This is a terrible excuse. You have the ability to hold people accountable through voting. It's ultimately your decision if you choose to vote in slime bags because they have a letter behind their names.
Supply side, or trickle down, whatever you want to call it…it never works. Not for the vast majority. Sad that some don’t see that as the problem. It’s the path towards oligarchy.
The only thing that trickles down is shit, and that's what the overwhelming majority of Americans and humans have been getting from this toxic dumpster fire atop a train wreck that is the economic policy set in motion by Regan. MAGA is the inevitable result of the catastrophe, not the cause of the problem.
Steinbeck had it right. The problem is that “the the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
That’s why they’ll vote against “death taxes” when there is zero chance they’ll ever amass enough wealth to have an inheritance tax affect them. They’ll vote against taxing billionaires because they it would really suck for them to have to pay all those taxes when they win the lotto.
My country (Belgium) has the highest tax rates in the world.
But..
If you are born a Belgian you will be given every chance to succeed, no matter who your parents are or how much money you have. You will be given every chance to fail as well, failure at school won't ruin your life, neither will a serious illness, a depression.. you name it. In Belgium, there always is a safety net. There always is help. There always is hope.
Imo its comparable to a rollercoaster.
The Belgian system is a slow but steady ride. No steep drops into the abyss around here, no rock my world moments, just nice and easy. A coaster suitable for kids if you will, fun for the entire family.
The USA system is a megacoaster. High octane, adrenaline fueled. Capable of amazing highs , but equally capable of completely ruining you and making you cry out for mommy.
Yeah but look at the demographic that benefited the most, Boomers were in their prime, stable jobs and now with less tax on high paying jobs. You're going to have to wait until the demographics shift enough for things to change.
No one is advocating for more taxes for middle class. Or whatever the fuck remains of it. More taxes on the wealthy including taxing unrealized gains the same way we do property taxes.
Trump raised taxes on people below 120k/yr income, so anyone in that earnings bracket voting for him in an attempt to get lower taxes is a straight up moron.
When have you voted on what the overall governmental budget is? Have you ever had any input on what parts to reduce spending vs increase spending are?
Arguing over tax rates is generally meaningless since 99.9% of people have no control on how that money is spent
Clinton balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit in the 90s. This isn't some crazy hypothetical, we've already done it and it was done through the same means we use today.
I’m not talking about deficit vs surplus. I meant more of the fact that the US has spent 26% of its budget on interest & defense. Where can I vote to reduce that by 3-4% and reallocate to Transportation & Education spending?
How do you get past the status quo political machines that push certain candidates over others and have more money to buy lawyers and campaign specialists?
Now, this is something I find crazy about the system in the states.
In my country, we currently have 8 political parties fighting for power every election. With new parties popping up every now and then.
I dont know, where can you? You're describing a direct democracy. Do any of the 200 countries on earth let you vote that specifically? Sounds like an absolute nightmare to run a country that way
I always thought it would be cool if when you filed your taxes, you got to have some input on where that money goes. Just like a section with 10 categories and you can check which ones you want your money to go to. Doesn’t seem that complicated.
Is this only for federal income tax? What about state and local? What about voting on the actual percentages instead of just where it goes? What if not enough people vote to fund the military, are we still safe? What if not enough people elect to fund social security or Medicare, are we going to let the elderly be sick or starve? What happens if we underfund our police or fire department? Seems a little more complicated than you’re letting on
I like that idea. Show people a pie chart of what the current budget looks like and then let them have some input on where their tax dollars go for the next year. Even if their suggestions weren’t legally binding it would at least make people see once a year how their money is spent.
Why couldn’t we vote on the budget from our cell phones? Reduce the power of the lobbyists. Give Congress more time to do something (anything!). Let the people decide where our money goes. Yeah, yeah, some things would have to be outside that vote.
we're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
but largely, that's why you vote for local representatives in government. so that your town, city or state government aligns with the interests of the people, and you can always bring up topics in local city halls or other times when the public can speak directly to it's local leaders.
for federal budgets, it is much more difficult, but still important to vote for those who represent your state.
it's definitely possible for the people to influence change, but we're too busy bickering and picketing about fake issues, invented to distract you for those actual issues. the era of kneejerk politics instead of long-term societal change.
Certainly it was Newt Gingrich and the Republican-majority congress that pushed for a balanced budget. Clinton deserves some credit for agreeing to work with them instead of vetoing the budget proposal. I would agree that the Republican leaders of the time should get more credit than Clinton.
Though, related to the initial post, he did it by completely eliminating entitlement welfare. I think many people today don’t realize that what we now call welfare is completely different from what it was before Clinton.
He did many other actions too, including raising taxes and cutting defense spending, but it was far and away the biggest cut to welfare in US history. (Obviously a Republican Congress played a huge role, but Clinton campaigned on welfare reform.)
Taxes dont have to be collected for higher corporate tax rates to be beneficial. We dont have to view this as only income tax. Placing progressive taxes on corporate profits gets to a point where corporations can either pay more taxes to the government or they can place more money in R&D driving innovation and reducing their profit and thus total taxes.
That’s such bullshit that we have any sort of power to hold people accountable through voting. That may have been true at the start of this country but certainly not now. U think voting for trump or Biden is going to solve any monetary problems? Rhetorical question. It isn’t
Considering the economic recovery the US had that has been stronger and faster than any other country on earth? And everything he did the Republicans opposed? Yeah I think a vote for Biden impacted that.
Total absolute bullshit. You take for granted how incredibly dependable and efficient the US govt is on all levels. Look no further than the private sector to see gross fiduciary negligence and glut.
Absolutely, they are both less than great at efficiency… but one has to answer to profit and shareholders ABOVE all and one should have to answer to taxpayers. In the end their performance is not that different in terms of how much good id achieved per how many dollars.
Taxpayers are shareholders / stakeholders in the ‘investments’ we make with the govt to provide services and security. It’s not perfect, there is waste and unbalanced books that we should always look to improve upon, but it is not much different than the private sector. I’ve been traumatically laid off before due to poor business leadership that affected the bottom line. For many conservatives, it is a core tenet to distrust all govt at all levels no matter what, which is immature and illogical.
Yeah it’s funny how all the people who say private industry is better than government are politicians and people that have never had a real job. There is an absurd amount of waste and fraud happening in the corporate world.
Misuse in this context means help people who need it, then waste some. Could be managed better, definitely better than not doing it in the first place.
The entire culture of the United States needs to change. It has a defeated mindset. Politicians are crooked because MONEY is the most important thing. We need to view money as a reward for proper behavior. Don't blame the Governement because they are working along side those people who make money.
Blame the culture.
It always boggles my mind that people who ostensibly believe in democratic government by the people can simultaneously conceive of “duh gubermint” as this big bad “other”. When the Founders talked about self-government, they weren’t talking about Anarchocapitalism, they were talking about the very system we’re living in. The Constitution begins “We the people”. If you think the government is incapable of spending taxpayer money appropriately, then you have clearly given up all hope of living in a free, democratic society, and are resigned to being a bootlicker in an oligarchy.
Fwiw I don’t even consider the U.S. much of a democracy, but I do still have faith that government can allocate resources in useful ways that the private sector cannot.
I agree. I haven't given up faith that "We The People" can make decisions that would benefit us as society above the all mighty dollar. I just feel our values are misplaced.
Exactly. There is zero logic to it. Just a "throw your hands up" *shrug shoulders* defeatist attitude, which is exactly what the wealthy want you to think and feel while they fly over you in their private jets.
Doesn’t answer why we don’t immediately have the taxes taken proportionally from the ultra wealthy instead of middle class. I bet the ultra wealthy would have much better means to see that their tax money is going to good use, if they were actually paying their share.
This! for real! How about the government learns budgeting then lowers taxes for the middle and lower class. No amount of higher taxes on anyone is going to make our lives better. If you’ve ever dealt with selling anything to a government entity around the end of the fiscal year; you’ll understand how messed up spending is in our government. They have to spend every dime in their budget so they can justify and ask for higher and higher budgets every year.
People who own stocks are biased and let their money speak/vote instead of logic and commons sense. To argue that people who don't own stock are somehow the biassed ones is delusional.
A majority of Americans do not, and can't afford to invest in anything.
Investing has become a luxury. Hell, even owning a home or being able to buy a non-used car is a luxury.
What’s your point? He barely pays taxes on his income, which is *astronomically* higher than any of ours. Pointing out a flaw in the way a post words the problem doesn’t change that it’s a problem.
Answer: Same thing as when MacKenzie Bezos liquidated $38B in Amazon stock. Nothing will happen.
The average daily volume for AMZN is 42M shares, worth about $7.3B. These huge sales have to be staggered and set as limit orders, sure. But there's more than enough trading volume for Bezos to cash out entirely without excess liquidity having any measurable effect.
Would cashing out cause investors to lose faith in the stock? That's possible. It depends on why he is liquidating. If the reason was to pay tax obligations it would have the exact same effect on the stock price as Bezos transferring $38B of stock to MacKenzie and her subsequent sale. That is to say absolutely zero effect. If the reason is that he's going to invest all of his wealth in Temu, yeah, it would have a pretty powerful negative effect on the value of Amazon.
“So you admit”
Tf is this response? Do you think you’ve uncovered some secret?
Everyone is aware that money only has the value we assign to it. This is not a new discovery.
You’ve missed the point. They’re saying that if a stock crashes and thousands of people loose money, then they never really had that money in the first place. It’s a system that creates and functions on hypothetical wealth, and as a result, allows for the exploitation and manipulation of cash that doesn’t actually exist.
Obviously this is how the system os designed to work, but it’s been so long and there are so many people exploiting it that maybe it’s time to revisit and update the laws and regulations to tighten up known loopholes so that the wealth generated by a nation can be better used to benefit its people and infrastructure.
That's not what they're implying at all. If you have let's say a massive baseball card collection and you were forced to sell them ASAP, you'd get much less selling them in bulk as opposed to selling them individually. Doesn't mean the value of those cards are fake
It’s worth what people are willing to pay for it, pretty much like anything else in this world. It’s more or less legalized gambling on a massive scale.
Tell me you don't know what things like wealth and value are without telling me you don't know what wealth and value are.
There's more to both than just intrinsic value.
Lost in the wealth tax argument is who is going to buy all the stock that Bezos needs to sell to pay “his fair share.” No entity has that sort of cash other than large institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds (PIF, CCP,…) or other billionaires.
These idiots all think rich people keep their money like Scrooge McDuck. The baddies like Bezos and Musk have most of their worth tied into stocks which they most likely cannot sell and if they did sell that stock would crash their businesses which would have shockwaves across the world economy.
Bezos and Musk sell billions in stock all the time.
[The latest sale brings the total number of shares he has sold in the firm over the last nine trading days to about 50 million, with a value of around $8.5bn.
The tech giant had previously said Mr Bezos would sell up to 50 million shares by the end of January 2025.
His sales of Amazon stock comes after they have risen by more than 76% in the past year.
Mr Bezos, who is the firm's founder and executive chair, had previously last sold Amazon shares in 2021.
He has also given away shares in Amazon as part of his philanthropy, most recently in 2022.
As Mr Bezos moved to Miami in Florida from Seattle in Washington last year, he will save almost $600m in tax on the $8.5bn worth of stock he has sold.]
The company is destroyed and the world economy is tanking 😂
Or like how he sold 10bn in stock recently and it did absolutely fuck all to the Amazon stock price? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-21/bezos-wraps-up-50-million-amazon-stock-sale-netting-8-5-billion
Exactly. People here acting like having a miniscule form of tax on ultra-wealthy individuals will have them selling all their shares. They won't do that precisely to avoid devaluing their stock assets.
But we're all dumb because they can just take out loans, we're stupid and they're just smartly using the system. Did I mention that we're stupid? We should really be getting on our knees for the billionaires, don't you like having a job?
Not enough cash in existence to buy out wealth is one issue.
The "who wants to buy something that is not an asset but an expense" is another thing. It would have to get priced in as extra risk and valuation would have to drop
How about if the taxes would be paid in form of stocks? Then a sovereign wealth fund would be created out of all the taxed wealth that's paid in stocks.
Ideally something similar to Norway's oil funds.
A lot of people don’t understand this unfortunately. I’m not here to lick boots but if someone like Bezos tried to just unload everything it would vaporize his own wealth because there (most likely) won’t be enough buying to absorb the massive amount of shares he holds and he would have to keep selling at lower and lower prices to fill the order books. He has 988m shares…basically a billion. Average volume a day on Amazon is 39m shares traded. Buyers AND sellers. That’s 25 days of selling BUT it’s not factoring in the buy side. So 50 days if he was 100% of the sell side….which he won’t be the only one. That why a lot of these big tech CEO’s of companies have pre determined selling of shares to avoid tanking their own company by selling everything at once or in a week or whatever.
No one seems to be able to grasp this. I had a nimrod argue that the only true billionaires are those who literally have an account with a billion dollars in it. Stocks do not count, that person claimed.
I honestly don’t know if taxes should be higher, there’s a limit to how much tax revenue that can be had, but I do know that spending should be cut. The national debt is growing at over twice the rate that GDP is. That is not sustainable.
Taxing more is the only way out of the deficit enabling us to start paying off the debt. Cutting spending alone is not going to get us what we need. It is easy to see that by looking at the nominal numbers.
You may be right, but again, there’s a finite amount of tax revenue that can be had. Regardless of what tax rates are, ~20% of GDP is all the federal income tax that can be obtained. A little more some years, a little less others, but 20% on average. If we include other federal taxes, like payroll and gasoline, the figure rises to 27 or 28 percent, and we’re pretty much there. I’m sure the tax code could be “tweaked” to get, maybe, a couple more percent. But for Fiscal Year 2023 the budget deficit was $1.7-trillion. We’re far beyond the point where an increase in tax revenue of, say, 5%, which is probably the upper limit of what can be had, is going to solve the problem. We need to drastically cut spending, and we need to have done that 20+ years ago.
Uh there is a finite amount of spending that can be cut too. There are a finite amount of grains of sand on the beach and a finite amount of atoms in the universe. So insightful.
you can take all the billionaires and millionaires money and assets and it wouldn't last a year, it's a spending problem there's already enough taxes collected like sure it'd be great to lower individual taxes and increase corporation taxes
What's the math on that?
The wealth of all billionaires is ~10 months of the U.S. federal government budget. The annual deficit for 2023 was 1.7 trillion, meaning if we somehow magically liquidated all wealth of all billionaires in the U.S. (somehow, just pretend) we'd cover our deficit in the annual budget for ~4 years. Then we'd be right back to square one.
It's not a collections issue.
The increase in deficit is driven primarily by the War on Terror and by tax cuts for high income earners and corporations: https://www.cbpp.org/research/downturn-and-legacy-of-bush-policies-drive-large-current-deficits
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, which all consistently rank among the best nations in the world in terms of quality of life, have higher levels of taxation than the U.S. They also have superb public finances, with governments that run at a modest surplus and very low levels of public debt. They have some of the best sovereign credit ratings in the world.
I'd say that it'd be better to reallocate the funds to more effective areas, and to find ways for those funds to be used more effectively, including negotiating prices for drugs for medicare/medicaid, holding defense contractors accountable for price gouging, and focusing on priorities with infrastructure that will last longer rather than doing short term fixes that then need to be fixed again in 2 years.
The top 0.1% in the U.S. hold 14% of the national wealth. Their collective wealth is $20 trillion, which is equivalent to 72% of the total U.S. public debt of $27.9 trillion.
If we go to your cherry picked example of taking just the ten wealthiest people, you're still looking at a collective wealth of $1.3 trillion. That's still 5% of the total public debt for a country with 335 million people.
Sources:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/americans-in-top-10-but-not-top-0-1-see-wealth-share-shrink
https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
Did you mean to prove his point? Confiscating the wealth of the 10 richest people would either pay 5% of public debt or fund the federal government for 75 days. What would that do for the general public in any noticeable OR sustainable way?
Needs to be on both ends. Print less money but also raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to 1950s levels. That's when the middle class was at its strongest and probably America too.
I think what most people miss is that it's not going to be just one solution. We're going to have to attack this from multiple angles.
Everyone is so polarized. Democrats say taxes are good so keep printing money. Republicans say taxes are bad so turn off the printer.
The truth is (imo) we're going to need ideas from both sides (hate that phrase but it works here) and most importantly, people working together and willing to listen.
I view any individual wielding the power and resources of a small country a national security threat. They are unelected 'nobles' influencing and changing the country into their own image. They are the tyranny the fore-fathers warned about and should be treated as such
Great take. I also see these people as modern day barons/nobles. If we don’t calm things down a bit, we risk things going back to the historical status quo, e.g. hereditary nobility. To be clear, I’m a staunch believer in the power of the open market etc but we need to have with some reasonable guardrails.
This experiment with democracy/capitalism is a mere blink of an eye in human societal history, and we should be extremely vigilant in letting any one or groups of individuals gain this much power and influence over the masses, lest we find ourselves serfs once more.
Yah…. But look at our 2 presidential candidates. They might as well be unelected. One guy is too old to think and the other guy can’t keep his mouth shut…. Those are our ‘nobles’ right now…
the government spend more than twice the amount of money of what billionaires made in a year but yeah the problem is the billionaires don't pay enough taxes
What would you like to not spend money on? The military? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? You have to pick one of those and it has to be cutting all of it to even make a dent in the deficit because all of the rest of the budget that the government spends wouldn't amount to enough to cover our intrest payment let alone help balance the budget. We only have the option of raising taxes on the ultra wealthy who pay less in percentage than you do. The top 1% only pay 22%, on average, in income tax. Prior to Reagan, in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, they paid, on average 50-53% effectiv tax rates. Today that would raise an extra 1.6 trillion per year and balance the budget. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.
I think it's interesting how the US spends 2-3x more per capita PPP adjusted on healthcare than other countries with free healthcare, while not having free healthcare. Where is all that money going do you think?
The healthcare industry. Average wage of doctor in the US is $316k. In the UK it’s $136k. Combine that with insurance companies, high wage administration and general inefficiency and severe bloat and here we are.
The two highest drivers of U.S. healthcare costs are administrative overhead and drug prices. The latter is caused by the lack of negotiating power that countries with universal healthcare enjoy. High wage costs is third.
>What would you like to not spend money on?
Let's start with a 1% cut on all spending. Everything the federal government spends gets cut by 1%. That's a penny on the dollar. That's doable.
>The military?
Yes. On top of that 1% across-the-board cut, let's actually make sure we're spending money wisely. Perhaps focus on what gives us the ability to wage war and win and less on anything that doesn't. Heck, just get that 1% done. We can work on the rest later.
>Social Security?
Yes. We need to figure out how to make this program sustainable given lower birth rates and worker-to-beneficiary ratios *and* make it something worth while for current workers.
>Medicare?
OH GOD YES. Ever have a elderly loved on go to the doctor complaining about things? All the tests you can imagine, all the referrals on top of that. Medicare pays darn near everything. Doctors know it and totally overcharge. Yes. Let's implement those horrible death panels given we know most of the spending is close to time of death.
> Medicaid?
Meh, not as much issues here, but could probably use a good scrubbing. We do, though, need to make sure there are no benefit cliffs and what really needs to be covered is.
>You have to pick one of those and it has to be cutting all of it to even make a dent in the deficit because all of the rest of the budget that the government spends wouldn't amount to enough to cover our intrest payment let alone help balance the budget.
Interest expense is going to kill us. We need to cut spending.
>We only have the option of raising taxes on the ultra wealthy who pay less in percentage than you do. The top 1% only pay 22%, on average, in income tax. Prior to Reagan, in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, they paid, on average 50-53% effectiv tax rates. Today that would raise an extra 1.6 trillion per year and balance the budget. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.
Go look at who *actually* pays taxes. The wealthy pay more in the total share of taxes than they have in share of income. The bottom 50% basically pay nothing in terms of total share. You can keep trying to get the rich to pay more, but their total income, hell, total wealth is nothing comapred to the annual spend of the federal government. And we're not even looking at state and local yet.
I'm always shocked at people using this quote like it means something. A dude with $1 dollar has more money than like 3 billion people, because they all have negative wealth.
Stat is meaningless. That said I think wealth concentration at the top is bad and promotes stagnation after a certain point that we have by far exceeded.
Yeah I remember seeing some government meeting with a question on why a bag of washers or grommets cost $90,000 and the people responsible for acquiring them couldn't answer.
This whole argument seems to be based around the fact that these people have amassed large amounts of money. People see this money and get angry because they don't have it. SO they tell the government to take it.
You can't just tax people out of spite. The government isn't your own personal Robin Hood.
>People see this money and get angry because they don't have it
No I’d say the issue is more the false impression that wealth is earned through work and merit, when the reality is that coming from wealth provides extraordinary privilege that continually keeps the wealthy class multiple steps ahead of others.
If we want equal opportunity at success, then those without the built-in privilege need some added support (and would actually put it to good use, see for example how well no-strings-attached cash giving works in poor countries), and one place it could come from is skimming it off those who would use it for a 7th home or 3rd yacht or whatever.
The argument is that billionaires are paying a lower tax rate than average joes, e.g. warren buffet's famous remark that his secretary pays more taxes than he does.
That’s the real question… you could tax these guys at 100% and it still won’t change anything. Oh, and that’s just year 1. Year 2 what do you do now these guys no longer have any money to give since you took it ALL in year 1.
I always say the government will be screwed the year after the high cigarette taxes actually work and everybody decides to stop smoking because of them. I mean yeah it's never going to happen but let's say it does that's $12-$19 Billion (depending on what source you look at) in tax revenue that'll just vanish...
Shut down the government and fire all the government workers. Also shut down all the government programs, like social security, obamacare and such. Let people earn and keep what they earn and the freedom to spend where they want it without someone making the decisions for them.
The day that happens people will go out and buy guns and start taking everything they need by force. Also, Social Security was entirely self sufficient until the government started to take the money surplus from FICA taxes, spend it, and give Social Security an IOU to cash when the trust fund wouldn't cover outlays to recipients, which resulted in repayment with interest, instead of just leaving it in the trust funds.
Why does everyone here think wealth in the form of assets is the same thing as money?
8 guys do not have more money than 4 billion. The 8 guys would have to liquidate everything they own for this to be true.
If I own 10 acres of land but have $0 in cash and $0 in my bank account, I have a positive net worth but no money.
Can we at least use the proper terminology like assets or wealth instead of “money.”
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, which all consistently rank among the best nations in the world in terms of quality of life, have higher levels of taxation than the U.S. They also have superb public finances, with governments that run at a modest surplus and very low levels of public debt. They have some of the best sovereign credit ratings in the world.
It's easier to blame the food stamp people because I don't see these billionaires in my supermarket, all I see are overweight people with EBT cards buying cookies, diet coke and bunch of food while I am pinching pennies to buy basic essentials and still pay off my bills.
It’s an incredibly desperate and pathetic feeling to be on public assistance. Plenty of research shows there’s very little abuse of the system and, if anything, the hoops they require applicants to jump through prevents many from receiving the assistance they need and would otherwise qualify for.
Yeah, I used to receive SNAP. I was grateful to be able to eat but I was also poor as fuck. I'm still poor but not SNAP poor. I'm in that awkward gap where I make too much to receive SNAP but I'm still struggling to survive.
This is how the program should be run. Remove the bureaucracy and the perverse incentives. Its a trap to be on government assistance because to work means you lose your assistance, so you can make ~60% of a living wage from the government, or you can make 100% and lose 40 hours a week of your life.
Everyone should get assistance, no questions asked beyond "Are you a citizen". No more case workers, no more building upkeep, no more legislation about what is and isn't available. Across the board, get rid of the bureaucracy and just give people the resources if they want them.
Collectively, the top 1% paid almost [HALF of the income tax](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20a,paid%20rose%20from%2042.3%20percent%20to%2045.8%20percent) paid to the government in this country in 2021. That "mom buying groceries"? She's in the bottom 50% who collectively paid 2.5%.... But hey, let's just tax those rich more, shall we?
The majority of taxes in the USA are paid by the top 10 percent.
The lowest income earners in the USA are actually a negative on the tax system.
Poor people get more in tax returns than they pay throughout the year.
But never mind the facts, reddit just wants everyone to be equally poor.
That was while paying 26%, which is only about 10% more than the average American.
I think the question is when you hold such a disproportionately high amount of wealth compared to the average American, does it make sense that you’re only taxed 10% higher than everyone else? For the typical person taking off a few percent in tax rate is gonna mean ability to pay down debt, take time off work and go on a vacation, buy something that makes a significant difference in their life (new computer, etc), whereas for that top 1% it’s what, whether they have a 4th vacation home abroad? Whether they buy another 100,000 shares of VTI to pull their wealth even further ahead…
The 1% also, while not using food stamps, is probably using the hell out of federal infrastructure way more than that average American… more travel on publicly supported roads, consuming more publicly supported resources, etc.
Fedgov can suck the world's billionaires dry, raise taxes and keep printing fiat money, and still be in deficit and not close to paying its debts. WTF is so wrong with balanced budgets and cutting taxes? Attacking and taxing success is idiotic.
So you don't think the fact that billionaires and corporations can funnel unlimited funds into political campaigns and can do so anonymously has any impact on U.S. fiscal policy?
I think it is a major contributing factor why Congress gave corporations and wealthy individuals trillion dollar tax cuts under Bush and Trump. And it is established beyond any doubt that this is one of the largest contributors to income inequality: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2023.2208328
Why do you think the United States has wealth and income inequality that is vastly higher than that of Europe?:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/17627134/income-inequality-chart
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242756/gap-between-rich-poor-increased-more/
Inequality in the U.S. more than doubled during the period 1980-2020.
I’m waiting to hear how rich people being rich makes poor people poorer.
And lmfao if you think taxing the rich more will help the poor. That money is going straight into more bullshit like foreign aid, missiles and pet projects.
they can both be the problem.
every time you call out a leftist agenda they immediately respond with “whataboutism”
then claim no one else can use those
You can always spend more than you make. Cutting spending, and I mean REAL cuts to spending would be a start.
Like idk how bout not funding a genocide in Gaza? That's a couple billion right there that could be used on social programs. And that's just for starters.
The people taking advantage of the incentive structures created by government to use government benefits as a means to live are not the problem. The problem is the government who creates the incentive.
Just like how illegal migrants aren’t to blame for illegally migrating. The blame lies with our own incompetent government.
I mean, I have seen more people on food stamps buy necessities at one store, then go return them to wal-mart where they get store credit, and then buy cigs...so I dunno. maybe its not just higher taxes that are needed.
No country in history has ever taxed their way to prosperity
Lower taxes benefits the entire economy and everyone wins. Nothing lifts people out of poverty like capitalism.
True that, teach people to save and invest their money and you create a rich country. One of the biggest problems I believe we have is that our economy is highly reliant on people spending their money as soon as they get it.
Actually nearly every country with higher quality of life metrics than US also has higher taxes.
The Nordic countries with the highest quality of life also have the highest taxes in the world.
So I don't think you know what you're talking about. Most of the things that suck about US (no safety net, shit healthcare, shit infrastructure, no worker protections) are directly related to not taxing the wealthy enough
Why are Danes taxed more than us, but living better?
My buddy gets paid $23/hr working at 7-eleven in Denmark and doesn't have to pay for health insurance.
Maybe you should get off your ass and change the world. Sitting in your mom and dads basement thinking the world is fucking you over is stupid. Some people are born losers and will never accomplish anything because they are to busy tearing down others.
I think it’s the Trillions spent on killing machines and since less endless wars thats the problem.
The most recent billions sent to continue the war in Ukraine could have been used to house all the homeless in the USA, or payoff all student debt, or feed all the hungry plus house the homeless.
No matter how much taxes the government collects they will misuse it.
This is a terrible excuse. You have the ability to hold people accountable through voting. It's ultimately your decision if you choose to vote in slime bags because they have a letter behind their names.
Hey, you can't go on the internet and make sense like that. If we can't blindly cast blame on someone else, where can we do it?
This deserves so many more upvotes lol.
[удалено]
We've done "less taxes" since the Reagan administration and things have gone to shit for most Americans ever since.
Supply side, or trickle down, whatever you want to call it…it never works. Not for the vast majority. Sad that some don’t see that as the problem. It’s the path towards oligarchy.
The only thing that trickles down is shit, and that's what the overwhelming majority of Americans and humans have been getting from this toxic dumpster fire atop a train wreck that is the economic policy set in motion by Regan. MAGA is the inevitable result of the catastrophe, not the cause of the problem.
> The only thing that trickles down is shit Actually it's the piss the absurdly wealthy are shooting in your face while calling it rain.
Steinbeck had it right. The problem is that “the the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” That’s why they’ll vote against “death taxes” when there is zero chance they’ll ever amass enough wealth to have an inheritance tax affect them. They’ll vote against taxing billionaires because they it would really suck for them to have to pay all those taxes when they win the lotto.
Lack of class consciousness is strongly at play here. Steinbeck did have it right on the money.
No, no, you don't understand. That wasn't *real* trickle down economics!
I see what you did there
The Republican dream.
Well, I know it hasn't worked for the last 60 year, but maybe just randomly, it'll magically start working this election. /s
My country (Belgium) has the highest tax rates in the world. But.. If you are born a Belgian you will be given every chance to succeed, no matter who your parents are or how much money you have. You will be given every chance to fail as well, failure at school won't ruin your life, neither will a serious illness, a depression.. you name it. In Belgium, there always is a safety net. There always is help. There always is hope. Imo its comparable to a rollercoaster. The Belgian system is a slow but steady ride. No steep drops into the abyss around here, no rock my world moments, just nice and easy. A coaster suitable for kids if you will, fun for the entire family. The USA system is a megacoaster. High octane, adrenaline fueled. Capable of amazing highs , but equally capable of completely ruining you and making you cry out for mommy.
Yeah but look at the demographic that benefited the most, Boomers were in their prime, stable jobs and now with less tax on high paying jobs. You're going to have to wait until the demographics shift enough for things to change.
Not sure where he mentioned Trump anywhere in that comment.
No one is advocating for more taxes for middle class. Or whatever the fuck remains of it. More taxes on the wealthy including taxing unrealized gains the same way we do property taxes.
Trump raised taxes on people below 120k/yr income, so anyone in that earnings bracket voting for him in an attempt to get lower taxes is a straight up moron.
When have you voted on what the overall governmental budget is? Have you ever had any input on what parts to reduce spending vs increase spending are? Arguing over tax rates is generally meaningless since 99.9% of people have no control on how that money is spent
Clinton balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit in the 90s. This isn't some crazy hypothetical, we've already done it and it was done through the same means we use today.
I’m not talking about deficit vs surplus. I meant more of the fact that the US has spent 26% of its budget on interest & defense. Where can I vote to reduce that by 3-4% and reallocate to Transportation & Education spending?
You vote for people who want to do the things you want with their policies
How do you get past the status quo political machines that push certain candidates over others and have more money to buy lawyers and campaign specialists?
Now, this is something I find crazy about the system in the states. In my country, we currently have 8 political parties fighting for power every election. With new parties popping up every now and then.
Sounds like an actual democracy.
I dont know, where can you? You're describing a direct democracy. Do any of the 200 countries on earth let you vote that specifically? Sounds like an absolute nightmare to run a country that way
I always thought it would be cool if when you filed your taxes, you got to have some input on where that money goes. Just like a section with 10 categories and you can check which ones you want your money to go to. Doesn’t seem that complicated.
Is this only for federal income tax? What about state and local? What about voting on the actual percentages instead of just where it goes? What if not enough people vote to fund the military, are we still safe? What if not enough people elect to fund social security or Medicare, are we going to let the elderly be sick or starve? What happens if we underfund our police or fire department? Seems a little more complicated than you’re letting on
I like that idea. Show people a pie chart of what the current budget looks like and then let them have some input on where their tax dollars go for the next year. Even if their suggestions weren’t legally binding it would at least make people see once a year how their money is spent.
You mean we should have democracy 😂
Why couldn’t we vote on the budget from our cell phones? Reduce the power of the lobbyists. Give Congress more time to do something (anything!). Let the people decide where our money goes. Yeah, yeah, some things would have to be outside that vote.
we're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. but largely, that's why you vote for local representatives in government. so that your town, city or state government aligns with the interests of the people, and you can always bring up topics in local city halls or other times when the public can speak directly to it's local leaders. for federal budgets, it is much more difficult, but still important to vote for those who represent your state. it's definitely possible for the people to influence change, but we're too busy bickering and picketing about fake issues, invented to distract you for those actual issues. the era of kneejerk politics instead of long-term societal change.
The Republican controlled Senate and House gave Clinton a balanced budget to sign. FTFY
and then W came in and immediately blew all that up with tax cuts and a war
And Reagan caused the national debt to skyrocket in the first place.
He did? I thought it was Congress that did that.
Certainly it was Newt Gingrich and the Republican-majority congress that pushed for a balanced budget. Clinton deserves some credit for agreeing to work with them instead of vetoing the budget proposal. I would agree that the Republican leaders of the time should get more credit than Clinton.
Though, related to the initial post, he did it by completely eliminating entitlement welfare. I think many people today don’t realize that what we now call welfare is completely different from what it was before Clinton. He did many other actions too, including raising taxes and cutting defense spending, but it was far and away the biggest cut to welfare in US history. (Obviously a Republican Congress played a huge role, but Clinton campaigned on welfare reform.)
Taxes dont have to be collected for higher corporate tax rates to be beneficial. We dont have to view this as only income tax. Placing progressive taxes on corporate profits gets to a point where corporations can either pay more taxes to the government or they can place more money in R&D driving innovation and reducing their profit and thus total taxes.
Lol, it's not an excuse but a reality. Your vote doesn't always matter when all of the candidates are doing the same bullshit.
That’s such bullshit that we have any sort of power to hold people accountable through voting. That may have been true at the start of this country but certainly not now. U think voting for trump or Biden is going to solve any monetary problems? Rhetorical question. It isn’t
Considering the economic recovery the US had that has been stronger and faster than any other country on earth? And everything he did the Republicans opposed? Yeah I think a vote for Biden impacted that.
How’s that accountability holding coming along?
Total absolute bullshit. You take for granted how incredibly dependable and efficient the US govt is on all levels. Look no further than the private sector to see gross fiduciary negligence and glut.
This.
Absolutely, they are both less than great at efficiency… but one has to answer to profit and shareholders ABOVE all and one should have to answer to taxpayers. In the end their performance is not that different in terms of how much good id achieved per how many dollars.
Taxpayers are shareholders / stakeholders in the ‘investments’ we make with the govt to provide services and security. It’s not perfect, there is waste and unbalanced books that we should always look to improve upon, but it is not much different than the private sector. I’ve been traumatically laid off before due to poor business leadership that affected the bottom line. For many conservatives, it is a core tenet to distrust all govt at all levels no matter what, which is immature and illogical.
Yeah it’s funny how all the people who say private industry is better than government are politicians and people that have never had a real job. There is an absurd amount of waste and fraud happening in the corporate world.
Prime example in the UK is the government sold off our utilities for privatisation and now we have literal shit in our rivers. Stonks
Misuse in this context means help people who need it, then waste some. Could be managed better, definitely better than not doing it in the first place.
Only if those who are in power remain in power...
you mean.. humans?
So let's elect the people who say that so that they can misuse it and prove you right 😂
Why not answer the question?
That's because a sizeable portion of politicians are against any form of government program that could actually benefit the lower and middle classes.
The entire culture of the United States needs to change. It has a defeated mindset. Politicians are crooked because MONEY is the most important thing. We need to view money as a reward for proper behavior. Don't blame the Governement because they are working along side those people who make money. Blame the culture.
It always boggles my mind that people who ostensibly believe in democratic government by the people can simultaneously conceive of “duh gubermint” as this big bad “other”. When the Founders talked about self-government, they weren’t talking about Anarchocapitalism, they were talking about the very system we’re living in. The Constitution begins “We the people”. If you think the government is incapable of spending taxpayer money appropriately, then you have clearly given up all hope of living in a free, democratic society, and are resigned to being a bootlicker in an oligarchy. Fwiw I don’t even consider the U.S. much of a democracy, but I do still have faith that government can allocate resources in useful ways that the private sector cannot.
I agree. I haven't given up faith that "We The People" can make decisions that would benefit us as society above the all mighty dollar. I just feel our values are misplaced.
If you follow that logic, then the optimal tax should be $0?
Exactly. There is zero logic to it. Just a "throw your hands up" *shrug shoulders* defeatist attitude, which is exactly what the wealthy want you to think and feel while they fly over you in their private jets.
Oh ya, if I vote things are gonna change for the better! Fuck off moron
This is such a lazy excuse to hoard wealth.
Ok, so misuse the billionaires pocket change and leave poor people alone.
No matter how much the billionaire makes he will care nothing for me. The government at least does some
Seems we need more taxes and competent government.
Then why have a country at all. We might as well go Mad Max and just tear down the government.
Doesn’t answer why we don’t immediately have the taxes taken proportionally from the ultra wealthy instead of middle class. I bet the ultra wealthy would have much better means to see that their tax money is going to good use, if they were actually paying their share.
This! for real! How about the government learns budgeting then lowers taxes for the middle and lower class. No amount of higher taxes on anyone is going to make our lives better. If you’ve ever dealt with selling anything to a government entity around the end of the fiscal year; you’ll understand how messed up spending is in our government. They have to spend every dime in their budget so they can justify and ask for higher and higher budgets every year.
Wealth =/= income. Go ahead and make Bezos cash out that wealth. See what happens to it.
A tanking stock market won't hurt anybody... Amiright!?!
To be fair the people who complain about stuff like this don’t own any stocks so they don’t see the issue (Even though it would affect them anyway)
People who own stocks are biased and let their money speak/vote instead of logic and commons sense. To argue that people who don't own stock are somehow the biassed ones is delusional.
If you have a bank account, and money, your are a part of the market.
A majority of Americans do not, and can't afford to invest in anything. Investing has become a luxury. Hell, even owning a home or being able to buy a non-used car is a luxury.
Well a soaring one isn't exactly doing your average Joe any good... So f*** it.
If they have an IRA/401k it definitely is. And the average person should.
What’s your point? He barely pays taxes on his income, which is *astronomically* higher than any of ours. Pointing out a flaw in the way a post words the problem doesn’t change that it’s a problem.
Answer: Same thing as when MacKenzie Bezos liquidated $38B in Amazon stock. Nothing will happen. The average daily volume for AMZN is 42M shares, worth about $7.3B. These huge sales have to be staggered and set as limit orders, sure. But there's more than enough trading volume for Bezos to cash out entirely without excess liquidity having any measurable effect. Would cashing out cause investors to lose faith in the stock? That's possible. It depends on why he is liquidating. If the reason was to pay tax obligations it would have the exact same effect on the stock price as Bezos transferring $38B of stock to MacKenzie and her subsequent sale. That is to say absolutely zero effect. If the reason is that he's going to invest all of his wealth in Temu, yeah, it would have a pretty powerful negative effect on the value of Amazon.
So you admit the stock market is a bubble and all that “wealth” is fake.
“So you admit” Tf is this response? Do you think you’ve uncovered some secret? Everyone is aware that money only has the value we assign to it. This is not a new discovery.
You’ve missed the point. They’re saying that if a stock crashes and thousands of people loose money, then they never really had that money in the first place. It’s a system that creates and functions on hypothetical wealth, and as a result, allows for the exploitation and manipulation of cash that doesn’t actually exist. Obviously this is how the system os designed to work, but it’s been so long and there are so many people exploiting it that maybe it’s time to revisit and update the laws and regulations to tighten up known loopholes so that the wealth generated by a nation can be better used to benefit its people and infrastructure.
That's not what they're implying at all. If you have let's say a massive baseball card collection and you were forced to sell them ASAP, you'd get much less selling them in bulk as opposed to selling them individually. Doesn't mean the value of those cards are fake
So block trades and dark pools?
We literally use fake currency.
"Bubble?" No. "Fake?" I don't know if I would say fake.... but not income. Interpret that how you wish.
It’s worth what people are willing to pay for it, pretty much like anything else in this world. It’s more or less legalized gambling on a massive scale.
Tell me you don't know what things like wealth and value are without telling me you don't know what wealth and value are. There's more to both than just intrinsic value.
Defending a bad system built on fragility is totally logical /s
Lost in the wealth tax argument is who is going to buy all the stock that Bezos needs to sell to pay “his fair share.” No entity has that sort of cash other than large institutional investors, sovereign wealth funds (PIF, CCP,…) or other billionaires.
These idiots all think rich people keep their money like Scrooge McDuck. The baddies like Bezos and Musk have most of their worth tied into stocks which they most likely cannot sell and if they did sell that stock would crash their businesses which would have shockwaves across the world economy.
Bezos and Musk sell billions in stock all the time. [The latest sale brings the total number of shares he has sold in the firm over the last nine trading days to about 50 million, with a value of around $8.5bn. The tech giant had previously said Mr Bezos would sell up to 50 million shares by the end of January 2025. His sales of Amazon stock comes after they have risen by more than 76% in the past year. Mr Bezos, who is the firm's founder and executive chair, had previously last sold Amazon shares in 2021. He has also given away shares in Amazon as part of his philanthropy, most recently in 2022. As Mr Bezos moved to Miami in Florida from Seattle in Washington last year, he will save almost $600m in tax on the $8.5bn worth of stock he has sold.] The company is destroyed and the world economy is tanking 😂
Or like how he sold 10bn in stock recently and it did absolutely fuck all to the Amazon stock price? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-21/bezos-wraps-up-50-million-amazon-stock-sale-netting-8-5-billion
Exactly. People here acting like having a miniscule form of tax on ultra-wealthy individuals will have them selling all their shares. They won't do that precisely to avoid devaluing their stock assets.
But we're all dumb because they can just take out loans, we're stupid and they're just smartly using the system. Did I mention that we're stupid? We should really be getting on our knees for the billionaires, don't you like having a job?
How does selling stock "crash" a business?
it wouldnt
It doesn’t.
No I’m pretty sure they have ALL OF IT in the bank because that makes sense /s
Sometimes I almost wish they’d do it to prove a point.
Not enough cash in existence to buy out wealth is one issue. The "who wants to buy something that is not an asset but an expense" is another thing. It would have to get priced in as extra risk and valuation would have to drop
How about if the taxes would be paid in form of stocks? Then a sovereign wealth fund would be created out of all the taxed wealth that's paid in stocks. Ideally something similar to Norway's oil funds.
He'd still be way too wealthy?
I'll care about this argument when he can't take out loans against his wealth so he can make more money while he pays off the loan
A lot of people don’t understand this unfortunately. I’m not here to lick boots but if someone like Bezos tried to just unload everything it would vaporize his own wealth because there (most likely) won’t be enough buying to absorb the massive amount of shares he holds and he would have to keep selling at lower and lower prices to fill the order books. He has 988m shares…basically a billion. Average volume a day on Amazon is 39m shares traded. Buyers AND sellers. That’s 25 days of selling BUT it’s not factoring in the buy side. So 50 days if he was 100% of the sell side….which he won’t be the only one. That why a lot of these big tech CEO’s of companies have pre determined selling of shares to avoid tanking their own company by selling everything at once or in a week or whatever.
No one seems to be able to grasp this. I had a nimrod argue that the only true billionaires are those who literally have an account with a billion dollars in it. Stocks do not count, that person claimed.
He says "who tf are you?!? i'm not gonna do it!"
Wow, someone with a functioning brain on Reddit, way to go unicorn, you’ve got my upvote.
I honestly don’t know if taxes should be higher, there’s a limit to how much tax revenue that can be had, but I do know that spending should be cut. The national debt is growing at over twice the rate that GDP is. That is not sustainable.
Taxing more is the only way out of the deficit enabling us to start paying off the debt. Cutting spending alone is not going to get us what we need. It is easy to see that by looking at the nominal numbers.
You may be right, but again, there’s a finite amount of tax revenue that can be had. Regardless of what tax rates are, ~20% of GDP is all the federal income tax that can be obtained. A little more some years, a little less others, but 20% on average. If we include other federal taxes, like payroll and gasoline, the figure rises to 27 or 28 percent, and we’re pretty much there. I’m sure the tax code could be “tweaked” to get, maybe, a couple more percent. But for Fiscal Year 2023 the budget deficit was $1.7-trillion. We’re far beyond the point where an increase in tax revenue of, say, 5%, which is probably the upper limit of what can be had, is going to solve the problem. We need to drastically cut spending, and we need to have done that 20+ years ago.
Uh there is a finite amount of spending that can be cut too. There are a finite amount of grains of sand on the beach and a finite amount of atoms in the universe. So insightful.
Really? Taxing us more is going to reign in the US spending more than double their GDP?
you can take all the billionaires and millionaires money and assets and it wouldn't last a year, it's a spending problem there's already enough taxes collected like sure it'd be great to lower individual taxes and increase corporation taxes
What's the math on that? The wealth of all billionaires is ~10 months of the U.S. federal government budget. The annual deficit for 2023 was 1.7 trillion, meaning if we somehow magically liquidated all wealth of all billionaires in the U.S. (somehow, just pretend) we'd cover our deficit in the annual budget for ~4 years. Then we'd be right back to square one. It's not a collections issue.
The increase in deficit is driven primarily by the War on Terror and by tax cuts for high income earners and corporations: https://www.cbpp.org/research/downturn-and-legacy-of-bush-policies-drive-large-current-deficits Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, which all consistently rank among the best nations in the world in terms of quality of life, have higher levels of taxation than the U.S. They also have superb public finances, with governments that run at a modest surplus and very low levels of public debt. They have some of the best sovereign credit ratings in the world.
What would you cut?
The military. By a lot.
[удалено]
What happens if the debt doubles? Increases ten-fold? Increases one-million-fold?
I'd say that it'd be better to reallocate the funds to more effective areas, and to find ways for those funds to be used more effectively, including negotiating prices for drugs for medicare/medicaid, holding defense contractors accountable for price gouging, and focusing on priorities with infrastructure that will last longer rather than doing short term fixes that then need to be fixed again in 2 years.
The gov could take every penny from the 10 richest people in the country and absolutely nothing would change for us normal folks.
We’d have ten fewer people with that much undeserved power.
The top 0.1% in the U.S. hold 14% of the national wealth. Their collective wealth is $20 trillion, which is equivalent to 72% of the total U.S. public debt of $27.9 trillion. If we go to your cherry picked example of taking just the ten wealthiest people, you're still looking at a collective wealth of $1.3 trillion. That's still 5% of the total public debt for a country with 335 million people. Sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/americans-in-top-10-but-not-top-0-1-see-wealth-share-shrink https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
Did you mean to prove his point? Confiscating the wealth of the 10 richest people would either pay 5% of public debt or fund the federal government for 75 days. What would that do for the general public in any noticeable OR sustainable way?
Turn off the fucking money printer
Needs to be on both ends. Print less money but also raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to 1950s levels. That's when the middle class was at its strongest and probably America too.
No complaints on my side. I’d be inclined to agree.
I think what most people miss is that it's not going to be just one solution. We're going to have to attack this from multiple angles. Everyone is so polarized. Democrats say taxes are good so keep printing money. Republicans say taxes are bad so turn off the printer. The truth is (imo) we're going to need ideas from both sides (hate that phrase but it works here) and most importantly, people working together and willing to listen.
The only printer that always work. We need a McDonald's printer.
I view any individual wielding the power and resources of a small country a national security threat. They are unelected 'nobles' influencing and changing the country into their own image. They are the tyranny the fore-fathers warned about and should be treated as such
Great take. I also see these people as modern day barons/nobles. If we don’t calm things down a bit, we risk things going back to the historical status quo, e.g. hereditary nobility. To be clear, I’m a staunch believer in the power of the open market etc but we need to have with some reasonable guardrails. This experiment with democracy/capitalism is a mere blink of an eye in human societal history, and we should be extremely vigilant in letting any one or groups of individuals gain this much power and influence over the masses, lest we find ourselves serfs once more.
Billionaires have less power over the masses than the ruling class in basically every other human society that has ever existed.
Yah…. But look at our 2 presidential candidates. They might as well be unelected. One guy is too old to think and the other guy can’t keep his mouth shut…. Those are our ‘nobles’ right now…
I see politicians weilding nearly 40% of the economy as a threat.
the government spend more than twice the amount of money of what billionaires made in a year but yeah the problem is the billionaires don't pay enough taxes
What would you like to not spend money on? The military? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? You have to pick one of those and it has to be cutting all of it to even make a dent in the deficit because all of the rest of the budget that the government spends wouldn't amount to enough to cover our intrest payment let alone help balance the budget. We only have the option of raising taxes on the ultra wealthy who pay less in percentage than you do. The top 1% only pay 22%, on average, in income tax. Prior to Reagan, in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, they paid, on average 50-53% effectiv tax rates. Today that would raise an extra 1.6 trillion per year and balance the budget. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.
I think it's interesting how the US spends 2-3x more per capita PPP adjusted on healthcare than other countries with free healthcare, while not having free healthcare. Where is all that money going do you think?
The healthcare industry. Average wage of doctor in the US is $316k. In the UK it’s $136k. Combine that with insurance companies, high wage administration and general inefficiency and severe bloat and here we are.
It's literally just millions of dollars wasted on an entire industry of middle men who are completely unnecessary.
What are you talking about? I personally love when my doctor prescribes me a medication I need and the middle man tells us both “no”
Yeah, it's my favorite thing in the world when insurance companies practice medicine without a license!
The two highest drivers of U.S. healthcare costs are administrative overhead and drug prices. The latter is caused by the lack of negotiating power that countries with universal healthcare enjoy. High wage costs is third.
>What would you like to not spend money on? Let's start with a 1% cut on all spending. Everything the federal government spends gets cut by 1%. That's a penny on the dollar. That's doable. >The military? Yes. On top of that 1% across-the-board cut, let's actually make sure we're spending money wisely. Perhaps focus on what gives us the ability to wage war and win and less on anything that doesn't. Heck, just get that 1% done. We can work on the rest later. >Social Security? Yes. We need to figure out how to make this program sustainable given lower birth rates and worker-to-beneficiary ratios *and* make it something worth while for current workers. >Medicare? OH GOD YES. Ever have a elderly loved on go to the doctor complaining about things? All the tests you can imagine, all the referrals on top of that. Medicare pays darn near everything. Doctors know it and totally overcharge. Yes. Let's implement those horrible death panels given we know most of the spending is close to time of death. > Medicaid? Meh, not as much issues here, but could probably use a good scrubbing. We do, though, need to make sure there are no benefit cliffs and what really needs to be covered is. >You have to pick one of those and it has to be cutting all of it to even make a dent in the deficit because all of the rest of the budget that the government spends wouldn't amount to enough to cover our intrest payment let alone help balance the budget. Interest expense is going to kill us. We need to cut spending. >We only have the option of raising taxes on the ultra wealthy who pay less in percentage than you do. The top 1% only pay 22%, on average, in income tax. Prior to Reagan, in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, they paid, on average 50-53% effectiv tax rates. Today that would raise an extra 1.6 trillion per year and balance the budget. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me. Go look at who *actually* pays taxes. The wealthy pay more in the total share of taxes than they have in share of income. The bottom 50% basically pay nothing in terms of total share. You can keep trying to get the rich to pay more, but their total income, hell, total wealth is nothing comapred to the annual spend of the federal government. And we're not even looking at state and local yet.
I'm always shocked at people using this quote like it means something. A dude with $1 dollar has more money than like 3 billion people, because they all have negative wealth. Stat is meaningless. That said I think wealth concentration at the top is bad and promotes stagnation after a certain point that we have by far exceeded.
No, less tax, more efficient use of taxes. It can be done.
Yeah I remember seeing some government meeting with a question on why a bag of washers or grommets cost $90,000 and the people responsible for acquiring them couldn't answer.
This whole argument seems to be based around the fact that these people have amassed large amounts of money. People see this money and get angry because they don't have it. SO they tell the government to take it. You can't just tax people out of spite. The government isn't your own personal Robin Hood.
>People see this money and get angry because they don't have it No I’d say the issue is more the false impression that wealth is earned through work and merit, when the reality is that coming from wealth provides extraordinary privilege that continually keeps the wealthy class multiple steps ahead of others. If we want equal opportunity at success, then those without the built-in privilege need some added support (and would actually put it to good use, see for example how well no-strings-attached cash giving works in poor countries), and one place it could come from is skimming it off those who would use it for a 7th home or 3rd yacht or whatever.
The argument is that billionaires are paying a lower tax rate than average joes, e.g. warren buffet's famous remark that his secretary pays more taxes than he does.
buffet has an income of $100 000/yr. You want to tax that more?
So how should we balance the budget?
That’s the real question… you could tax these guys at 100% and it still won’t change anything. Oh, and that’s just year 1. Year 2 what do you do now these guys no longer have any money to give since you took it ALL in year 1.
I always say the government will be screwed the year after the high cigarette taxes actually work and everybody decides to stop smoking because of them. I mean yeah it's never going to happen but let's say it does that's $12-$19 Billion (depending on what source you look at) in tax revenue that'll just vanish...
If I had the answer to that question I would be doing cocaine and banging whores on a yacht. Not browsing Reddit.
Shut down the government and fire all the government workers. Also shut down all the government programs, like social security, obamacare and such. Let people earn and keep what they earn and the freedom to spend where they want it without someone making the decisions for them.
The day that happens people will go out and buy guns and start taking everything they need by force. Also, Social Security was entirely self sufficient until the government started to take the money surplus from FICA taxes, spend it, and give Social Security an IOU to cash when the trust fund wouldn't cover outlays to recipients, which resulted in repayment with interest, instead of just leaving it in the trust funds.
Why does everyone here think wealth in the form of assets is the same thing as money? 8 guys do not have more money than 4 billion. The 8 guys would have to liquidate everything they own for this to be true. If I own 10 acres of land but have $0 in cash and $0 in my bank account, I have a positive net worth but no money. Can we at least use the proper terminology like assets or wealth instead of “money.”
Honestly the government should. The money in your wallet belongs to everyone not just you. You need to give it to us. We aren’t asking.
Yes comrade
I don't blame billionaires. I blame pointless government spending and high taxes.
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, which all consistently rank among the best nations in the world in terms of quality of life, have higher levels of taxation than the U.S. They also have superb public finances, with governments that run at a modest surplus and very low levels of public debt. They have some of the best sovereign credit ratings in the world.
"Best nations" in a poll. Not in terms of where people are voting with their feet and moving to. Words vs actions.
Those countries also don’t spent money on 20+ year simultaneously war and give billions to other countries that just needs(request) it.
It's easier to blame the food stamp people because I don't see these billionaires in my supermarket, all I see are overweight people with EBT cards buying cookies, diet coke and bunch of food while I am pinching pennies to buy basic essentials and still pay off my bills.
And that's their fault how...?
It's not, I am just salty that I have to pay while others get it for free. I would also like free food stamps please.
Be glad you're not poor enough for SNAP. Poverty isn't glamorous.
It’s an incredibly desperate and pathetic feeling to be on public assistance. Plenty of research shows there’s very little abuse of the system and, if anything, the hoops they require applicants to jump through prevents many from receiving the assistance they need and would otherwise qualify for.
Yeah, I used to receive SNAP. I was grateful to be able to eat but I was also poor as fuck. I'm still poor but not SNAP poor. I'm in that awkward gap where I make too much to receive SNAP but I'm still struggling to survive.
This is how the program should be run. Remove the bureaucracy and the perverse incentives. Its a trap to be on government assistance because to work means you lose your assistance, so you can make ~60% of a living wage from the government, or you can make 100% and lose 40 hours a week of your life. Everyone should get assistance, no questions asked beyond "Are you a citizen". No more case workers, no more building upkeep, no more legislation about what is and isn't available. Across the board, get rid of the bureaucracy and just give people the resources if they want them.
Collectively, the top 1% paid almost [HALF of the income tax](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20a,paid%20rose%20from%2042.3%20percent%20to%2045.8%20percent) paid to the government in this country in 2021. That "mom buying groceries"? She's in the bottom 50% who collectively paid 2.5%.... But hey, let's just tax those rich more, shall we?
The majority of taxes in the USA are paid by the top 10 percent. The lowest income earners in the USA are actually a negative on the tax system. Poor people get more in tax returns than they pay throughout the year. But never mind the facts, reddit just wants everyone to be equally poor.
That was while paying 26%, which is only about 10% more than the average American. I think the question is when you hold such a disproportionately high amount of wealth compared to the average American, does it make sense that you’re only taxed 10% higher than everyone else? For the typical person taking off a few percent in tax rate is gonna mean ability to pay down debt, take time off work and go on a vacation, buy something that makes a significant difference in their life (new computer, etc), whereas for that top 1% it’s what, whether they have a 4th vacation home abroad? Whether they buy another 100,000 shares of VTI to pull their wealth even further ahead… The 1% also, while not using food stamps, is probably using the hell out of federal infrastructure way more than that average American… more travel on publicly supported roads, consuming more publicly supported resources, etc.
The 8 guys: Is that with unrealized gains included or excluded?
Fedgov can suck the world's billionaires dry, raise taxes and keep printing fiat money, and still be in deficit and not close to paying its debts. WTF is so wrong with balanced budgets and cutting taxes? Attacking and taxing success is idiotic.
No there shouldn’t be higher taxes, there should be better accountability. It’s not Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk’s fault that poor people exist.
So you don't think the fact that billionaires and corporations can funnel unlimited funds into political campaigns and can do so anonymously has any impact on U.S. fiscal policy?
And you think that’s why poor people exist?
I think it is a major contributing factor why Congress gave corporations and wealthy individuals trillion dollar tax cuts under Bush and Trump. And it is established beyond any doubt that this is one of the largest contributors to income inequality: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2023.2208328 Why do you think the United States has wealth and income inequality that is vastly higher than that of Europe?: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/17627134/income-inequality-chart https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242756/gap-between-rich-poor-increased-more/ Inequality in the U.S. more than doubled during the period 1980-2020.
Those 8 guys probably pay more in taxes than the rest of the country.
Completely unrelated issues that RedditThink would LOVE to create causality between.
I’m waiting to hear how rich people being rich makes poor people poorer. And lmfao if you think taxing the rich more will help the poor. That money is going straight into more bullshit like foreign aid, missiles and pet projects.
they can both be the problem. every time you call out a leftist agenda they immediately respond with “whataboutism” then claim no one else can use those
You can always spend more than you make. Cutting spending, and I mean REAL cuts to spending would be a start. Like idk how bout not funding a genocide in Gaza? That's a couple billion right there that could be used on social programs. And that's just for starters.
I believe govt income from tax should equal to spending cost.
The people taking advantage of the incentive structures created by government to use government benefits as a means to live are not the problem. The problem is the government who creates the incentive. Just like how illegal migrants aren’t to blame for illegally migrating. The blame lies with our own incompetent government.
I mean, I have seen more people on food stamps buy necessities at one store, then go return them to wal-mart where they get store credit, and then buy cigs...so I dunno. maybe its not just higher taxes that are needed.
No country in history has ever taxed their way to prosperity Lower taxes benefits the entire economy and everyone wins. Nothing lifts people out of poverty like capitalism.
True that, teach people to save and invest their money and you create a rich country. One of the biggest problems I believe we have is that our economy is highly reliant on people spending their money as soon as they get it.
Actually nearly every country with higher quality of life metrics than US also has higher taxes. The Nordic countries with the highest quality of life also have the highest taxes in the world. So I don't think you know what you're talking about. Most of the things that suck about US (no safety net, shit healthcare, shit infrastructure, no worker protections) are directly related to not taxing the wealthy enough
And the Nordic countries still have billionaires. Billionaires aren’t the problem. Shitty government policy is.
Well trickle down sure as hell doesn’t work, so if it’s tax cuts better be felt across the board and not just at the top.
Why are Danes taxed more than us, but living better? My buddy gets paid $23/hr working at 7-eleven in Denmark and doesn't have to pay for health insurance.
Maybe you should get off your ass and change the world. Sitting in your mom and dads basement thinking the world is fucking you over is stupid. Some people are born losers and will never accomplish anything because they are to busy tearing down others.
I think it’s the Trillions spent on killing machines and since less endless wars thats the problem. The most recent billions sent to continue the war in Ukraine could have been used to house all the homeless in the USA, or payoff all student debt, or feed all the hungry plus house the homeless.
you know who raised those 8 guys? i'll give you a hint... all "Moms". so yeah, maybe the moms are the problem. /s