Bring back tax rates of 90% again for the obscenely rich - it was that way up until the late 1900s. Back when the US actually funded things that benefit most people not just tax breaks for already rich people.
It was 50% before Reagan reduced it to 38%. The tax brackets aren’t nearly as large a contributor to inequality as the loopholes in tax law. Accelerated depreciation, tax credits, and the expensing rules for employee stock options are largely to blame for corporate tax evasion.
Federal Tax Rates 2024
Tax Rate | For Single Filers
10% $0 to $11,60012% $11,600 to $47,15022% $47,150 to $100,52524% $100,525 to $191,95032% $191,950 to $243,72535% $243,725 to $609,35037% $609,350 or more
I wasn’t disputing your point—just throwing in a little extra info since I literally had that table open in a different tab (it’s April in America). I honestly doubt changing those rates would impact things much though. I think we need an asset tax (like the one that exists in most states for houses and that we call property tax) that impacts stocks. Probably a massive change in estate taxes too.
You’re talking about income tax rates, and I agree that the top tax rates should be higher, but this won’t fix the problem because billionaires don’t make their money from salaries. Most of their money is theoretical and tied up in ownership of shares of a company.
They can sell shares or earn dividends to make money, so capital gains should also be taxed at a much higher rate. But billionaires often choose not to sell shares either because they have a better option…
They take out low interest rates loans using their shares as collateral. The interest rates they are charged are generally going to be far lower than the interest on their stocks that stay invested,. This is where most of their liquidity comes from, because loans aren’t taxed, and in some regard is almost an infinite money glitch for billionaires.
I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.
You could tax them at 100% but it wouldn’t fix the problem. There are simply just not enough of them. While wealth inequality is a problem, this alone don’t fix it. It is just a crutch.
And this would somehow cause a significant number of houses to be built? And if people have more money thru distribution of some sort, would they work harder to build more houses? If they don’t, how does this help?
One way to spot a troll is that they quickly change arguments to avoid accountability. Like how you start by saying that taxation can’t fix the problem and when someone disagrees instead of pulling out data and digging into why, you instead randomly pivot to housing availability, which is currently also a problem related to finances, but distinctly separate from taxation strategies.
I don’t blame this person for not wanting to waste time engaging with you.
after perusing your other comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re a disingenuous right wing troll. I don’t care to educate you on something you’ll more than likely ignore.
So if it’s not a perfect solution it shouldn’t be done?
You may be right that a 90% tax on certain amount of wealth may not solve all the problems but that is a ton of money this country is leaving on the table that could really help people that need assistance.
If you read my post, I did say wealth inequality is an issue. Bit to directly answer your question, if everyone suddenly recieved more money, would they differently be motivated to build more houses or create more cogs to make it lives better? And if they don’t, how does this help us?
It’s weird that you think that tax money goes directly into the pockets of individual citizens…
But when the government gets more income it can be used to fund public programs like WIC, CHIPS, Free lunch program for children, help the homeless, improve infrastructure, etc. You know, government working to support it’s population and not let the country become a shit hole.
If you don’t like how the government is spending the tax money then that is an election argument (vote someone in that supports your views). My way of seeing things is that if this country has given someone the ability to make a 3 comma amount of wealth then arguing that paying back into that system is evil then that person really doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.
Bring back tax rates of 90% again for the obscenely rich - it was that way up until the late 1900s. Back when the US actually funded things that benefit most people not just tax breaks for already rich people.
It was 50% before Reagan reduced it to 38%. The tax brackets aren’t nearly as large a contributor to inequality as the loopholes in tax law. Accelerated depreciation, tax credits, and the expensing rules for employee stock options are largely to blame for corporate tax evasion.
Not even caring about the specific number:
The bottom half of r tax system is reasonably progressive, so why not the top?
Federal Tax Rates 2024 Tax Rate | For Single Filers
10% $0 to $11,600 12% $11,600 to $47,150 22% $47,150 to $100,525 24% $100,525 to $191,950 32% $191,950 to $243,725 35% $243,725 to $609,350 37% $609,350 or morePlus state/local taxes on top of that.
Ok, fine, there’s a step or two in the ”wealthy” category, but my point holds.
Plus state taxes usually have few to no brackets, and I’ve only heard of one having a millionaires tax
I wasn’t disputing your point—just throwing in a little extra info since I literally had that table open in a different tab (it’s April in America). I honestly doubt changing those rates would impact things much though. I think we need an asset tax (like the one that exists in most states for houses and that we call property tax) that impacts stocks. Probably a massive change in estate taxes too.
Thanks for adding the info.
deleted by creator
The step function goes up every 50 bucks, as I recall.
You’re talking about income tax rates, and I agree that the top tax rates should be higher, but this won’t fix the problem because billionaires don’t make their money from salaries. Most of their money is theoretical and tied up in ownership of shares of a company.
They can sell shares or earn dividends to make money, so capital gains should also be taxed at a much higher rate. But billionaires often choose not to sell shares either because they have a better option…
They take out low interest rates loans using their shares as collateral. The interest rates they are charged are generally going to be far lower than the interest on their stocks that stay invested,. This is where most of their liquidity comes from, because loans aren’t taxed, and in some regard is almost an infinite money glitch for billionaires.
I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.
And maybe a tax on assets over a set limit. Own more than $10M in assets? Time to start paying back society.
deleted by creator
You could tax them at 100% but it wouldn’t fix the problem. There are simply just not enough of them. While wealth inequality is a problem, this alone don’t fix it. It is just a crutch.
no, increasing taxes on the wealthy, while simultaneously funding the IRS to go after white collar tax cheats, would 100% fix the problem.
And this would somehow cause a significant number of houses to be built? And if people have more money thru distribution of some sort, would they work harder to build more houses? If they don’t, how does this help?
One way to spot a troll is that they quickly change arguments to avoid accountability. Like how you start by saying that taxation can’t fix the problem and when someone disagrees instead of pulling out data and digging into why, you instead randomly pivot to housing availability, which is currently also a problem related to finances, but distinctly separate from taxation strategies.
I don’t blame this person for not wanting to waste time engaging with you.
after perusing your other comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re a disingenuous right wing troll. I don’t care to educate you on something you’ll more than likely ignore.
The fact you can not answer that speaks volumes. Really it does.
lmao sure, go back to telegram loser
The retort is an insult. Lol.
This isn’t an argument. The fact that they cannot answer a random question does not “speak volumes”. It actually says just about nothing.
Taxes could pay for government hired construction workers/companies to build government funded housing. Easy, try another goal post
Who are these people and what other work does not get done?
Construction workers are people who work in the field of construction. Framers, tapers, plumbers, electricians, etc.
So if it’s not a perfect solution it shouldn’t be done?
You may be right that a 90% tax on certain amount of wealth may not solve all the problems but that is a ton of money this country is leaving on the table that could really help people that need assistance.
So, we can’t tax their “unrealised gains” on stocks, but they can borrow against these same gains?
I don’t understand the connection between my post and your response?
If you read my post, I did say wealth inequality is an issue. Bit to directly answer your question, if everyone suddenly recieved more money, would they differently be motivated to build more houses or create more cogs to make it lives better? And if they don’t, how does this help us?
It’s weird that you think that tax money goes directly into the pockets of individual citizens…
But when the government gets more income it can be used to fund public programs like WIC, CHIPS, Free lunch program for children, help the homeless, improve infrastructure, etc. You know, government working to support it’s population and not let the country become a shit hole.
If you don’t like how the government is spending the tax money then that is an election argument (vote someone in that supports your views). My way of seeing things is that if this country has given someone the ability to make a 3 comma amount of wealth then arguing that paying back into that system is evil then that person really doesn’t care about anyone but themselves.