[i_haz_rabies]

That seems like it lands in the distribution ballpark the comment above was referring to, yes. The poorest 10% not paying very much in taxes is a feature of the system. And assuming your figures are correct, that 71% might look like a lot until you consider that the marginal tax rate for the very rich is very, very low in the United States compared to other developed countries, or even the United States prior to the Reagan administration.

[FredPret]

By what logic does that imply that the States should raise taxes on the rich?

The States are doing so much better than the rest of the world economically that we should follow the American example, not vice versa.

[coliveira]

China is also doing so much better than the rest of the world economically, should we adopt their system?

[ameister14]

Are they? It's not the best metric but China's GDP (PPP) Per Capita is about $16,400.

Contrast this with the US at $60,235.73 and Germany at about $51,000.

[FredPret]

I might have said yes if China did anywhere close to as well as the States or even Europe.

[i_haz_rabies]

It implies that there's way, way too much wealth in the top 10% if the bottom 90% is only supplying 29% of the tax revenue.

I don't think too many people, at least in other developed countries, are looking at the United States and thinking "wow, I wish my country was more like the United States." Usually such comparisons are made to the Scandinavian countries.

[FredPret]

A statement like “too much wealth in population group x” can only come from someone with utopian ideas about how society “ought” to be structured, especially since population group x seems to be the source of this wealth.

What moral system informed these utopian ideas? Why does everyone have an obligation to subscribe to it?

If the rest of the world wants to hand arbitrary taxation power to some bureaucrats in pursuit of their moral ideal, let them have at it.

[vladTheInhaler]

> population group x seems to be the source of this wealth

Here's a fun thought experiment - if Jeff Bezos (actually Andy Jassy nowadays, but that just proves my point further) suddenly vanished, how many orders would fail to be delivered tomorrow as a result? Literally none. Now suppose everybody else working at Amazon disappeared instead. What happens? The company ceases to meaningfully exist. So who really created that wealth?

[FredPret]

Actually, the answer to your question is 100% of packages will be missing.

Jeff Bezos (and I’m no fan) the hungry entrepreneur only went through the massive life disruption of starting a company because of the possibility that he might one day become Jeff Bezos the (m/b)illionaire.

Take that juicy end state away and suddenly you’ll have nobody willing to go through the decades of hell it takes to create these big companies.

Resulting in no jobs and no packages.

[coliveira]

> nobody willing to go through the decades of hell

Nonsense, Jeff Bozos has never been through "hell", since he only started Amazon with the help of venture capital. It was more work than a normal job, yes, but was not torture nor even something he disliked doing.

[i_haz_rabies]

What alternative is there to utopian ideas? Status quo? It's not working for most people anymore. I'm not saying we should radically change society, but if Jeff Bezos and Amazon aren't paying taxes, there is something wrong and it should be fixed.

[FredPret]

It IS working for most people. Beautifully so. Just look at some graphs showing essentially any economic metric from almost any nation for the past 100 or even 20 years. Chances are, it’s not only heading in the right direction, but at an exponential rate.

Regarding ideals: they’re usually great to have personally, but not so great anymore if others have to pay for your grand visions.

Regarding Bezos and Amazon: of course they have to pay tax, everyone should. But my sense is that taxes are far higher than they need to be - there’s an entire class of unionized middle-class bureacrats and government suppliers that add uncertain value at best.

[ameister14]

A lot of people make the marginal taxes prior to Reagan argument but seem to dismiss, either through lack of knowledge or purposeful removal, the fact that prior to Reagan there were an incredible array of tax loopholes that lowered the effective tax rate, regardless of the stated tax rate.

The effective tax rate for the highest earners right now is not all that different than it was from the 50's to the 90's.

The thing that's changed is actually the effective rate on the bottom 50% - those taxes have increased.

[i_haz_rabies]

I'll take your word for it (I'm in the lack of knowledge camp), but I don't see this as an argument for not raising the marginal (and if we do it right, effective) tax rate on the very wealthy.

[ameister14]

It's not. It's a counter to the justification of 'we did it before.' We didn't, not really. If you want to raise the marginal tax rate now, it needs to have its own justification independent of historical marginal rates since it's not an apples to apples comparison.

[i_haz_rabies]

Point taken!