politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The rich pick up assets during g every crash, widening inequality. We need a wealth tax to start reversing some of those gains
We need a tax on unrealized gains over a certain amount (as to not screw the 99%).
Wealth tax over $10M or even 100M would still do massive good. If we can hit billionaires and reinvest that in the working class, the economy is going to go crazy
My dream policy would be a wealth tax that includes company ownership that could be paid with company shares. Any shares paid this way would go to an escrow that is controlled by the employees of the company, eventually trending companies towards becoming worker coops.
The 99% don't have any unrealized gains to begin with. Even people near the top end of that scale who do have investments have all or most of them in retirement accounts where the gains eventually get taxed as income (traditional) or not at all (Roth) instead.
Nearly every homeowner has unrealized gains in their house value.
Edit: Also, all these unrealized gains of the very rich would also be taxed when transacted, like the retirement funds, but there are loopholes. They can leverage that wealth without "realizing" the value.
Unrealized gains means that the investment vehicle has increased in value since it was purchased, but hasn't been sold at that value. Every type of investment is going to have either unrealized gains or losses until it's sold.
Has there ever been an effective wealth tax?
There’s also the option of additional tax brackets for those wealthy whose income still counts as income. Why do the tax brackets stop? Massachusetts has one set $1M that’s doing pretty well
Because most of the 1% wealth isnt in the form of wages (hence why people say working class vs wealthy sometimes).
Sure you could increase the income brackets, but I think (would need to double check) that wealth tax would make a larger impact.
That would be a better choice as we know income taxes do work.
Yes, absolutely. Coming out of the great depression we clawed back so much, but that's been slowly dismantled and we're back in the roaring 20s now
Things are more complicated now, but there's certainly ways to do this if we have politicians who will fight to carry out our will
Can you provide evidence of concrete examples of specific taxes or articles in the form of an academic economic journal that backs that claim? All of the economics and history of economics that I have studied suggests wealth taxes are very ineffective which is why historically speaking they get axed.
I mean... Fuck economic theory, the entire field is a mess of myths and narratives. There's good work to be sure, but governments and organizations just find models that support what they want to do, no matter how much it conflicts with observations
There's historical examples in this country, there's modern examples like the Scandinavian model... Wealth was redistributed, there's
I have no idea what you're asking for. What even is a wealth tax "working" to you?
I mean I could pull up some economists who go over numbers and adamantly advocate for wealth redistribution, but I feel like nothing I give you is going to actually change your mind
Advocating for wealth distribution isn't the same as a wealth tax. We typically tax income because that's much more easily and fairly measured than wealth. A functional wealth tax would be one that didn't cause greater rates of capital flight and tax evasion/avoidance than the amount of revenue it creates.
Frankly, you start off by declaring economic theory to be a "mess of myths and narratives" which doesn't suggest you have an understanding of the subject. The fact I need to explain what a tax working is and correct you on the difference between supporting redistribution vs backing a wealth tax further supports the idea that maybe you shouldn't be talking dismissively about a subject you don't seem to be well versed on.
I never said anything about income tax... But again, these are real things that we used to have and they have elsewhere:
Tax brackets to to 90%+ on business profits - incentivize companies to reinvest in r&d while disincentiving investment
Tax inheritance and crack down on forever trusts
Progressively tax money moving in and out of the country, and close up tax loopholes (killing the tax filing industry would be a necessary prerequisite)
You could even revamp capital gains and certain types of loan to somehow figure into a progressive income tax
And most importantly - this has been done before. It has been done, you can pick apart suggested methods and come up with excuses for why it's impossible... But it's so clearly not. Everything else is an engineering problem
If you want to hear economists talk about it, Garys economics on YouTube popped into my feed a few days ago. He's far from the only one, even Warren Buffett has gone through a plan where he says the full tax burden could be put on businesses
And if you want to know why I don't respect economics... It's not because I'm not read up on it, it's because: how can you read up on it and still think taxing the wealthy is impossible? This has been written about by economists for decades, but it doesn't matter because there's more convenient economic theories to push far and wide
Buddy you started off with "fuck economic theory". You clearly know almost nothing about the subject. Why are you trying to make claims about a subject you aren't educated on?
We abandoned a lot of those taxes because they weren't effective. Dropping the top rate from 90% to where it was in 1983 brought in more tax revenue as tax evasion and avoidance dropped. These are the kinds of things you would know if you had an education in macro
And there we go... I must not know anything about economics because you've been fed convenient models that justify the decision to cut taxes, and I'm not quoting them back to you
And FYI, I even added a side note about this - want to know some tax avoidance strategies that I like? R&D. Higher wages and benefits to compete over talent. Fancy offices and better equipment. Swag and giveaways to capture customer loyalty
This is why fuck "fuck economics". I tell you it worked, we had a less inequal society, and you come back with "well, cutting this raised tax revenues".
Of course it did - it let the wealthy open up a spigot from companies to their portfolios, and the government gets a portion.
It incentivized slashing corporate spending, but corporate spending is good - it's money flowing back into the economy. Even if they keep it in a slush fund, at least that fund will offset loans needed to expand or weather a storm - loans that also funnel money upwards and essentially force companies to pay a tax to the rich to continue to exist
But please, keep dismissing everything I say as "they just don't understand economics". No, I understand it well enough to know that what I was being taught didn't add up
You literally started off by dismissing economic theory and then you needed me to explain basic stuff to you. You can’t claim to have an informed opinion on this subject after that. Your analysis isn’t going to be particularly useful if you don’t understand the basics of a subject as you have already dine.
You clearly don’t understand the subject but rather than lashing out at people who can tell this why not fix it by learning the basics? You might be less angry if you actually understand the subject better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I asked if any wealth tax has been effective because I am unaware of any. The person who replied enthusiastically “yes” needs to back that because there could be an example I am unaware of. There is the possibility that I am wrong or mistaken.
The only person acting in bad faith here is yourself. You should ask yourself why that’s the choice you made.
I don't know that I agree with the conclusions of the video. But TLDR just did a video outlining some history in UK and concluded ones off wealth taxes have worked and listed two examples
Im typically not inclined to cede credibility regarding economic claims to any non-academic source regarding economics. Who is TLDR?
edit: There’s zero reason to accept theor analysis as none of them are economists or have a background in the field. This is just a misplaced Appeal to Authority.
Do a fucking Google. It's a news channel on YouTube. If you're concerned about credibility, they just interviewed Keir Starmer and have been around for a few years.
Do you think googling "tldr" is going to get me to a youtube channel? Not everyone has your google history. Ffs I dont even watch youtube.
4th on the list. Yes, you could have found it. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+wealth+tax+tldr&t=ofa&ia=web
only if I knew to pop in youtube which again Im completely unfamiliar with. I use youtube to learn how to fix things I would never use it for educational purposes.
None of the hosts seem to have a background in economics so why would I accept their analysis when they aren't experts?
The Netherlands has had one forever, and it is not in economic collapse AFAIK.
It's not a question of collapse but rather whether said wealth tax causes more capital flight and or evasion/avoidance than it brings in. If enough wealth leaves your country that your tax base is lower and tax revenues are down then that tax isn't working.
Im not familiar enough with the Netherlands economy or tax structure to talk about it