World, Writing, Wealth discussion

I recently listened to Bernie Sanders talk about his ideas if he were elected. He talked about Welfare for All and erasing student debt and providing free education. How to pay for these expensive programs? His proposals include up to a 70% tax on those making over 10 million; up to a 77% rate on inheritance above $1 billion, establishing a tax on extreme wealth. What do you think? Do the uber rich owe the society that enabled them to become wealthy? Or is this a new socialism for the U.S. and not acceptable?

Bernie has suspended his campaign.

He's just had heart surgery. He may not re-enter the race, which puts Warren in the lead for the Democrat candidate.

Still a long way from the primaries. Someone else could gain momentum, especially if some could be persuaded to drop out. The problem is partly that there are too many younger candidates that are difficult to separate

Scout wrote: "I recently listened to Bernie Sanders talk about his ideas if he were elected. He talked about Welfare for All and erasing student debt and providing free education. How to pay for these expensive ..."

I like how he keeps the bar high enough that his own wealth doesn't get taxed that much. Contrast that to Obama who wanted to raise taxes on anyone making $250,000/yr.

And is he the one proposing a wealth tax where the rich get taxed on their net worth every year, even though they paid the taxes on that money when they earned it, or will pay the taxes on it when they cash out the investments?

The problem is what happens when you've bled the rich dry and there is no more money to take from them? Just like Obama tried to do, he'll lower the bar year after year in order to make up the lost revenue from the shrinking wealth. Eventually, it'll end up where that 70% tax applies to someone working part time at Burger King.

Graeme wrote: "Bernie has suspended his campaign.

He's just had heart surgery. He may not re-enter the race, which puts Warren in the lead for the Democrat candidate."

It's probably not a career-ending thing normally, but it will become an issue in the race. You might even get opponents making comparisons to FDR's 4th run where he hid his medical issues just to ensure the party held the White House.

Scout wrote: "His proposals include up to a 70% tax on those making over 10 million; up to a 77% rate on inheritance above $1 billion, establishing a tax on extreme wealth. What do you think? Do the uber rich owe the society that enabled them to become wealthy? ..."

I haven't read his actual proposals, so I refer solely to your digest thereof. First of all, there is an "up to" and it's important. If it's gradual raising of the tax, say: 0 tax on first 10K, 10% on next 10-100K, 20% on 101-200 and so on - it's not a big deal. Moreover, if he deals only with multi-millionaires and billionaires - I'm not sure these proposals will raise sufficient funds. With this clientele - the administration, tax base (meaning taxing other incomes) and enforcement may be a much bigger issue than a tax rate per se (a possibility to avoid 70% just as easy as avoiding any other rate), otherwise trillions of USD wouldn't sit at offshore accounts untaxed. That's how Buffet explains that he might be the lower taxpayer in his entire office: https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news...
And I'm not saying, of course, that he does something wrong.
It's how the system is calibrated.
In practical terms, it's not that a poor billionaire would need to sell his or her Lamborghini to buy a cheaper Ferrari, because of Bernie's taxation :)

I'm not sure the idea is they "owe" to a society, although it's also a way to look at it. It's the understanding of community's value, bonding btw ppl and contributing proportionally to one's abilities. Maybe like with defenses in earlier times: lower classes were required to bring their asses and rifles to defend a country, while an earl had to provide personnel, armaments, horses, etc..:)
Here too: supposedly you can have everything private: an army, a police, a healthcare. It's how you view your society. It might be important to understand that close to 100% of the ppl want to be billionaires, and only 0.001% become (just estimates, not the exact numbers, of course) and it's telling! And if someone thinks that billionaires are somehow more hardworking than miners - that's just a myth. Maybe smart - working - yes. And it's not that these are better than others, or otherwise. Anyway - a healthy society, in my eyes at least, needs to care for all, meaning that no one's hungry on the one part and those who are into biz have a fair opportunity to do it and make fortunes, on the other.
And btw, there are billionaires that declared they'd pass most of their wealth to charities: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/billi...
Money is an artificial construct. How do you explain a child that s/he can't take an apple and need to remain hungry, because some silly or smart ancestors decided to play a game which resulted in that most of earth's resources now belong to maybe 1% of the population?
As far as I understand Picketty in his new book suggests to provide each French citizen with 120K "inheritance" at the age of 25: https://fortune.com/2019/09/12/thomas... That's an interesting approach. Need to think it over, but I do think a periodical partial "reshuffle" in the game is necessary to avoid extremes. As of mechanisms - they need to be thought through. Raising taxation on some may sound popular and easy and similarly - lowering the taxation for all, but I'd invest a little more thought to verify that the simplest is the best.
Welfare and education and even re-education seem important and contribute to a healthier communities (if these have value to you). Harari in his recent speech stresses that if earlier ppl were engaged with exploitation, nowadays with automation and robotics irrelevance poses a bigger threat.

The basic problem with billionaire's tax is they don't pay much - their earno=igs all go through tthe Caymans or somewhere similar, so the nearest for tax reform would be to get them to actually pay. It is interesting that the top 1% over the last ten years, according to our local newspaper, gained $21 trillion, and the poorer 1% LOST just under a billion. However, the billionaires can afford to make political donations, so the chances of Congressmen risking those donations to tax the rich properly approaches zero (in my opinion).

AS for private armies, that was what made Rome great. The general had to pay all his soldiers and see they were equipped, but he kept the loot. Some of the generals had rooms heaped up with gold, gems, etc. Octavian put an end to that, and taxed the provinces. Gaius (Caligula) got an extremely bad write-up in history. It is of interest he is considered amongst the greatest tyrants in history, but in his imperium he only ordered 13 people put to death and most of them were parties to the three coups he put down. Some tyrant! The reason: in part, because he insulted the senators as a bunch of lazy parasites (probably correct), in part because be banished Seneca from Rome, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, he introduced taxation on rich Romans. So he became the tyrant of millennia. Watch out, Bernie. As an aside, the crippling taxes he put on senators and rich Romans (and prostitutes!) ranged between 1 - 5% of income. So, watch out anyone who dares raise taxes on the wealthy. History could be unkind to you.

Bernie (although probably a no-go now) at least seemed to recognize a problem with a government controlled by money, and he at least addressed the problem. So are we back to ground zero - governing bodies controlled by money? Back to what I've said several times in these threads, that we no longer have a government by the people and for the people, but one whose strings are pulled by the wealthy? I don't have the solution, but I do see that the very wealthy have used the American system to attain their wealth, and they're keeping it for themselves by hiding it. That's not fair. Can we do anything about this? Maybe tax the b's exorbitantly on the wealth they do declare?

It is now official that Sanders had a heart attack. This pretty much ends his campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politi...

As I consider Sanders and the rest of the candidates, I note that they seem to be compensating for their fund raising hypocrisy by doubling down on perfectablist BS. I despise perfectablism. I cannot abide by any policy that seeks to give us utopia by making us better than we are. God's Kingdom on Earth, Worker's Paradise, Humanist Utopia, all of them are Hell.

Unfortunately, Scout, there is probably no real means when foreign governments run tax havens and the wealthy effectively control Congress. In principle, forcing you to declare all your income for the taxable year in all countries and subtracting tax paid in foreign countries should do it provided you ensure the chain of ownership is integrated up the chain. By that, I mean you can't have a company owning all the wealth and you own the company, but the company is registered in the Caymans, say. The argument against it is that the rich would shi[p themselves off to the Caymans, but I am not so sure. If they could accept the lifestyle and were permitted in, they may well have done it already.

J. wrote: "I cannot abide by any policy that seeks to give us utopia by making us better than we are. God's Kingdom on Earth, Worker's Paradise, Humanist Utopia, all of them are Hell...."

I agree. Every big attempt at a Utopia has been a bloodbath.

Force them to live in the Caymans, then. See how they like it. There should be some price to pay for making money here and hiding it there.

Scout wrote: "Force them to live in the Caymans, then. See how they like it. There should be some price to pay for making money here and hiding it there."

Billions of dollars with which to buy any amount of luxury, security, and internet access, all while exiled to a tropical island. I feel that any complaints may be disingenuous.

J., the standard approach could be to then sanction the Caymans unless they returned the loot.

Ian wrote: "J., the standard approach could be to then sanction the Caymans unless they returned the loot."

Are you suggesting that powerful nations should use threats and inflict deprivations upon the people of weaker nations, in order to demand fair tax policy/tribute from those weaker nations?

J. wrote: "....perfectablist BS. I despise perfectablism. I cannot abide by any policy that seeks to give us utopia by making us better than we are. God's Kingdom on Earth, Worker's Paradise, Humanist Utopia, all of them are Hell."

Wonder what's this about

J., I never said "should". I am merely commenting on current policies elsewhere that offer an option :-)

J. wrote: "Scout wrote: "Force them to live in the Caymans, then. See how they like it. There should be some price to pay for making money here and hiding it there."

Billions of dollars with which to buy any..."

So take away their citizenship and deny them to do business in the U.S. Is there no way to stop the super wealthy from profiting from our system and then refusing to contribute to our economy?

There are ways, but you would never get them through Congress. The simplest one is to alter the tax laws so those antics are no longer legal. You will find most of the wealthy will grumble but they will comply. The possibility of prison sentences will bring even broader compliance. Many f them do what they are doing simply because it is quite legal to do it, and if you think about it, if you were in their place so would you. Of course the big donations to fund Congressional elections would dry up.

And while the rich are able to make use of tax laws that allow them to avoid income tax on much of their assets, I am paying income tax on my social security and disability benefits. Essentially, I am paying taxes on money that has already been taxed for the past 5 years.

It was quite a shock to me when I learned i would have to pay tax on a portion of my social security disability income. I worked, I earned money, I paid income tax on that money and social security was withheld. I haven't added up how much in 35 years of working I paid into social security and medicare, along with the matching half my employers were required to pay, but it is around 6 years at a minimum based on the amount I receive. I also have to pay medicare out of the gross amount. Finally, despite being forced to go on disability at age 54, the law prevents me from putting any money into a tax-deferred account or any type of retirement plan that would reduce my overall taxable income.

So, the poor are paying taxes on previously taxed income, and I would have no pity if the rich had to do so also, as J.J. mentioned.

Since, I think (for what it's worth) we live in a plutocracy, and have done so for a long time - the ultra-wealthy will continue to pay no tax while the working stiffs (like us) will get taxed through the nose to pay for everything.

Regardless of who wins in 2020.

In all fairness we shouldn't paint rich solely in negative colors and especially those who made their fortunes by wit, perseverance and effort. Only a certain fraction of wealth goes to 'derailing' purposes, while another big chunk drives progress and innovation. Some of them just exploit the system to their favor. Just as some poor dudes learn to abuse social security system, those at the top learn how to minimize their taxation. Wealthier dudes may not know how to "play" with food stamps, while 90+% of people - how to "optimize" taxation. But the so called democracy is not about rich and poor, it's about the people in general and a majority as a decisive factor, which is often sabotaged and nullified by the opportunities to control the governmental levers, hence - plutocracy. And a very subtle and refined one, as the elections take place, representatives work or make pretense, debates are ongoing and all just looks fine :)

I would make use of every tax deduction possible and would expect everyone to do so. That is operating within the law. My point is that all those possibilities have been made impossible at my level and as a result of my source of income. The government and the IRS need to be as specific and controlling as to those "holes" in the laws that allow the rich to evade paying an equal percentage of taxes on their income and assets. But, because of the power of money to influence our government and laws, it isn't happening - that is what is truly unfair.

I don't negate that those who made their fortunes through innovation, risk, and creating new ideas, new gadgets, better ways of doing things should receive the benefits of having done so. I do think it's wrong when that process includes walking over other people and not contributing to the tax that funds our government programs. I also find it obscene when some of the richest people in the world simply inherited those riches and operate big businesses by paying low wages and failing to provide reasonable benefits such as healthcare, dental and vision insurance and paid vacation/sick leave, while rewarding their higher level CEOs for keeping costs of operation low.

Generally speaking, the rich have declined to provide the working class with compensation at a level that takes them out of the mud and allows them to better themselves and therefore the government must do it for them by fixing the tax laws. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen as long as big businesses, be if the private prison industry, big pharm, or others that we can all name, continue to fund candidates.

The problem arises because the moneyed people influence the politicians that make the tax system. To correct it, you have to limit donations to political parties so no single group of donors become influential

Ian wrote: "The problem arises because the moneyed people influence the politicians that make the tax system. To correct it, you have to limit donations to political parties so no single group of donors become..."

To correct it, we also have to address the means in which lobbyist influence politics and law making.

Ian wrote: "The problem arises because the moneyed people influence the politicians that make the tax system. To correct it, you have to limit donations to political parties so no single group of donors become..."

Right. And the fox is guarding the hen house. The very politicians who can change the system are invested in keeping the status quo and profiting from it. The framers of the Constitution, although prescient in many ways, didn't foresee this corruption of the system.

Lizzie wrote: "Generally speaking, the rich have declined to provide the working class with compensation at a level that takes them out of the mud and allows them to better themselves and therefore the government must do it for them by fixing the tax laws."

How is it the responsibility of the wealthy to support anyone else? Since when do taxes exist to do anything other than fund the government?

All that a just person requires of his/her neighbors is that they are held as equal before the law. To demand a greater percentage of the earnings of one group over another is contrary to that principal.

As you dream of your better world, remember that everytime you give government a new mission, you give it a new way to grind you under foot.

I could see your point if the wealthy were paying their fair share of taxes, but do you think they are? They seem to spend a lot of money hiring people to help them avoid taxes and hide their income. Shouldn't they be willing to pay their fair share in taxes to the country whose economy and political system have contributed to their ability to earn their millions - instead of doing everything possible to avoid doing so?

How is it the responsibility of the wealthy to support anyone else? Since when do taxes exist to do anything other than fund the government?

I suppose you could say it's not the 'responsibility' of the wealthy, however, there's a thing called morality and compassion that might encourage them to do so.

Also, see Scout's comment above.

And also, I live in a country with universal health care. It doesn't seem anything but normal, and I am fearful that our current government would like to see it change to something more like the US system. Heaven forbid.

Health care is an interesting demonstration. Like Leonie, I live in a country where the government picks up the major part of health care. (There is a $5 charge for pharmaceuticals, and one or two other minor charges, GPs charge a part fee, etc). What I find interesting, though, is that the total costs are well below that of US health care. I understand the Canadians have a market for supplying pharmaceuticals to the US because of price gouging. What actually happens is those with power gouge the prices at the cost to the poor. Do not try to tell me that the likes of Martin Shkreli, who raised the prices on a pharmaceutical he managed to get control of, by a huge margin, has earned is income by hard work; for me it is effectively extortion, in this case noting that the people either pay or die. The very rich do not get that way by hard work; they get it by leveraging money, by working the system, and often by soft money from governments, or by routes like inside trading. It may feel smart to take advantage of the weak and screw them to the floor, and thus get rich themselves, but I see no reason why they should not pay their taxes, and since they got very rich, usually, by dubious means, why the taxes should not be a bit higher.

There is another point. I have been in countries where I have seen considerable riches, but also people literally dying on the street of starvation, too weak to even move. Is that the society you want?

J. wrote: "Since when do taxes exist to do anything other than fund the government?..."

Reminds of the Soviet mentality, where the government was viewed as the enemy, having KGB and other nice agencies, spying on its own people :)
Sometimes excessively influenced by groups of interests, it nonetheless shouldn't be a black hole sucking all the money in and giving back nothing. The government should be for the people and the taxes (local, state, federal) fund army (where a lot is probably "stolen" on procurement), police, schools (don't know why ppl are ok with public being inferior to private), NASA, municipal services, etc...

OK, let's unpack all of this.

1.) Asserting that capital gains are income and should be taxed as such, along with closing loopholes, is merely fair play (and good fiscal policy). Targeting one group for taxation above the rest smells of a specific intellectual basis.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -Karl Marx

It sounds reasonable, but we know full well the Hell that this road leads to.

2.) Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is just good policy. Faulting your neighbor for playing the game better than you do is petty. All that I want is for the game to be fairly called.

3.) Compassion is a choice. Enforcing standards of compassion denies moral agency.

4.) Health care is a valid point of contention under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but targeting one group to pay for it is neither fair nor fiscally sound.

5.) Shkreli is currently in prison for securities fraud, so there are options in place, if people will pursue them.

6.) The tyrannies of the Tsars and the USSR were the type of injustice which Jefferson and the other opponents to Federalism feared. Their gift to us was a system pitted against itself (to slow it's actions) and the Bill of Rights (to limit it's powers). It's probably just a coincidence that the Dems are bent on dismantling the part of the Bill of Rights that gives it teeth.

7.) Agreed, Nik. People should not accept inferior performance from government. It is their money paying for it.

Thanks, for the elaborating on this. I understand why you or anyone would want safeguards against tyranny, but as it's not the case in the States, I'm still curious why people expect nothing good from the government :)

1. A fair play is the key. In many countries and as I understand in the States, the tax is progressive (meaning that the higher the income the higher is the tax according to the brackets): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_... . So it is according to each abilities anyway. And it seems rather fair because someone might have nothing to give while another has a lot without a need to sacrifice any of his/her lifestyle.
As of Karl - I'm kinda under impression, he would've been quite happy with how things are in a capitalist Scandinavia. Just my speculation though, as I didn't have a seance with the late philosopher ;)

2. Each enters the game at a certain starting point. Not something a specific person can influence. One can live doing nothing his/her entire life and another may need to struggle to survive. I don't think people should die to preserve the game. The game should accommodate at least a basic survival no need for much more, otherwise it doesn't have justification. That's regarding the starting point. As of the game itself - it usually awards those who care less about morale or other burdensome issues, however I don't want to generalize here.

3. Gotta open a thread sometime about compassion of people of different social standing. There are some interesting researches and observations..

Back to health, I do note that government purchasing lowers the overall cost of pharmaceuticals to the masses, and I fail to see why this is bad economics. I also fail to see why some degree of progressiveness in taxation is not unreasonable.

One of the interesting things about taxation is it is ALWAYS seen as too high. Caligulae was slammed by history more for imposing tax on wealthy Romans, i.e. people who actually lived in Rome. His tax levels were a swingeing about 2%!

There are certainly problems with government spending. Without doubt it becomes inefficient due to the inept performances of some of the people involved, however I am far from convinced that private companies are much better. There are histories of companies that "write off" hundreds of millions due to poor performance while the CEOs still take home huge pay packets. There are, at least in NZ, a number of construction companies that have been found to have taken serious shortcuts to get contracts, then disappear as entities before the consequences become apparent. Not good economics either.

It may be there is no flawless system, but there is evidence the Scandinavians are quit content with their system so it is not at all bad. It may be the real trick is to find a system and make it work properly.

Nik wrote: "...I'm still curious why people expect nothing good from the government..."

Long experience. I've lost count of the number of evils done in my name by my government. The failures brought about by incompetence and cronyism also strain credulity. The Tuskegee Experiment, MK Ultra, the Patriot Act, TARP, the absolute failure of the Department of Education, etc, etc, etc, our government has given us many reasons to fear tyranny and ample proof that it does not care about properly carrying out it's duties. I believe in the Republic. I do not trust my government.

1.) There is a progressive income tax, but the wealthy tend to make the bulk of their income as capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate. I believe that progressive taxation presents a moral hazard in that it gives government an easy money grab.

2.) I agree with the ethical argument as laid out by John Rawls in regards to providing an effective education to all of our children. This would provide all of our citizens with a fair chance of making something of themselves. Strangely, since it's creation the Department of Education has overseen a continuous drop in the quality of education in this nation, as compared to other nations. It's almost like the bureaucracy doesn't give a damn about the people.

3.) A worthy topic indeed.

Ian wrote: "It may be there is no flawless system, but there is evidence the Scandinavians are quit content with their system so it is not at all bad. It may be the real trick is to find a system and make it work properly..."

That is true, but it also depends on national mentality and should be tailor- made. I think it was J., who placed a comprehensive video link explanation of Scandinavian mentality and mindset. Might not fit many other nations.
My Dutch friend at the time, explained that a social security in Holland supported people for as much as needed, but no one (or very few) considered that as an option. Like they didn't choose to be stoned all the time being the only country with legal marijuana for decades:)
On the other hand, knowing the mentality, if the same were offered to ex-Soviets, I would kinda expect high percentage drinking vodka doing nothing most of the time :)
Democracy too, for example, enforced/exported elsewhere needs to rest on correspondent societal values to hold.
Would Scandinavian system work in the States or Italy for that matter? Would like to hear our friends from there, but I guess many would say - we are not prepared to pay high taxes no matter what we get for them

The video which Nik mentioned:

https://youtu.be/tckVx_kaYco

The difficulty in finding "what will work", in my opinion, lies in getting everyone to buy into the system and trying to make it work, and secondly, to prevent the wrong use of power, including financial strength. In NZ up until the 1980s it worked more or less like the Scandinavian model, and work tended to be done focusing on quality. Not only that, but in the early 1970s, despite some adverse economic conditions, unemployment was measured in a few hundred. Unfortunately, things turned against us when Britain went into the Common Market and our main export markets were greatly reduced, and the government took a policy of supporting "big industrial projects", and made mistakes. They got kicked out and a government was elected that campaigned on a strong left wing policy and immediately put in an economic policy that made Thatcher look outright socialist! What is fascinating about this is to look at the re-examination of buildings after the Kaikoura earthquake. A huge number have been found to have been totally substandard, and most of those were built in the "free market frenzy". Quite simply, when the emphasis became "profit first", quality went out the window. That is not good economics.

Ian wrote: "The difficulty in finding "what will work", in my opinion, lies in getting everyone to buy into the system and trying to make it work, and secondly, to prevent the wrong use of power, including fin..."

Those two difficulties should give you pause when considering the application of such a policy in the US. To grant perspective, New Zealand is a nation of less than five million people mostly situated on two islands, the US is a nation of over three hundred and twenty-five million people spread across a continent. Further, consider that the relevant US political spectrum ranges from those who want government to do everything on one end to those who despise government meddling on the other end. Allowing that these extremes are minority positions, they still account for millions of people. Getting such a population to agree on anything (other than bombing someone) is like herding cats, dogs, geese, and leprechauns, as one herd, into a timeshare sales presentation. Good luck.

As to the moral hazard, which you mentioned, I feel it worth pointing out that the party which is advocating a "single payer system" is the same party that tried to make HRC President.

I understand, J., but I would suggest that the morality of a single payer system for healthcare and the morality of the antics of HRC are really disjoint sets :-) I believe any system can go to the dogs if the wrong people get into power, and no, I don't have a "recipe" for keeping them out, other than a strong news media and voters who are really alert and thinking.

I am not sure why it is, but politics seems to encourage defective leaders, in any system. It may be that the good people are too busy doing what they see as more useful work.

Ian wrote: "I am not sure why it is, but politics seems to encourage defective leaders, in any system. It may be that the good people are too busy doing what they see as more useful work."

Power is attractive to corruptible people, and politics is an easier path to power than industry, which requires work, or the military, which requires discipline.

Why is the single payer system, which you advocate, more moral and/or a better fit for the US than the price negotiated system of Japan or the standardized private policy system of Switzerland?

J., I am not necessarily saying the single-payer system is ideal for the US, but merely better than what is there now. For all I know, the Japanese system, say, may be better for the US. I was merely noting the prices for health in the US are wildly more expensive than in a lot of other countries. As far as hospital treatments go, I am sure the propensity for legal action in the US makes it much more expensive than it need be too.

Scout wrote: "I could see your point if the wealthy were paying their fair share of taxes, but do you think they are? They seem to spend a lot of money hiring people to help them avoid taxes and hide their incom..."
This might answer your question, but it is a year or two old:
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-lat...

"The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell slightly to 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes fell slightly, to 37.3 percent."

So 1% of the population is responsible for more than a third of the total tax revenue.

"In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent."

The top half of US taxpayers are responsible for all but 3 % of the taxes the government takes in.

Obviously, I don't know the US tax system but many countries at least once adopted the premise that you don't tax the first amount of income that is needed to survive, i.e., it is unfair to tax a man whose income is barely sufficient to feed himself. If a very large fraction of the population earn very little, it follows that the tax they pay will be only a fraction of what the wealthy pay. If the top half of the tax payers pay all but 3%, it would seem to me this is a sign more of significant inequality than proof the very rich are carrying the burden; if the middle classes are overtaxed that will also generate that result.

If accurate the data that J.J. brings makes sense and shows some positive tendencies. And maybe all is fine after all :) For someone making 10K a year, 100 bucks tax would mean 1%, while even 1m$ for someone earning 1B$, would be only 0.1%.
Paying a lot in absolute figures (1m vs 100) is not tantamount to paying as due.
The wealth inequality summary (also if accurate) shows some alarming figures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_...
While income tax is progressive, not all of them are. The best administrated taxes, such as sales tax in the US or VAT elsewhere, where charged are flat, meaning a billionaire and a beggar would pay same amount of tax on a pack of cigs or anything not exempted.

Ian wrote: "Obviously, I don't know the US tax system but many countries at least once adopted the premise that you don't tax the first amount of income that is needed to survive, i.e., it is unfair to tax a m..."

The best numbers that I could find showed a median household income of $60,336 per year and a mean household income of $72,641 per year. There is a definite skew, but it is not a ridiculous one.

Nik wrote: "If accurate the data that J.J. brings makes sense and shows some positive tendencies. And maybe all is fine after all :) For someone making 10K a year, 100 bucks tax would mean 1%, while even 1m$ f..."

The argument about VAT is that everyone has much the same basic needs, but the multimillionaire only spends a trivial fraction of his income on these whereas the poor spend all their's, which means the poor actually pay a much greater fraction. The argument seems to be that the rich now reinvest their money, which leads to job creation etc, which is good for the economy, but in fact it seems they merely salt it away in the Caymans, which is not good. There is a good argument the 1930s depression was due as much as anything to the rich sitting on too much. That is not happening now because of quantitative easing, but what happens to this procedure in the end is unclear to me.

There are a lot of issues raised in this thread, so my pov on a few of them -

1) Being on medicare, due to disability, my prescription costs are outrageous compared to what I paid for private insurance. That is the result of the pharm companies' deals with the government. What I save in premiums I pay for in prescriptions so that my total medical costs are as high or higher on medicare. I used to at least get some of that back by itemizing and the percentage of medical compared to income affected my total income tax due. The newest tax laws raised that percentage to the extent it no longer benefits me.

In my perception of life there is simply something wrong with a nation when people who are considered middle class cannot afford to pay for medical care for themselves and their children. If you are actually lesser than middle class but not at the poverty line, it is even worse. At the poverty line, depending on the state you live in, you may receive a form of medicaid, but that level of income means you can't afford food, housing and transportation.

2) To say that the government should stay out of these things makes no sense to me. If it had, women would still not own property, children would still be working in factories, blacks would still be property, and the litany can go on and on. The problem is that when corporations, businesses, and people who run them have different morals, feel no need to treat their fellow man humanely, and believe that they are "better" than their employees and the workers who make and sell them their "goods," whether it be because of their bank account balance, their skin color, or their gender, then it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, especially when that protection is for half the population (women) , or 40% (non-white), or 22% (under 18), or 16% (over 65), or 18% (Veterans).

3) There is a difference between income and assets. The median income of $40,100 for 2019 allows you to live decently, but probably not enough to save for when you are 65 and social security pays you on average 40% of your working income.

4) The top 1% earnings is somewhere around $365,000. But we have all seen reports of what the rich and famous have for net worth. For some that net worth was inherited. The latest tax laws doubled the exempt estate taxes from 5 billion to 10 and for 2019 it is 11.4 million that is exempt. However, you can leave it all to your spouse and that it tax exempt. In the meantime, you can give up to $15,000 per year to any number of individuals and there is no gift tax. Of course, the wealthier you are the more tax attorneys you can afford while the average person is totally unaware of loopholes that might be to their advantage and can't afford to pay a high caliber professional.

5) As someone else pointed out, percentage of income wise, the poor and middle class are paying a much larger percentage of taxes than is simply expressed by income tax rates, to include their comment on sales tax. But, there is also a lot of "benefits" that businesses and corporations provide to their owners, CEOs, shareholders that have traditionally been write offs for the business income and not counted as taxable income to the recipients, from luxury vacations to maxing out retirement funds. We have seen where the laws allow for a business to be declared bankrupt while a CEO receives hundreds of thousands in bonuses, and clerks and minimum wage staff are applying for medicaid and SNAP because their income cannot provide for housing, transportation, food, and healthcare.

6) As long as we continue to allow the wealthier and trust funds kids (adults now) to salt away exorbitant amounts of money and allow politicians to make laws based on the desires of companies and individuals who provide the thousand dollar dinner plate campaign fund raisers to maintain their influences, we will continue to have medicare recipients who can't afford insulin, children going hungry, and the impoverished sleeping in the alleys.

NO, I don't know how to fix it, but YES, I do believe the government needs fixing and YES, it is the responsibility of the government at every level to protect its citizens. I don't think that makes us Russia. I do believe that a few countries have accomplished this and while they are small in population that there are solutions for various problems that other countries have resolved and that we can take those ideas and make them work for our level of population. But, none of that will happen until we find a means to put back into play a government "for the people" rather than a government for big business and the wealthy.

Lizzie wrote: "There are a lot of issues raised in this thread, so my pov on a few of them -

1) Being on medicare, due to disability, my prescription costs are outrageous compared to what I paid for private ins..."

That's a well articulated manifesto with a potential to win over a lot of hearts! Lizzie for president? :)

Ian wrote: "Obviously, I don't know the US tax system but many countries at least once adopted the premise that you don't tax the first amount of income that is needed to survive, i.e., it is unfair to tax a m..."

Yeah, I post that to show who's shouldering the tax burden, but it doesn't address the question of whether or not the rich should be paying more or less.

My issue with all of it is you hear liberals saying "the rich aren't paying their fair share" half the time, and the other half of the time they claim "the rich aren't paying taxes." The first statement may or may not have any validity, but the second does not. No matter how you spin it, the rich are paying a significant portion of the taxes collected by the government. The data proves that. Maybe you have one or two rich guys who are able to get their tax burden down to zero for a particular year, but that is the exception more than a rule.