
The Ultra-Wealthy Who Argue That They Should Be Paying Higher Taxes - amelius
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/the-ultra-wealthy-who-argue-that-they-should-be-paying-higher-taxes
======
tathougies
Lucky for them they can!:
[https://www.pay.gov/public/form/preview/pdf/23779454](https://www.pay.gov/public/form/preview/pdf/23779454)

~~~
creato
Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra
taxes are very different things.

You probably know this, as do most people making this argument.

~~~
ericmay
Why are they two different things?

If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best
use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official
change to the tax code or not?

Leadership would be paying extra taxes regardless of whether or not the taxes
are raised across the board.

It feels kind of slimy to me to say "oh yes we should all pay extra taxes but
I won't do so unless the government officially raises my tax rate" \- uh so
you mean you don't believe in paying more taxes unless the government forces
you to? Like the rest of us?

It is definitely more along the lines of moral posturing to me. At least I
know where someone stands when they don't want taxes to be raised.

~~~
resonantjacket5
Everyone's needs to be raised at the same time or it's useless. It's like in a
race imagine the fastest route tramples a bunch of flowers. If the individual
agrees to go around them they'll lose. There's nothing wrong with proposing
something that as a group one should do that as an individual makes no sense

~~~
ericmay
But they do it individually once it's implemented. If they pay (just making
this up) 10% in taxes why not advocate for higher taxes and then just go ahead
and pay extra and do what you believe in while also advocating for higher
taxes?

It's like if I buy a big SUV and say that I think we should all drive EVs but
I'm not going to do it until someone makes me, but I really believe it!

Uh. Ok. Sell the SUV and buy the EV?

------
jve
While in other news: "'The rich should pay more' — Bill Gates calls for higher
taxes on the wealthy in New Year's Eve blog post"

[https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/bill-
gates-c...](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/bill-gates-calls-
tax-hike-wealthy-new-years-eve-blog-2020-1-1028791394)

~~~
throwaway100773
As long as it gets used the way they want it used.

------
amelius
Some interesting snippets:

> In the U.S., executive compensation has increased, on average, by nine
> hundred and forty per cent since 1978, according to one estimate; during the
> same period, worker pay has risen twelve per cent. Income inequality hasn’t
> been this extreme since the nineteen-twenties.

(...)

> It might seem disingenuous for people to try to change the rules after they
> have already amassed fortunes via the old, “rigged” system; some might also
> see their efforts as a way to generate flattering publicity or to alleviate
> feelings of guilt. But the group’s members say that they are concerned about
> the future of the nation. Some of them feel that severe inequality fuels
> corruption and has led to the election of Trump and other right-wing leaders
> across the world. Many of them believe that inaction on inequality could
> lead to the kinds of violent street protests recently seen in countries like
> Chile.

(...)

> the entrepreneur Nick Hanauer, one of the first investors in Amazon, gave a
> TED talk called “Beware, Fellow Plutocrats, the Pitchforks Are Coming.”
> After describing his multiple homes, his yacht, and his private plane,
> Hanauer argued that the U.S. was at risk of becoming a neo-feudalist rentier
> society similar to France before the Revolution. In an essay in Politico, he
> wrote, “Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly.
> One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the
> streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no
> time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to
> New Zealand.”

~~~
redis_mlc
> get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand.

Just for those reading along, he wasn't making a rhetorical statement.

Many rich US citizens have acquired citizenship in NZ as their Plan B so they
can bug out. It's a nice, stable remote location that probably isn't targeted
by any weapons.

~~~
erentz
NZ has very high inequality already and has been on the same course as the
rest of the English speaking world. If there is real unrest in the US it is
going to spread to other western countries. Why they think NZ’ers wouldn’t
come for them in their Queenstown compounds in that case is naive and beats
me.

------
exabrial
If you want to pay extra taxes, just do it and stop complaining about how
others are living their life.

------
buboard
what is better for equality? ultra wealthy charity or relaxing copyright laws?

------
stevenalowe
What, precisely, is stopping them from voluntarily paying more? Why the
compulsion to use the system to force others to do as they believe they should
do, yet (as far as I can tell) do not actually do?

~~~
triceratops
If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich
people who don't do it.

It's no different than saying "Why do we need environmental laws? What,
precisely, is stopping companies from not dumping industrial waste into the
water?" Even if one party plays nice, they'll be outcompeted by all the others
that do not.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, if you believe that companies shouldn't dump industrial waste into the
water, and you have a company, the correct thing to do is 1) _don 't dump
industrial waste into the water_, and 2) lobby for laws that prohibit dumping
industrial waste into the water, and 3) work with industry groups (forming one
if you have to) to try to create voluntary association of companies who don't
dump industrial waste into the water even if it is legal to do so.

Same thing here. You might become less well off than some other rich person?
So? Do what you think is the right thing anyway. Or do you care more about
your ranking on the Forbes list than you do about what you think is right? If
you care more about Forbes, why should the rest of us care about what you
claim is right?

You aren't stuck with a change in tax law or nothing. Do it voluntarily,
yourself, if you think it's a big deal. Encourage others to do it voluntarily
also. _And_ lobby for the law change.

But if all you're going to do is lobby for the law change, well... not
everyone will think that you are serious.

~~~
triceratops
Except that if 2 and 3 don't work, you've fallen behind your competitors. And
have even less money and influence to continue pursuing 2 and 3. So no, I
don't think you're right.

You can't fix a tragedy of the commons with individual action.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
What you say is true. And yet, what kind of a human being uses "tragedy of the
commons" as an excuse why he _has_ to dump pollution into the water?

Back to the actual topic at hand. We're actually talking about wealthy
individuals, not about companies. If Bill Gates, say, falls another 10% off of
the leader on the Forbes wealthiest list, how much power and influence has he
really lost? _Not enough to use that as an excuse for inaction_ , that how
much.

~~~
triceratops
Bill Gates is already giving most of his wealth to charity, so how much would
he pay in taxes anyway, after all the deductions? And why would he pay
additional taxes on top of that, when there are billionaires who haven't even
done as much he already has?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'm not in Bill Gates' bracket, but I believe that there are limits to how
much you can deduct - the alternative minimum tax, if nothing else.

Why would he pay additional taxes on top of that? _If_ he were one of the ones
advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy (he's not, so far as I can tell
from the article), then he should so that his actions match his words.
Otherwise, why should anybody listen to his words?

I'm not criticizing Bill Gates. He has done an admirable job of putting his
money where _his_ mouth is. (So, in retrospect, me choosing him as an example
in the post that is grandparent to this was an error.)

~~~
triceratops
> Otherwise, why should anybody listen to his words?

Because he's already giving his money away. I thought that was obvious.

Regardless of how much wealth one has, it's perfectly natural to want a sense
of fairness. Warm fuzzies from doing the right thing only go so far.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are also calling for higher taxes and have
also taken the Giving Pledge. I don't know how much of an overlap there is
between the group in this article and signers of the pledge, but I'd bet it's
significant.

