD at 100% would be ridiculous. He is, though, in favour of a progressive tax system that, crucially, reduces inequality below “tolerable” levels, where an “intolerable level” is a level which results in imbalances of power which undermine or destroy democratic rule and oppress those without wealth.

So his practicable suggestion is a global coordinated effort to tax wealth and reduce inequality, which his utopian suggestion is a trans-national socialist economy with true democratic control over the economy.

[slashdev]

> Thanks for the compliment. I guess you must know better than Picketty (he doesn't exactly say what i said

Yes, he didn't say anything remotely like you said. It's disingenuous to cite Picketty as if he would support your position.

> has been debunked time and time again that for individuals, fleeing a country because of taxes is minimal.

Because the difference in taxation is minimal. I used to live in Panama, I've personally meet people who fled tax rates in their home country. The low taxes was also my favorite thing about living in Panama. Personal anecdotes aside, what you're proposing is drastic enough that the emigration won't be minimal, it will be a mass exodus of the wealthy - you know the people paying for 40% of the services you benefit from.

> You realize that my arguments were communist-ish? You're not gonna scare me off pointing at these countries! Obviously things went bad because the liberals virtually control the world, so these countries had to fight for everything, which breaks at some point.

I don't know where to start with that without violating site guidelines and being uncivil to your intellect. Actually are you trolling me? I have trouble believing you could be serious right now.

There's a lot of bigger reasons communism failed. Your proposal would fail for much the same reasons. This comment of yours is so ignorant of history it is mind boggling.

[AnimalMuppet]

Things went bad in Soviet Russia because liberals virtually control the world? Baloney. Liberals controlling the non-communist world didn't make Soviet central planning less able than capitalism to deliver goods. It didn't make Soviet workers less motivated than capitalist workers.

[lapinot]

forgot to answer about jobs:

Jobs don't need to be "created". Either there's stuff to do for people to live correctly or there isn't. If there is, try to find people who'd like to do it. If nobody wants, either people don't really need it, or it's a chore and organize it fairly and locally (division of labour makes no sense for non-qualified chores, it's just a byproduct of inquality: i'm not taking out my neighboors trash, what we could do tho is mutualize our chores). Then distribute the result of this work fairly. Everything else than life-support can be done without too much constraints, but i strongly believe that even that won't "naturally" be too much capitalistic.