Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Kfox]

Also, I'm not promoting the cap nor do I promote a tax on existing wealth. I'm for a progressive tax that will take from the income, not the base wealth.

We've already got that; how would your system be different than the current system in place?

 

[Revoltingest]

By redistributing the wealth from the top to the bottom, e.g. by lowering taxes of the less fortunate.

Do you imagine that there might be any
unintended deleterious consequences?

 

[Heyo]

We've already got that; how would your system be different than the current system in place?

It would take taxes from the rich, not the poor.

 

[Heyo]

Do you imagine that there might be any
unintended deleterious consequences?

Of course there will be consequences, The rich, until now, had the privilege to not pay (much) taxes.
And, as we know, removing privileges feel like oppression.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course there will be consequences, The rich, until now, had the privilege to not pay (much) taxes.
And, as we know, removing privileges feel like oppression.

I notice that you didn't address "deleterious".
Does this mean you think there will be only
positive consequences?

 

[MikeF]

By redistributing the wealth from the top to the bottom, e.g. by lowering taxes of the less fortunate.

The less fortunate do not pay income tax in the US. Not sure how it works elsewhere..

Well I suppose it depends on who you feel qualifies as being less fortunate.

 

[siti]

By redistributing the wealth from the top to the bottom, e.g. by lowering taxes of the less fortunate.

The least fortunate don't pay tax on income, they either have none or earn too little to reach the tax threshold. And they are quite a large number - about 72 million households in the US...

So if you took, say, $1 billion each from 1000 of the wealthiest people and redistributed it between the 72 million households that earn too little to pay tax, they'd get an average of about $14,000 each - do you reckon that trillion dollars would be reinvested?

 

[Heyo]

I notice that you didn't address "deleterious".
Does this mean you think there will be only
positive consequences?

Do you think the wealthy will take it lying down? I suspect much backlash by paid chills - and of course the fanboys.

 

[Heyo]

The less fortunate do not pay income tax in the US. Not sure how it works elsewhere..

They still pay VAT.

Well I suppose it depends on who you feel qualifies as being less fortunate.

The 99%.

 

[Heyo]

The least fortunate don't pay tax on income, they either have none or earn too little to reach the tax threshold. And they are quite a large number - about 72 million households in the US...

So if you took, say, $1 billion each from 1000 of the wealthiest people and redistributed it between the 72 million households that earn too little to pay tax, they'd get an average of about $14,000 each - do you reckon that trillion dollars would be reinvested?

Yes. You forgot the corporations. The money isn't re-invested in the stock market, but it is re-invested in consumption, which shows up at the bottom line. The corporation could pay dividends on the revenue - or they can re-invest.
When taxes on capital gain are higher, as high as income taxes, investors (mostly the rich) would opt to get reasonable dividends.

 

[siti]

Yes. You forgot the corporations. The money isn't re-invested in the stock market, but it is re-invested in consumption, which shows up at the bottom line. The corporation could pay dividends on the revenue - or they can re-invest.
When taxes on capital gain are higher, as high as income taxes, investors (mostly the rich) would opt to get reasonable dividends.

So effectively a trillion dollars transferred from investment portfolios to consumer spending...you don't think that might be a tad inflationary?

 

[Heyo]

So effectively a trillion dollars transferred from investment portfolios to consumer spending...you don't think that might be a tad inflationary?

Yes, it is inflationary, or rather it would make the inflation visible. I'm of the opinion that we have an inflation, just not a runaway inflation. There is too much money (which is inflation), but it is in the hand of the super rich, who don't spend it. Instead, they are looking desperately for options to invest. Investments with low risk and high revenue, that is, because more money is their only goal for investments.

 

[PureX]

Correct me it I am wrong, but wouldn't you be taking money away from union pension funds if you take business profit over a certain value? Aren't those profits paid out as dividends to shareholders, many of whom participate through personal IRA's, self employed IRA's, and 401k's in addition to union pension funds?

Those aren't pensions. There are no secure pensions, anymore. Those are investment schemes pretending to be pensions. They help to pump up the stock markets so the rich can get richer from the inflated stocks. And so they no longer have to provide any actual pensions for their employees.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think the wealthy will take it lying down? I suspect much backlash by paid chills - and of course the fanboys.

Your question doesn't answer my question.

I recall that decades ago, liberals greatly increased
the tax on yachts. After all, anyone who could afford
one should pay more tax, right? What could go wrong?
The effect was to kill many yacht building jobs of
blue collar workers.
The best ideas are great when hastily put down
on paper, but can have unintended consequences
that make even liberals scream "Ooopsie poopsie!"

I recommend the podcast Freakonomics to anyone
interested in the histories of public policies & their
consequences. Fascinating stuff, eg, the causal
link between abortion restriction & increased crime.

 

[Koldo]

Your question doesn't answer my question.

I recall that decades ago, liberals greatly increased
the tax on yachts. After all, anyone who could afford
one should pay more tax, right? What could go wrong?
The effect was to kill many yacht building jobs of
blue collar workers.
The best ideas are great when hastily put down
on paper, but can have unintended consequences
that make even liberals scream "Ooopsie poopsie!"

I recommend the podcast Freakonomics to anyone
interested in the histories of public policies & their
consequences. Fascinating stuff, eg, the causal
link between abortion restriction & increased crime.

Did the sum of money taxed still increase significantly in the long-term though? Did most of those workers eventually find similar paying jobs? The number of jobs killed in the short-term is not necessarily a problem depending on those two factors.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did the sum of money taxed still increase significantly in the long-term though?

I don't know.
But I'll bet the workers who lost their
jobs weren't concerned with tax revenue.

Did most of those workers eventually find similar paying jobs?

Unknown.

The number of jobs killed in the short-term is not necessarily a problem depending on those two factors.

If one proposes policy changes based solely
upon the wonderful results one imagines,
without considering the costs, one will
get bad policies.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know.
But I'll bet the workers who lost their
jobs weren't concerned with tax revenue.

Everyone tends to be worried first and foremost about how themselves will be personally affected by policy changes, regardless of whether the collective will benefit more from it.

Unknown.

If one proposes policy changes based solely
upon the wonderful results one imagines,
without considering the costs, one will
get bad policies.

Thus why it is important to hear all perspectives before making the decision to enact a significant change.

 

[Kfox]

It would take taxes from the rich, not the poor.

We already have that. The poor don't pay taxes; remember? (top 1% pays 42%, bottom 50% pays 2%)

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 Update

The latest IRS data shows that the U.S. federal individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.

taxfoundation.org

Again; what are you advocating for that is different than the system currently in place?

 

[MikeF]

They still pay VAT.

Does the VAT dramatically affect spending power for lower income individuals?

The 99%.

Well, that certainly is quite a low bar to qualify as one of the less fortunate. Sure, in literal terms, anyone with $1 or 1 Euro less than another can be said to have less fortune. In common usage though, do we truly consider someone in the middle and upper middle class as being one of the less fortunate? I, for one, do not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone tends to be worried first and foremost about how themselves will be personally affected by policy changes, regardless of whether the collective will benefit more from it.

Yes, the poor & middle class are obsessed
with having good jobs. And they complain
when government kills jobs. So selfish.

Thus why it is important to hear all perspectives before making the decision to enact a significant change.

It would also help to examine what happened
in other places when a proposed policy had
been adopted, eg, nationalizing all industries,
confiscating wealth.