
Forget philanthropy. The super-rich should be paying proper taxes - paulpauper
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/02/forget-philanthropy-super-rich-should-be-paying-proper-taxes
======
roenxi
At least everyone can agree that government taxing should be higher than
government spending^.

This article is mainly baiting rich v poor division; on a close read it
doesn't actually say much.

The real issue is that everything in general has become so complicated that
nobody has a hope of understanding how it works. Unless we have accountants on
deck today nobody really has a feel for how much the rich pay in taxes
(including under the '70%' regime - I bet there was nobody actually paying
anywhere near 70%) and nobody has a great feel for how those taxes are being
spent. And _nobody_ has a feel for what happens to the money that rich people
control and what it actually goes into doing. They aren't hiding it under the
mattress, that money is out there causing real outcomes in the real world that
go far beyond the rich having nice houses.

The rich could pay 0% taxes if we had confidence that they believed they
should invest it all into ordinary people. We could tax at 100% if we had
confidence that an enlightened government would spend it with prudence and
intelligence. We will do neither because we know both those assumptions are
stupid.

Quoting GK Chesterton and observing that politicians are treacherous is not a
powerful contribution.

^ EDIT: Thanks neogodless - I mean specific policy for literally right now, to
pay down debt.

~~~
blantonl
The '70%' regime was then reinvesting all those profits right back into their
businesses to avoid those taxes, which spurred job growth and R&D innovation.

The simple reality is that today's "regime" simply stockpiles that wealth for
their own benefit and then gives out a few token amounts to charitable causes
and thinks that will stave off the pitchforks when the uprising begin.

Giving money to charity doesn't cleanse your soul of it's moral responsibility
to society. As abrasive as it sounds, it may very well be true that if someone
is in the position to be giving out millions to charitable foundations that
end up making a lot of people fat from managing them, maybe they took too much
in the first place.

~~~
rayiner
This argument makes no sense. The super rich aren’t keeping their money under
a mattress. They’re investing in VC, public markets, etc. It’s the exact same
result, except instead of investing in the same company, profits can be
invested in a different company.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
...whereupon they reap the profits. The new reality is, the money men own most
everything, and skim the vast majority of benefit from every industry.

It's not about how much money is in the system. Its about who benefits from
it.

~~~
rhino369
They'd also reap the profits from businesses investing in themselves since
they own those companies. The only difference would be encouraging
conglomerates instead of new companies. Not sure why that benefits anyone.

------
ctdonath
Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none
of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of,
and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job
creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at
levels & locations which gov't would never achieve.

The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely punitive, not productive.
Yeah Musk has $billions, he's also creating thousands of jobs (direct &
indirect), making the expensive affordable, improving environment, etc - and
able to _because_ he's very rich. Even the "mean" rich create jobs & markets
etc that gov't can't.

~~~
AlexandrB
> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all?

Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not.

> Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich
> do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive
> overhead?

[citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More
expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general
population.

~~~
malvosenior
I trust politicians as much as I trust billionaires: not at all. In fact as
the OP points out at least the occasional billionaire will do something
productive for society. The same can't be said for the government.

> _[citation needed] In fact, there 's an easy counter-example. Healthcare.
> More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general
> population._

The only reason health care is so expensive in the US is because of government
regulations. From doctor accreditation, FDA approval, health insurance
"marketplace" rules... The government is the single largest force pushing up
the price of health care.

~~~
pintxo
Assuming you live in the USA, the simple fact, that you can leave your house
and have access to a (still) working transportation infrastructure and do not
need (I hope) private security to protect your life and property is proof that
the Government does something productive for society.

I am as ____off by a lot of recent Government actions and their seeming
inability to fix _obvious_ issues. But to argue they to nothing productive for
society? That is just plain wrong.

Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive
because of regulations. Are they perfect? Far from it, but can we live without
them? No.

~~~
logicchains
>Also, I'd like to highlight that millions of citizens are only healthy/alive
because of regulations

Citation needed? There were practically no regulations a century ago compared
to now, and while more people died then, it certainly wasn't millions (unless
you're counting something like vaccines as "regulation").

~~~
ceejayoz
There are a _lot_ of regulations you'd have to add up, but millions probably
isn't an enormous stretch.

Crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags save tens of thousands a year
([https://www.nhtsa.gov/seat-belts/seat-belts-save-
lives](https://www.nhtsa.gov/seat-belts/seat-belts-save-lives)).

The EPA estimates the Clean Air Act alone saved 100k/year.
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171226105042.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171226105042.htm)

Lead paint, workplace safety, FDA approval, product recalls, aviation
safety... Hell, fighting the tobacco industry is a big regulatory move.

------
rayiner
There are two major problems with this line of reasoning:

1) The bit about the 70% tax rate is wrong. The 70% was on wage income, but
other sorts of income was taxed lower, and a lot of income wasn’t taxed at
all. [https://taxfoundation.org/70-tax-rate-entrepreneurial-
income](https://taxfoundation.org/70-tax-rate-entrepreneurial-income). Actual
tax rates on the rich have been highly stable since the 1950s:
[https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-
high/](https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/)

2) The amount of tax the super rich pay is way down on the list of issues to
be worried about. The top 0.01% (household income above $7.5 million per year,
so not even “super rich”) make just 3.3% of all income. Tax them at 25% or
75%—it doesn’t make much of a difference to the Treasury. Taking _all of their
money_ would add maybe 3% to total government spending. That wouldn’t pay for
Medicare for All. It won’t pay for the Green New Deal. It might just about pay
for universal child care and pre-K.

~~~
geggam
This graph doesnt agree

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg)

~~~
rayiner
That’s the top marginal rate on wage income. It doesn’t actually look at the
total tax people pay as a percentage of their total income. That changes not
just based on the top marginal rate, but on where each bracket kicks in, the
composition of income, and the tax base. For example, back in the day, things
like corporate expense accounts were not treated as taxable income. And the
highest brackets kicked in at the equivalent of $3.5 million today, which
means even top 0.01%-ers had half their income taxed at a lower bracket.

------
skrowl
It's probably different in the UK where The Guardian is, but in the USA the
bottom 45% of wage earners pay $0 federal income tax while the top 20% pay 87%
of it. I'm not sure how much more you should slap on the "evil" job-creating
rich before it's "proper", but 87% already seems pretty high to me.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-
fed...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-
income-tax-2016-02-24)

~~~
DanTheManPR
What would you propose, squeeze more water from the stone? The bottom 45% of
wage earnes are broke as hell, they hardly have any income to tax. Meanwhile,
the top 20% have so much more money that you can raise 87% of income tax
revenue even with today's more flattened tax brackets.

~~~
jazzyk
But in the supposedly socialist Europe, even lower income people pay SOME
amount in taxes.

For example, in Spain, you pay 19% on the first 12,450E, and the rate quickly
goes up to 45% for anything over 60,000E (average income is ~30K)

There are some personal allowances and deductions, but most people pay at
least _some_ tax.

------
falcolas
Too many temporarily embarrassed billionaires in our population to push for
this from the bottom, and too many billionaires using their version of lunch
money on our politicians to get traction from the top.

Great concept, won’t ever actually happen.

~~~
dwrowe
This is such a tired take. Is it not possible to just believe that a person
shouldn’t HAVE to pay more (percentage-wise) in taxes because they’re
successful - while at the same time, be fine with the credits / deductions
available to the less fortunate? I can’t be the unicorn here.

~~~
geggam
Why is it tired?

The wealthy benefit from the social infrastructure they live in. Should they
not pay for it ?

Think of the wear and tear the roads get from the Amazon delivery service
alone.

~~~
ajsnigrutin
Doesn't amazon pay road taxes for their trucks (or whatever they're called
over there)?

~~~
geggam
The US road taxes doesnt cover the damage done.

Not to mention the US is huge, the actual cost of fixing the infrastructure
would be staggering. It needs fixing too.

------
rafaelvasco
Philanthropy, at least in theory, directly benefits people; Taxes don't; We
should keep both; The focus of every government must be the well-being of
people, and most importantly, setting things so that the people have better
opportunities to be the owners of their own lives and being able to care for
themselves, returning value to the country and the World. Yes we need money
for that, but when people focus on money instead of caring for others,
corruption ensues. It is inevitable.

------
bogus_323423
> we must make them be good

Lash the sinners into virtue, eh?

Good luck with the whole killing satan with his own pitchfork thing. All this
does is turn those who try into demons; if you can hurt class enemies for
being insufficiently good, you can do the same to anyone. And nobody ever
accused the proletariat of being excessively possessed of virtue...

This is just a thin veneer over the libido dominandi. "We can't wait to remake
society in the image of the blood god, so sacrifices must be made. No, not my
kids ha ha"

------
deckar01
Extremely wealthy people don't just donate to charity to cherry-pick the
social programs they support. They also gain influence over organizations and
communities. They promise support to gain favor and threaten withholding to
gain influence. People this rich don't need more money, they want more power.

------
grecy
I just read that Jeff Bezoz will pay a lower tax rate than someone earning
$7.25/hr. Incredible.

~~~
ctdonath
He's also giving thousands of people jobs, making necessities available to
millions at low prices, and paying enormous amounts in total taxes. Can gov't
really do more with his money than he can? Do you really want to
disincentivize what he does for humanity?

~~~
pizza234
> He's also giving thousands of people jobs

Enterpreneurs don't "give" jobs to people. Refer to the "wage labour"
definition:

> Wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an
> employer, where the worker sells their labour power under a formal or
> informal employment contract.

precisely, they're purchasing labor. And actually, Bezos is puchasing it at a
dirty cheap price.

~~~
ctdonath
Pedantic. He created a job opening, they accepted it. Ask NYC how terrible
those 30,000 new Amazon jobs are ... oh right, they don't exist there because
the "Bezos is a meanie" people drove them away.

A job is better than no job. Bezos hired them to do something productive.

~~~
wycy
Incorrect. Amazon says it was not about the politics[0]. Plus, Amazon is still
coming to NYC anyway, because there was still demand for an office there[1].
But now NYC gets it for free rather than paying billions in subsidies.

[0] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-
on-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amazon-reveals-the-truth-on-why-it-
nixed-ny-and-chose-virginia-for-hq2.html)

[1] [https://nypost.com/2019/05/27/amazon-is-reportedly-eyeing-
of...](https://nypost.com/2019/05/27/amazon-is-reportedly-eyeing-office-space-
on-manhattans-west-side/)

------
smitty1e
Forget proper taxes: give us a simple, coherent, 21st-century system for
taxation that reasonably links what I'm paying to an _actual_ budget, and
maybe all of this class-warfare whinging on will sound less laughable.

Back to my fantasizing .

------
hevi_jos
Paying more than 70% of what you earn is not fair. It is slavery and
confiscation.

And it always happens the same way, those in charge, in power, who control
this 70% will manage to spend it on themselves one way or another.

In the soviet Union official markets will have stands selling just one potato,
or one lemon or egg. Then in the black market the communist families could
buy(or access, because with power and influence you don't need
money)everything, from good meat, fish...

People that traveled abroad, with public money were the children of the
communist... they had access to (imported)TVs, good houses and cars instantly
while the rest of the population will wait for years or decades, only to get
bullshit TVs, bullshit houses and bullshit cars.

In the UK,and the US with confiscation taxes rich people found ways to not pay
taxes at all. It was only a barrier of entry to middle class.

~~~
wycy
It's only 70% of what you earn on dollars _after_ certain other nominal
limits. For example, 70% of what you earn _after_ you've earned your first
$1,000,000.00. Please do spare everyone these absurd tears for the "enslaved"
rich.

------
diegoholiveira
Why give more power to politicians? I really don't get that.

~~~
signet
Because they are democratically elected?

~~~
flyingfences
So what?

------
chooseaname
> Er, the United States, an economist sitting next to him replied, where the
> highest tax rate averaged about 70% from the 1930s to the 1970s, “and those
> were actually pretty good years for growth”. Rates are nowhere near that
> now. The supposed populist Trump gave a $1.5tn tax cut mainly to the richest
> corporations and individuals and the top rate now stands at 37%.

Go ahead and tax the likes of Bill Gates at 70%. You won't get much more than
you do now, relatively speaking.

------
bonoboTP
Scott Alexander had a compelling argument against this:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-
billio...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-
philanthropy/)

~~~
hiccuphippo
If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it
philanthropy in the first place?

~~~
ben509
Why does it matter if their motives are pure? You don't need a moral
justification to do a thing that helps other people and is entirely at your
personal expense.

~~~
zpallin
You're right, but unless a person is spending money for a social-cause that
benefits us all, they absolutely do not deserve any special status, press
coverage or a title such as "philanthropist." They're just spending money for
themselves, and that's nothing special. Anyone can do that.

~~~
ben509
If everyone has to benefit, this seems to define philanthropy to be an
impossible feat.

I suspect you're thinking of some celebrities or causes you agree with and
assuming their motives must be pure because they agree with your interests.
This isn't saying you have some devious intent, I'm just pointing out a
potential unquestioned assumption you may hold.

Maybe the compromise is this: Wanting people to like you (or wanting good PR)
may be an impure motive, but it's also the least concerning impure motive.
After all, if a very powerful person wants to be liked by others, that
motivation forces them to then listen to others and consider their interests.

~~~
zpallin
I didn't try to define philanthropy at all. Call it what you will.

I'm not thinking of any celebrities, and it's really weird that you made that
assumption.

It's simply unimpressive to me when people give away money through foundations
or other organized means just cause they're rich. The bar should be much
higher to earn anyone's praise. That's all I'm saying. And I don't have
anything to add to what you've written.

------
ctdonath
Comment threads like this always amaze me by the number of socialist/communist
advocates on a site devoted to full-on capitalism.

~~~
foogazi
I was surprised that a Marxist was quoted in the article

------
magwa101
FUCK YES.

