Merged Economics, politics and the election

[Tero]

Wonder if anyone here has put numbers to the impulse of 'tax the rich more'. Like, what level is rich? How much more? The top 10% pay 75% of total income taxes. Is that the cut off and what % of the total should they be expected to pay? Expanded in the US, the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes.

The way the wages have gone, there is nothing to tax at the low end. The people do not make enough to pay much more than normal living expenses. They can afford to lose the cell phone and internet. That's it. There is nothing else to cut.

The rich must be taking a lot by having all these tens of millions work for slave labor. And they still need the poor. Someone has to buy their product.

US falls under the major EU countries in minimum wage. Finland Sweden and Denmark are missing. Two do not use euros. Finland is 1200-1300.
https://qery.no/minimum-wage-levels-in-the-eu-2024/

 

[acbytesla]

Goes to the mobility thing then. If Stock is easy to evaluate and wealth taxes are high, the wealthy will take there money out of stocks the country that taxes wealth and move it to some form that isn't taxed, is harder to evaluate, or is somewhere else.

Property rarely decreases in value and can't be moved but otherwise it has all the same problems as any other wealth tax. If the tax is high enough, the owner will just move.

This has been studied and generally the evidence suggests they just don't work well as taxes if your goal in taxes is to raise revenue. Which ought to be the primary goal of taxes, granted that's like just my opinion man. This is also why only five countries have them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Criticisms

What I've learned over the years is that studies are only as good as the people conducting them.

And just because a professor at the London School of Exonomics publishes something doesn't mean it is accurate.

My goal isn't so much about increasing revenue for the government as it is in in sharing wealth and income more equitably. That more of those profits go to workers and much less to the billionaire fat cats sitting on asses raking it in.

There is no reason that productivity has skyrocketed over the last 70 years while simultaneously the standard of living for 80 percent of Americans has decreased. Sadly, a mixture of anti-labor laws, tax structures and automation has led to an ever widening chasm of income and wealth distribution.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm on €44,600* gross annual pay and so far this year my tax and national insurance payments are:

 F'night       Annual
USC       40.48       679.00
PAYE     169.97     2,848.94
PRSI      67.22     1,133.68

If I dug back a few years to when my gross was roughly equivalent to $44,000 my tax payments wouldn't look much smaller.

I am frankly surprised that taxes aren't paid on income at that level.

*A bit over $49,000.

Taxes are paid on income at that level: income taxes. Capital gains taxes are, apparently, not required if your total income that year is below that level.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Even if there were a tax on owning shares…

Florida used to have an “Intangible Tax” on securities held above a certain amount. I had to pay it every year - it was tiny, a few dollars per $1,000 in stocks and bonds held. But I guess it could have added up for really rich folks with lots of stocks and bonds.

“Florida’s intangible tax is no longer in effect. The state repealed the annual intangible personal property tax in 2007. This means that individuals and businesses are no longer required to pay this tax on intangible assets like stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.”

I only mention this because such a tax has been implemented in the past, so it’s not a new idea.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Florida used to have an “Intangible Tax” on securities held above a certain amount. I had to pay it every year - it was tiny, a few dollars per $1,000 in stocks and bonds held. But I guess it could have added up for really rich folks with lots of stocks and bonds.

“Florida’s intangible tax is no longer in effect. The state repealed the annual intangible personal property tax in 2007. This means that individuals and businesses are no longer required to pay this tax on intangible assets like stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.”

I only mention this because such a tax has been implemented in the past, so it’s not a new idea.

As a separate tax it doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as attempting to assess capital gains before the gains occur.

 

[dudalb]

It will come done ot the eternal rule of discussing tax increases in elections;

"Let;s not tax me, Let;s not tax thee; Let;s tax that fellow beneath the Tree".

 

[smartcooky]

That's a capital gains tax. And nothing is wrong with it. If you lose money you don't pay anything now do you? In fact, you can deduct those losses from the gains. It's an income tax often at a far lower rate than the average person pays for say salary income. I'm saying you should pay a sales or VAT tax on each stock transaction.

That's double dipping... almost triple dipping..... you'd be taxing the dividends, and taxing the transactions and then taxing the profit again if the stocks are sold.

Such a scheme would all but shut Mom & Pop investors out.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Can we get back to the topic, please?

 

[dudalb]

That's double dipping... almost triple dipping..... you'd be taxing the dividends, and taxing the transactions and then taxing the profit again if the stocks are sold.

Such a scheme would all but shut Mom & Pop investors out.

And that has been probelm in the US. Taxes that were meant to hit the upper income classes end up doing collatarial damage to the middle class.
Of course, some,not all, but some Progressive pretty much hate the middle classes as much as they do the upper classes.
You have a couple of posters in this thread hwo come off to me like Marxist in all but name.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It will come done ot the eternal rule of discussing tax increases in elections;

"Let;s not tax me, Let;s not tax thee; Let;s tax that fellow beneath the Tree".

Why are taxes even a topic in presidential campaigns? Doesn't Congress pass (or repeal) tax law?

Your idea of a sub-arboreal residency tax seems intriguing, though.

 

[acbytesla]

That's double dipping... almost triple dipping..... you'd be taxing the dividends, and taxing the transactions and then taxing the profit again if the stocks are sold.

Such a scheme would all but shut Mom & Pop investors out.

I don't think so. A 1 percent VAT on the purchase of stock isn't going to eliminate small investors.

 

[dudalb]

Utter nonsense.
It doesn't matter how the tax is raised, it's who is paying it and why that matters.

Head tax, inheritance tax, property tax are all awesome for the State, because it can't be evaded easily.

That is making the assumption that what is good for the State is good for the people.

 

[dudalb]

Why are taxes even a topic in presidential campaigns? Doesn't Congress pass (or repeal) tax law?

Your idea of a sub-arboreal residency tax seems intriguing, though.

The President can propose changes in the tax code. Of course what he or she thinks about it is importnat.

 

[Hercules56]

Why are taxes even a topic in presidential campaigns? Doesn't Congress pass (or repeal) tax law?

Your idea of a sub-arboreal residency tax seems intriguing, though.

Not American, huh?

 

[smartcooky]

Can we get back to the topic, please?

You don't think a candidate's tax policy (or potential tax policy) is on topic or worthy of discussion for a presidential election campaign?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not American, huh?

Extremely American: so much so that I recall prior candidates for the office making various tax promises, and not being able to fulfill them because they didn't control Congress. I'd prefer they stick to talking about what they can actually do, not what they hope others will do.

 

[acbytesla]

Extremely American: so much so that I recall prior candidates for the office making various tax promises, and not being able to fulfill them because they didn't control Congress. I'd prefer they stick to talking about what they can actually do, not what they hope others will do.

Congress turns over every two years. Presidential candidates have no idea what kind of Congress they will be dealing with.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That is making the assumption that what is good for the State is good for the people.

That's a decision to be made on the Spending, not the Taxing side.

Some government spending is not just good, it's life saving.

 

[Orphia Nay]

You don't think a candidate's tax policy (or potential tax policy) is on topic or worthy of discussion for a presidential election campaign?

I do.

But a lot of this hasn't been about the Harris policy but economic theory and tax in general, more suited to a new thread in the Economics and Business. Harris hasn't been mentioned in the last couple of pages.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can we get back to the topic, please?

Wealth inequality is the only real topic of the election: votes want to know under which candidate they will have more disposable income.