What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

[Atomic Playboy]

Raising the rates or removing the loopholes does not matter. The "real" tax amount being over the cost of hiding your money will give you the incentive to hide your money.

I think what you are trying to say is that if we end the ability for people to hide their money, wont we thus increase revenue? The problem is that it assumes that the cost of doing so is lower than the tax revenue. Here is another example.

Say I take all my money, and buy foreign stocks in foreign markets through a company I control that is incorporated outside of the US. I then use that company and its profits to pay me 1 million $ a year, even though the company is making 20 million $ a year. How do you stop that? Do you then say any US citizen cannot run a company that buys foreign stocks? It gets far too complicated and there will always be ways around those laws.

Its a catch 22. If the world finds cheap ways to hide money, then what do you make the effective tax rate? If you keep taxes above the cost to hide money, then you lose out on taxes. I dont know the solution, but I can say that raising the tax burden will not increase tax revenue 1:1.

I was merely pointing out that one of the arguments people make whenever you mention raising tax rates on the rich is "but then the rich will take all their money and leave" and that seems patently absurd. You're crafting scenarios that wouldn't apply to the vast majority of rich people regardless; incorporating overseas and only investing in foreign companies? OK, that might work for someone whose wealth is primarily in investments, but not for athletes or movie stars who draw a salary for performances in the United States, or operators of hotels / casinos / resorts in the United States, or manufacturers in the United States, or really any CEOs of businesses that employ people in the United States.

I'm not denying that there are loopholes in the tax code now that rich people take advantage of to lower their tax bill. Nor am I agreeing with bshole's assertion that we need mammoth taxes on the mega-wealthy. But I'm sick and tired of this fear-mongering nonsense that if we raise taxes on the rich, they're all going to leave. No they won't. That is bullshit. There is ALWAYS going to be huge amounts of money available in selling to the consumer market in the United States, even if CEOs see their income taxed at a higher rate. At no point would we ever see income taxes so onerous that wealthy people decide they'd rather opt out than participate.

 

[fskimospy]

So two things. If I am reading that right, the top half is paying more in taxes then their income no? Second is what I said before about the wealthy hiding their money. The wealthy are paying to hide their money.

Yes, they are paying SLIGHTLY more than their income, but not a lot more. Certainly not 'far more'. The richest 1% pay about 1% more in total taxes than they get in total income, which to me is a negligible amount.

Check out this graph from the same site.

Sure, but shouldn't we look at all taxes instead of just federal ones? I mean your wallet doesn't care if that dollar taken out of it goes to federal, state, or local taxes. State and local taxes are highly regressive, and progressive federal taxation balances that out.

 

[fskimospy]

Now include transfer payments and the story becomes clearer, as well as the context that much of those "total taxes" are highly regressive ones like gasoline tax and state and local imposed sales taxes. Maybe if the progressive side stopped fucking over the poor so often the chart YOU presented wouldn't be so lopsided.

You're once again just looking at federal taxes instead of all taxes. If you look at state tax systems you'll once again see that more progressive states generally have more progressive taxes, so the opposite of what you're saying.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

I know you think that by not giving the rich more money that progressives are fucking over the poor, but that's your problem with math, not mine.

 

[realibrad]

I was merely pointing out that one of the arguments people make whenever you mention raising tax rates on the rich is "but then the rich will take all their money and leave" and that seems patently absurd. You're crafting scenarios that wouldn't apply to the vast majority of rich people regardless; incorporating overseas and only investing in foreign companies? OK, that might work for someone whose wealth is primarily in investments, but not for athletes or movie stars who draw a salary for performances in the United States, or operators of hotels / casinos / resorts in the United States, or manufacturers in the United States, or really any CEOs of businesses that employ people in the United States.

I'm not denying that there are loopholes in the tax code now that rich people take advantage of to lower their tax bill. Nor am I agreeing with bshole's assertion that we need mammoth taxes on the mega-wealthy. But I'm sick and tired of this fear-mongering nonsense that if we raise taxes on the rich, they're all going to leave. No they won't. That is bullshit. There is ALWAYS going to be huge amounts of money available in selling to the consumer market in the United States, even if CEOs see their income taxed at a higher rate. At no point would we ever see income taxes so onerous that wealthy people decide they'd rather opt out than participate.

Im not crafting things that dont happen. First, let me say that much of the tops wealth come from investments and not income. Hiding investments is not too hard once you have the money.

I agree that a raise in say 10% wont cause all the rich to leave. What it will do is give them more reason to hide their money. So long as the US is not a shithole people will stay.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How many other countries have you been to? Oh yeah, zero. You've made that COMPLETELY obvious by now if you think income inequality is anywhere near other countries.

Liberal media sure does like to spin you up don't think? How does that hand feel that's controlling you like the puppet you are?

He didn't say all countries, he said industrialized countries.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/global-inequality-how-the-u-s-compares/

 

[glenn1]

You're once again just looking at federal taxes instead of all taxes. If you look at state tax systems you'll once again see that more progressive states generally have more progressive taxes, so the opposite of what you're saying.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

I know you think that by not giving the rich more money that progressives are fucking over the poor, but that's your problem with math, not mine.

Your statement doesn't reflect reality. Even if you account for differences in property taxes then states like NY still have regressive tax systems.

Besides, even using the example of your city the NYC sales tax of 8.875% is now a progressive tax? And NYC resident tax brackets sure look progressive also

0 - 21,600 = 2.907%
21,000 - 45,000 = 3.543%
45,000 - 90,000 = 3.591%
90,000 - 500,000 = 3.648%
500,000 + = 3.876%

So what you consider "progressive tax" is a difference of one-tenth of a percent (11.2 basis points) between someone making minimum wage and someone making twenty times the income at $450k. Add in the NY State taxes that aren't very progressive either except at the top end.

 

[fskimospy]

Your statement doesn't reflect reality. Even if you account for differences in property taxes then states like NY still have regressive tax systems.

You are confusing average tax burden with the progressivity of the tax system. They are two totally different things. You could have low tax burden with low progressivity or high tax burden with high progressivity.

You don't appear to understand the images you're linking.

Besides, even using the example of your city the NYC sales tax of 8.875% is now a progressive tax? And NYC resident tax brackets sure look progressive also

0 - 21,600 = 2.907%
21,000 - 45,000 = 3.543%
45,000 - 90,000 = 3.591%
90,000 - 500,000 = 3.648%
500,000 + = 3.876%

So what you consider "progressive tax" is a difference of one-tenth of a percent (11.2 basis points) between someone making minimum wage and someone making twenty times the income at $450k. Add in the NY State taxes that aren't very progressive either except at the top end.

Ahhh, so now your argument is that New York isn't progressive ENOUGH, when just a minute ago you said they were fucking over the poor. Not to mention that the rich get a lot of capital gains income which NYS taxes at almost 9%, higher than almost any state. You shouldn't try and compile stats about the relative progressivity of a state's tax system unless you understand it better.

By the way, I agree that they aren't progressive enough. They are still substantially more progressive than conservative states, however. With luck, we can make state and federal taxes more progressive! Aren't you excited?

 

[NoStateofMind]

So if that's what we've already got (in a stable situation) why do you want to swap it for a similar but unstable situation?

There's nothing 'stable' about the world you cling to. Look at the middle east and tell me it's stable and I'll show you a liar. As long as people believe that political authority is legitimate it will continue.

How are you going to stop "Land grabs, resource theft/control and subjugation of other people" in your political system?

Even after being told it isn't a political system and then proceed to call it one I have to question whether you have the intellectual ability to grasp such a thing.

No it's not. It's a nonsensical series of dysfunctional ideas that have no chance of working in the real world. But I was trying to be polite. What would you rather I call it? "That daft bullshit that the kids are into now"?

That's an opinion from someone who admitedly hasn't thought about it much more than 5 minutes. You really want me to take you seriously? haha

Go on then you tell me. Bonus marks for private courts and charitable donations from corporations to keep them going.

It doesn't work that way. You can't be spoon fed knowledge and expect it to mean anything. You have to do the intellectual work on your own. The state likes to take care of you and think for you. Anarchism (voluntarism) requires the mental fortitude to work through your questions/mental inconsistencies. You want the prize but don't want the work. That's what the state is for and since you'd rather remain in ignorance I suspect you'll stay there with a haughty attitude.

 

[dank69]

...



Even after being told it isn't a political system and then proceed to call it one I have to question whether you have the intellectual ability to grasp such a thing.




...

How about you answer the question instead of deflecting into a meaningless debate about what constitutes a political system?

 

[OverVolt]

How about you answer the question instead of deflecting into a meaningless debate about what constitutes a political system?

Well to be fair this whole thread is a meaningless debate because Sanders can't pay for any of his reforms.

 

[dank69]

Well to be fair this whole thread is a meaningless debate because Sanders can't pay for any of his reforms.

Yet most other first-world nations have universal healthcare and are doing just fine.

 

[antihelten]

Yes, they are paying SLIGHTLY more than their income, but not a lot more. Certainly not 'far more'. The richest 1% pay about 1% more in total taxes than they get in total income, which to me is a negligible amount.

I might be misreading your post here, but this is incorrect, The top 1% is not paying more than their income in taxes (this would entail an effective tax rate above 100%), they are however paying a higher ratio (i.e. effective tax rate) of their income in taxes (this may be what you meant).

Remember that the vertical axis on graph in question is in relative numbers (percentage of total national income/tax paid), but the underlying absolute numbers for income and tax is quite different. Roughly $9 Trillion is earned in total personal income nationally and $2.5 Trillion is paid in taxes.

The graph is based on these numbers from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:

So the top 1% pays an average effective tax rate of 29%, whereas the middle 20% pays an average of 25%. Not really a huge difference imho, but others may disagree.

Edit: Replaced calculations with numbers from original source.

 

[fskimospy]

You are misreading my post. As the chart says, the top 1% pay approximately 1% more of the total tax base than they get in total income.

I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well to be fair this whole thread is a meaningless debate because Sanders can't pay for any of his reforms.

Mere speculation. If we can give up our lingering coldwar headset & Neocon ambitions of world hegemony by military means we'll be able to allocate resources differently.

 

[antihelten]

You are misreading my post. As the chart says, the top 1% pay approximately 1% more of the total tax base than they get in total income.

I thought that was pretty clear.

Thing is the top 1% does not pay 1% more of the total tax base than they get in total income. They pay 1% more than they get in relative income.

Either way, this is just semantics on my side, as we are obviously referring to the same thing anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Thing is the top 1% does not pay 1% more of the total tax base than they get in total income. They pay 1% more than they get in relative income.

This is not correct. The scale for both is the same. I would suggest you go read that chart more closely.

 

[cubby1223]

Yet most other first-world nations have universal healthcare and are doing just fine.

Yup. Doing just fine

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/11/376384632/overcrowded-hospitals-overwhelm-uks-national-health-service

Apologies for linking to an ultra-right-wing-nutjob website.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[antihelten]

This is not correct. The scale for both is the same. I would suggest you go read that chart more closely.

The scale is the same for both since it's a relative scale, but the underlying number that the relative scale refers to is not the same for the two.

In the case of income, 100% is equal to $9 trillion. In the case of taxes 100% is equal to $2.5 trillion.

 

[ivwshane]

Yup. Doing just fine

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/11/376384632/overcrowded-hospitals-overwhelm-uks-national-health-service

Apologies for linking to an ultra-right-wing-nutjob website.

What is it that you are implying here? The hospitals are overwhelmed with the influx of elderly people, are you under the impression that a private health care system wouldn't experience the same issue?

 

[fskimospy]

The scale is the same for both since it's a relative scale, but the underlying number that the relative scale refers to is not the same for the two.

In the case of income, 100% is equal to $9 trillion. In the case of taxes 100% is equal to $2.5 trillion.

I can't see why that would be relevant when comparing tax rates though.

 

[OverVolt]

..

whatever!

Remember how the issues don't actually matter because the group problem solving in politics is terrible. Yeah, that.

 

[ivwshane]

The blame would be on some 90's bill that limited the number of federally funded residency slots which we are about to hit the cap on, and the reluctance of medical schools to increase admissions. Need more doctors and surgeons, and better access to fairly priced drugs. Construction of a hospital is just a building.

If you want cheaper healthcare you increase the supply of healthcare. The way that they are so tied up in paper work right now the cost can go nowhere but up, or the quality goes down. You guys don't understand that for some reason. Nothing has changed with regard to healthcare capacity. If anything access decreased because smaller hospital systems are struggling to cop with EHR's and stuff like that. A large 10+ hospital system has an easier time affording the new required systems.

I agree completely. I don't think there should be a system/entity in place that arbitrarily limits the amount of qualified doctors there are.

That being said, I don't understand your post in relation to the post I was responding to.

 

[antihelten]

I can't see why that would be relevant when comparing tax rates though.

It's relevant because the graph in question doesn't tell you anything about tax rates.

It tells you how much each percentile accounts for as a whole, relative to the total income and total taxes paid (and again totals for income and taxes paid are very different).

To determine the effective tax paid by individuals based on the graph, you need to know what the underlying values are for total income and total taxes paid (or alternatively simply refer to the original source linked above).

 

[flexy]

Well to be fair this whole thread is a meaningless debate because Sanders can't pay for any of his reforms.

Yeah...I mean how can the poorest nation of the world, the USA, afford all this?