
For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke - smacktoward
https://inequality.org/great-divide/billionaire-ceo-taxing-rich-is-joke/
======
chrisco255
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law)

Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax
revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of
GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1]
Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a
percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4%
to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007.[2]

So...yeah, marginal rates have been 70% or higher...but the Federal government
has never successfully collected that much, due to write-offs, tax shelters,
and other schemes that were largely closed in 1986 with...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986)

~~~
saghm
Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't
actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why
do they oppose it?

~~~
foolfoolz
because this Hausers law shows that the U.S. government doesn't have a revenue
problem, it's collecting proportionately the same amount of money as it has
been. there' a spending problem: we keep finding more and more ways to spend
money.

this whole green new deal proposal is "lets go spend billions more dollars on
XYZ" a lot of the mental pushback is what are you going to stop spending on
today to pay for it? the answer: "nothing, we're just going to raise taxes"

i believe opposition to this is less about can the 1% afford the taxes or not,
and more for principled spending

~~~
hopler
What's wrong with investing taxes in growing the GDP?

Why does the funding of current projects affect you level of support for
different projects? That's sunk cost fallacy.

~~~
phishfi
Where's the proof that this would increase the GDP?

------
headmelted
I see where people are coming from when they dismiss high marginal rates out
of hand, without giving the honest answer as to why:

No-one who is caught by them will pay them.

If I'm Michael Dell, and my marginal rate is 70%, or 90% or even 100%
(whatever) then I'm incentivized to take that money in another way, be it in
stock, deferred bonuses, or even in leaving the capital in the business
without issuing a dividend.

The reason this is such a problem is that regardless of whether you manage to
close every conceivable loophole, you're still talking about personal taxes.
The corporation is making the lion's share of the money, and that's where the
tax would need to be applied to raise the revenues required by the Green New
Deal.

Thing is, that's never worked for a state because the biggest companies are
multi-national corporations that can (and do) shift their taxable income to
the most favourable jurisdictions, which is why nation states keep trying to
undercut each other on CT rates (Apple and Google are notorious for the
lengths they go to in order to avail of this, for example). The state can't
close _that_ kind of loophole because it doesn't have the authority to (unless
it goes down the road of sanctioning other countries due to their tax rates).

I've not seen a solution to wealth distribution yet that acknowledges that we
exist in a _global_ economy, regardless of local policies (however well
intentioned they are).

Thing is, most people don't really seem to want wealth re-distribution to
anyone poorer than them. Unless you're planning to pay a living wage to
everyone in India/Thailand/China/wherever then why shouldn't they undercut
your taxation rates as much as is needed to attract local jobs?

~~~
charlesdm
If it accounts to investment income, then the easy solution is tot borrow
against your equity. Better to pay 2% interest a year than to pay 70% on
realising a gain.

------
zapnuk
His main argument besides 'name a country where this has ever worked' was that
he is a philanthropist. He alleges that his foundation would have contributed
more (in terms of $$$) than a 70% marginal rate. He further feels more
comfortable deciding where/how to help by himself instead of giving the money
to the gouvernment.

Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the
>5.000.000$/year behave the same? Do they help, buy overpriced luxury goods
they don't need, or park their money in some financial product.

His foundation does much work outside of the USA. That's commendable, but it's
not up to the individual to decide what they fund. For a good reason.

He really came as arrogant and uninformed. And where was the push back from
the host?

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_lictGa5g&t=1m50s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_lictGa5g&t=1m50s)

~~~
ardy42
> Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the
> >5.000.000$/year behave the same?

Also billionaire philanthropy probably wont tackle the problems or solutions
that will help society but hurt billionaires.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM)

------
Matticus_Rex
Any discussion that doesn't even broach the topic of actual tax incidence is
superficial at best, and probably just negligent. You can't really say if X
worked at a societal level if X didn't do what it sounds like it did and
literally applied to around half a dozen people.

------
subjectHarold
I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high
before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only
down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US
needs).

Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less
progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be
Sweden" thinking also indicates a fairly weak understanding of political
theory.

Assuming no reductions in revenue, the only solution is raising taxes
substantially on the wealthy below 1%. Simple.

~~~
avoutthere
No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt.
Reducing the size of the state will be required.

~~~
mikeash
We were on track to pay off the debt 20 years ago. The debt is substantially
higher now but nothing has fundamentally changed.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
The difference between what it takes to pay down a moderate debt and what it
takes to pay down a truly massive debt is a fundamental difference.

~~~
mikeash
The debt is about 3x higher in real dollars, and about 2x higher relative to
GDP. That doesn’t seem like the sort of change that would take you from
“moderate” to “truly massive.”

