Yes, but consider this: single payer means you can't own the libs as much, and black people will get free stuff

The top 1% pay close to 40% of the income taxes. Thats actually a fact. I am led to believe the 1% don't pay anything.

Its actually absurd how much aggregate taxes business owners and wealthy people pay.

But we get pseudo intellectuals that are absolutely convinced they know more about us than we do.

bwahahahahahaha Mason is that you?

Tien does have a point in that people with high salaries pay through the roof. Sucks for you Tien you don't make most of your money from investment income and rent-seeking. Make better family choices next time.

The top 1% also own around 40% of the wealth in the country. That they pay close to 40% of taxes is not remotely surprising and given the nature of tax brackets it would actually be expected to be greater than their share of wealth.

In fact, when considered in terms relative to the spending power of the money being earned as opposed to simply absolute numbers, the top 1% pay significantly less as a proportion than most.

Tien - serious questions:

1) Do you understand the argument behind progressive taxation?

2) Do you agree that some level of progressive taxation is a good idea?

Don’t waste your time. These people are hopeless. It’s not about logic, see their frothy rage over Warren’s wealth tax over $50 million that the Tiens of the world will never pay.

This is the standard of living I had for about half of my childhood, but I would never demean the people in actual poverty by equating barely making it and scraping together whatever is left for the last few days of a month with real poverty. There are actual poor people out there who really really do need society to pick them up and lumping in people who have reliable jobs but are just on a super tight budget does those people a real disservice.


Also, there are people making <$50k who can afford a $10k one off expense and people making $500k who can't afford a $500 expense because they live exorbitantly enough that they are literally paycheck to paycheck.

Why do people even support a 2% wealth tax annually over a 1 time lump sum wealth tax? Is it literally because Elizabeth Warren said it and no one thought about the merits of other options?

If you believe wealth should be taxed then a one time tax makes a lot more sense. Tax billionaires at 50% (or something) in a one off.

You get the money it would take 15-25 years to collect (depending on growth rates) upfront to put to use. It is a lot better economically because it doesn't encourage frivolous spending by billionaires. Furthermore, you don't have the administrative burden of having to audit wealth on an annual basis. Even setting this up as a recurring tax of 25% every decade or whatever makes a lot more sense than an annual tax though its worse than a one off tax created with the goal for making amends for a poorly setup economic system.

There is simply no logical argument that makes a 2% annual tax a better idea than a larger one off tax as the 2% recurring tax will have much larger behavioral impacts, regulatory burdens, and other consequences that a one off tax doesn't suffer from. Its just a terrible idea all around.

Auditing the super wealthy is not an administrative burden - it is extremely profitable and has a great ROI. Unfortunately poor people can audited more frequently.

Feels like they ought to pay more than 40%.

I agree with you for the most part. we absolutely should have a one-off lump sum tax collection. and it should be way more than lol 2% for a lot of the rich.

oh and we should keep the 2% recurring as well.

And they don't tend to run Super PACs.

I’ve heard the opposite.

Super wealthy peoples’ lawyers >>>>>>>>> IRS’ lawyers

EDIT: yup
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pro...lth-audits/amp

When you see half of your income above the top bracket get vacuumed away, you don't stop and think to yourself "Boy gee I'm not getting taxed enough".

The top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined.

The top bracket earners are literally carrying an enormous % of the tax burden per capita.

The question was always about paying your "fair share". By actual definition the top 1% really do pay their fair share.


Yes to both questions.

We have already crossed the % threshold of a fair progressive tax rate.

The top bracket tax payers pay enough. That's just the bottom line.

I’ve read that article before (as an aside - ProPublica is probably doing the best journalism around). From the same article:


“The IRS’ new approach to taking on the superwealthy has been stymied. The wealthy’s lobbyists immediately pushed to defang the new team. And soon after the group was formed, Republicans in Congress began slashing the agency’s budget. As a result, the team didn’t receive the resources it was promised. Thousands of IRS employees left from every corner of the agency, especially ones with expertise in complex audits, the kinds of specialists the agency hoped would staff the new elite unit. The agency had planned to assign 242 examiners to the group by 2012, according to a report by the IRS’ inspector general. But by 2014, it had only 96 auditors. By last year, the number had fallen to 58.

The wealth squad never came close to having the impact its proponents envisaged. As Robert Gardner, a 39-year veteran of the IRS who often interacted with the team as a top official at the agency’s tax whistleblower office, put it, “From the minute it went live, it was dead on arrival.”

So yes; obviously under these circumstances such a force would be unsuccessful. Under normal circumstances, auditing a billionaire has a much higher ROI than someone using the EITC.

That may be true. And I don't know how far above and beyond you are into the top tax bracket...

But no matter what the rate is, I think you'll be okay.

You have a roof, food in the fridge, and any prescription drugs you might need.

The top 1% also have more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Given a progressive tax system the "fair share" should be a higher proportion in absolute terms from those at the top than it is from those at the bottom but in fact it's at best roughly the same and on average a slightly lower proportion.

You're not saying anything that isn't already known by pretty much anyone with an interest in this stuff. People aren't making the argument that the top bracket rates should be increased from a place of ignorance, they are doing it in the knowledge that despite the fact they are already paying a larger proportion, the reality is still that those at the top would be impacted far less by increases in tax rate than any other group.

I can see a President Warren investing heavily in IRS enforcement which could lead to a massive increase in federal revenues.

The trick might be giving contracts to elite tax fraud investigators as opposed to just hiring more salaried IRS agents. Get like a Blackwater unit rolling (only for good, not evil).

No ****. Wealthy people always feel compelled to explain that they like money as if the rest of us are just plum unfamiliar with the concept.

You should say that when you search GoFundMe for "kidney" or "surgery", though. Or when you take a quick trip to the Wikipedia page for "guillotine". For ****'s sake.

You're lucky we let you keep any of your money at all.

I mean they proly won't get to when the real sht hits the fan. They gonna feel pretty dumb for not just going with Bernie plan.

what chu gonna do when BERNIEMANIA runs wild on u, brotha!?

Feels like AOC just gave the Kiss of Death to Bernie, but **** it he was a distant 3rd anyway, leggo.

So finish the thought for us here. The top 1% should pay close to __% of the income taxes.