Why doesn't the tax system take into account that there are millionaires and billionaires?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Aug 20, 2019.

  1. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why doesn't the tax system take into account that there are millionaires and billionaires? The tax brackets stop at a few hundred thousand. There are no more tax brackets taking into account the higher incomes that are possible today.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    Mr_Truth, FreshAir and jack4freedom like this.
  2. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    16,694
    Likes Received:
    5,722
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because millionaires and billionaires pay the whores in congress and Presidents to pass laws that create loopholes for them while screwing over working people and small businessmen. Pretty simple really.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  3. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    5,947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because they're all friends of trump's. Who do you think his tax plan benefited?
     
  4. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,889
    Likes Received:
    8,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rates are much to high for a few hundred thousand.
     
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,499
    Likes Received:
    2,630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, wealth and income are two different things. Owning assets doesn’t automatically rotate directly to making profit from those assets. You could own a multi-million dollar home but have zero income.

    Income tax obviously does continue to increase as your income does, with the highest rate applying to everything above whatever income level it kicks in from. Continuing to increase the tax rate at higher incomes will have diminishing returns given the relatively small proportion of the nation’s tax take that involves and the flexibility the very wealth have to move their assets around to avoid/evade tax. Counter-intuitively, there is a point where lower tax rates actually bring in more money.

    At very high levels of wealth, increases generally come from capital gains rather than income – trading valuable assets rather than earning a wage. Capital gains are taxed differently to income, largely because they’re gained differently, in variably “lumps” as assets are bought and sold rather than a regular pay check. Capital gains tax is generally lower and somewhat complicated (especially if you don’t receive much income) and a lot of the very wealthy engineer their finances so that pretty much everything is a capital gain rather than income. There are arguments for addressing that but again, you’re talking about a lot of effort for a tiny proportion of overall tax income and you just create a race between the government and accountants and the only winners there are the accountants.
     
    Spim, Shonyman32 and roorooroo like this.
  6. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because once you get above those brackets you have to do a computation. It's not like they aren't paying taxes, its just that it isn't figured out for them. Their accountants have to compute the taxes.
    See page 15 in the linked document.

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dft/i1040tt--dft.pdf
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    15,498
    Likes Received:
    4,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you believe someone earning $50 million should pay a higher percentage rate of that income than someone earning $400,000 ?

    Why?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    jay runner likes this.
  8. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I do believe that. And, why? It's because I want to see a tax cut for the lower and middle classes, a complete redo of the tax rates. In fact, I don't think anyone making below $100,000 should even pay any tax.
     
  9. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That worked out great in France until all the rich people left the country.
     
  10. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It didn't happen. That's what I thought happened in France too, but it didn't happen.
     
  11. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...x-forces-12-000-millionaires-YEAR-France.html

    Last year alone, 12,000 millionaires emigrated from France - the highest outflux in the world.

    [​IMG]

    https://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures

    A total of 3,744 people who earned 100,000 euros per year or more left France in 2013, a 40 percent increase compared to 2012, French financial newspaper Les Echos revealed citing figures from the national tax-collecting office.

    Furthermore, 659 people who earned 300,000 euros or more annually said ‘au revoir’ in 2013, a 46 percent rise on the previous year. By comparison, the overall French migration rate in 2013 increased by only 6 percent.


     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  12. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, interesting. I thought it was about France chasing off their rich population with a 70% income tax rate.

    Well, as far as your article goes, France has a wealth tax. which is a tax on assets, that's things that the people own. But I'm thinking of an income tax, where the people's paycheck is taxed. There's a difference.
     
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No there's not.

    You want to set up a system where only the rich pay our bills, when they already pay more than the bottom 90%.

    Your system by any other method is the same in it's goal.

    As I said, it's great until the rich pack up and leave you with the bill.
     
  14. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the difference is that France taxes assets so I think there is a tax every year. Meanwhile with my idea the tax is done only once, at the time of the paycheck.
     
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah your way of having the rich pay for your stuff is totally different.

    :roll:
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you rich? Why are you defending them at the expense of a lower and middle class tax cut?

    I was under the impression that the American people once wanted taxes because it was only going to tax the rich.

    Anyway tax cuts are great, but we still need to pay for things that we already have. That's why I would like to see more tax brackets.
     
  17. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the reasons I already stated.

    Who creates jobs? The rich.

    Who pays for 90%+ of our taxes now? The rich.

    Who is going to move somewhere where they're not expected to pay for your welfare check? The rich.

    I'd suggest reading the book "The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs" and ponder a bit.

    I gave you a real life example of what happens in your system of depending on the rich for everything, and you just went "meh, let's do it anyway".

    I'm not going to disagree on the tax bracket idea in general, but I suspect that's just another way for you to get "the rich" to pay for what you want.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is even the point of tax brackets?
    I mean... why even have them at all?...
     
  19. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I wasn't making a case for them, just saying I wouldn't disagree other than the fact I'm pretty sure where he wants to go with it.

    I'd prefer a simple system where everyone pays an equal percentage, according to their means.
     
  20. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,106
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't know where I want to go for it. It isn't for welfare. Just general government spending.

    I don't have settled figures, but this is sort of what I was thinking:

    $ Amount - Tax rate
    0-100,000 - 0%
    100,001-1,000,000 - 14%
    1,000,001-5,000,000 - 21%
    5,000,001-100,000,000 - 28%
    100,000,001-1,000,000,000 - 35%
    1,000,000,001-500,000,000,000 - 42%
    500,000,000,001+ - 49%
     
  21. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LoL.

    So 75% of America pays nothing.

    Sounds like welfare to me.
     
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to their means?...
    What would the approximate income to percentage breakdown look like then assuming current spending levels remained constant?
     
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A flat percentage.

    Spending levels are a different problem than income levels.
     
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed on spending being a separate issue.
    Though when you mentioned means, I assumed that meant that people under a certain low income level wouldn't be included under your flat rate application. Is that true? Also, what would the rate be for those who were included?
     
  25. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,143
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think everyone should pay regardless of their income.

    Everyone talks about "paying their fair share", but what they really mean is "people with a lot of money should pay for everything, and the rest of us should pay nothing".

    People with a lot of money paying for everything is how things get decided for us, instead of by us.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019

Share This Page