
I’m in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes - loisaidasam
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/opinion/taxes-debates-eli-broad.html
======
supergauntlet
Sounds just like Warren Buffett: [http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-
wants-to-tax-rich-mor...](http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax-
rich-more/)

Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the
1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!):
[https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...](https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf)

Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are
a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts the handwringing
around AOC's 70% top tax bracket in perspective.

~~~
gridlockd
> Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days'
> (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85%

...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollywood-
stars-didn-t-pay-90-percent-tax-they-created-loopholes)

(edit)

To the people who don't get the point:

Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on
what such a high tax would actually do.

People may have this fantasy about rich people that they're just hoarding
money like a dragon hoards gold. In reality, rich people invest their money,
which the government _wants them to do_ , so they don't tax investments
(capital gains) that highly.

~~~
supergauntlet
Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect
taxes?

~~~
oceliker
The argument is that the 85% tax bracket was never really 85%, so it doesn't
set a valid precedent.

------
Causality1
It's always been fascinating to me that "things that poor people spend most of
their money on" is subject to a sales tax but "things rich people spend most
of their money on" isn't.

Services from beauty shops, car repair, home maintenance and repair? Taxed.
Services from lawyers and accountants? Not taxed.

Buying a TV, food, gasoline? Taxed. Buying a piece of land or stocks? Not
taxed.

~~~
antisthenes
Land is taxed yearly. Stocks are taxed in cases where you profit from their
sale. Dividends are also taxed in most cases as ordinary income.

I can see merit in taxing both transactions for land in stocks, but it's
inaccurate to say that they aren't taxed.

You can also argue that buying land is way more necessary than a TV. Everyone
needs to live on a piece of land, not everyone needs (or wants) a TV.

~~~
Causality1
Other "poor people" expenses are subject to both sales tax and ownership tax,
like vehicles.

------
iambvk
IMO, their taxable "income" is typically very less.

------
slang800
This is a great idea, but Eli doesn't need to wait for the law to be changed.
He can donate as much as he wants directly to the US government right now.
[https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-
government.html](https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html)

~~~
tylerhou
Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more
effective than one person voluntarily donating.

~~~
slang800
Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should
set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After
all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.

~~~
atonse
Errr you can’t just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to
them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.

~~~
slang800
That's not true. There's a system for sending gifts to the treasury right
here: [https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-
government.html](https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It's a funny and forgotten relic. Many countries had similar schemes from
around the same era.

There was a fashion to bequeath part of your estate to the government "to pay
down the national debt". It was thought the patriotic thing to do. Obviously
little impact was made on national debts. :)

------
yitchelle
Can't they just pay more tax dollars that is higher than they are obliged to
pay? I guess this is America.

------
gridlockd
That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator
figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state.

The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay
for it:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/demo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-
opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually-
involve-a-lot-of-
capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html)

I was really glad to find the _Washington Post_ publish this. Perhaps it will
wake up some people to the questionable promises that certain Democrats are
espousing currently.

(The wording of this comment was edited to cause less offense)

~~~
komali2
Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second
person in this thread to do so.

My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action."
And yet:

> Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into
> supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and
> performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of
> what had so generously been given to me.

In the article he's saying this isn't enough. So, why use the term "virtue
signal?" Are you arguing that he's doing nothing about the issue but writing a
blog post?

~~~
gridlockd
> My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action."

That's a misunderstanding.

(edit)

"Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values"

That's the definition on Wikipedia, which I agree with.

(edit 2)

I don't think of it in terms of "right" and "wrong".

~~~
komali2
So, what does "virtue signal" mean to you, and why should we care that you're
describing someone with it? I.e., why is it "bad?"

I'm working off the definition I found on wikipedia:

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

> In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to
> criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action.

------
jsnk
Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

~~~
ninkendo
If you were a military commander and someone proposed attacking an opposing
force with a unified front, would your answer be "You're welcome to go out
there and attack them yourself if you want to"?

The point is to enact tax policy that applies to everyone, so that the sum
total of the changes can actually make an impact. Saying "well people can
always donate to the treasury" is a ridiculous way of dismissing it.

~~~
oceliker
I'd actually love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars visit the war
zone (though I know it's impractical).

The point is that nobody will take you seriously until you show some concrete
action. It's easy to claim that you'll give your money willingly, if you know
that it's extremely unlikely to happen.

~~~
slang800
I'd love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars have to fight in those
wars, especially if it was impractical.

------
youareawesome
If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you
wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or
so.

Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't
effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private
citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like
the oil companies and the large investment firms, like ExxonMobil and Goldman
Sachs. Don't punish success.

~~~
AlexandrB
> just further erodes the liberty of private citizens

How does taxation do this? Taxation is a mechanism for funding the maintenance
of an ordered society which enables extreme wealth creation. It's the
wealthiest citizens who benefit the most from law enforcement, infrastructure,
and national defence.

~~~
youareawesome
Taxation is well-acknowledged a trade-off between liberty and social
responsibility.

This is a new type of tax that has never been implemented in the US. If the
goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that. So what is the goal?

~~~
tylerhou
> If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that.

[citation needed]

~~~
youareawesome
Do you really think an extra $100B-$200B added to federal revenue of currently
~$3.6T (5%) will have any noticeable effect on poverty?

~~~
tylerhou
Yes, because the amount the US spends on welfare is a smaller fraction of the
whole budget. For example, the US spends around ~$100 billion on food
assistance [1]. Wikipedia estimates that all non-medical poverty assistance
accounts for around $400 billion of the US budget [2]. Increasing expenditure
by 10-20% (or even 5%) will almost certainly have a noticeable effect on
poverty.

[1] [https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-
graphic....](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic.png)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_entitlements)

~~~
youareawesome
Yeah I don't think increasing welfare is really the solution to ending
poverty. Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty, not to
mention the waste endemic to bureaucratic administration. How about instead of
taxing individuals we tax corporations to incentivize paying their workers
more?

~~~
tylerhou
> Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty

[citation needed]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty)

~~~
youareawesome
These statistics don't tell the whole story and often are misleading. While
increasing the number of welfare recipients may decrease poverty stats for
paper-pushing bureaucrats, on the ground you're increasing the number of
people who are dependent on the govt for subsistence which isn't viable in the
long-term.

It's been shown that a comfortable reliance on welfare disincentivizes
becoming independent again. Especially when welfare recipients have a higher
income than minimum wage. Any rational actor will have a hard time
transitioning to minimum wage work at the risk of losing welfare when income
from welfare is higher. This is plainly obvious
[https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-
recipients...](https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients-
paid-more-minimum-wage.html/)

Would you be in favor of adding a time-limit to welfare eligibility to
disincentivize long-term reliance on welfare?

------
xvedejas
But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or
carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does
being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My
release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms
other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things,
when there are things that are useful to tax (apart from the government
revenue).

This is why I think we should lower (or remove) income taxes -- because we
could raise the same amount in more useful ways. I think there are also
economic reasons to believe income taxes make the labor market less efficient.
If your goal is to tackle inequality, why insist on doing it in a sub-optimal
way? It absolutely matters not just how much you tax and who you tax, but also
what you're taxing (and therefore discouraging). Let's start with some
revenue-neutral changes to the tax structure. We might see both a stronger
economy and less pollution because of it, for free.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
By the same logic, should we tax having babies too? Especially multiple
babies. Large carbon foot print for a bonded set of genes.

~~~
antisthenes
Given the current state of AGW and Climate Change, taxing babies beyond
replacement rate (2.1) is not a bad idea.

I mean it's political suicide, but I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

After all, we already subsidize babies with our taxing scheme. So you wouldn't
even need to tax babies. You would just cut off the subsidy after 2 kids.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
That would work too.

If we incentivize those who are childless and have shrunk their carbon foot
print, that would also encourage people to make thoughtful decisions about
baby making. Example: If someone didn’t have any children at all, then they
should get tax free status or reduced premiums etc.

A woman increases her carbon foot print 10-20 times with every child. Medical
costs and food and transport and pretty much everything is borne by the rest
of us. Suspend benefits. Tax excess children and give tax breaks or retirement
benefits to those who didn’t have children.

I suspect that retirement benefits would be a better incentive than tax free
status. Most people hope that children would take care of them when they get
older. It’s not worth the true cost of over population.

