Vivek ramaswamy

[PhDhawk]

"The analysis from OMB and CEA economists estimates that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in America paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their income—including income from their wealth that goes largely untaxed—in Federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018. That’s a lower rate than many ordinary Americans pay."

And in this way, the fact that the top 1% pay 44% of all income tax…demonstrates JUST HOW MUCH wealth is accumulated at the far right end of the curve.

Yes, the rich pay a lot.

The super rich...not so much.

[DCHawk1]

Just clarifying what my particular issue here, that i'm arguing you with over, was this comment:

“…ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share" are entirely fictional.”

This is not fictional.
It is, by most Americans estimates on the distribution of wealth, reality.

But by all means, get down in the semantics trench, say things are unconstitutional when they break/challenge the current way things are, shift the argument to "what is politics and what is economics" ( not particularly helpful to the comment of ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share being fictional ), and lob balloons.

Yikes. Talk about triggered.

"shift the argument to 'what is politics and what is economics'"

That was, actually, my initial argument. No shifting necessary. My point, throughout this entire conversation, is that there is no way to correct our fiscal imbalance through taxation alone. Making the case to "tax the ultra-rich" is perfectly acceptable. But it's not an economic argument. It's a political argument. It is manifestly NOT going to address the problem. The best that it will do is to make you feel better, based on your political predilections. And that's fine. But don't pretend that it's something it's not.

[Sparko]

The distribution of wealth is so top heavy that the upper one percent have most of the money and a huge percentage of the disposable income. A high wealth tax limits them from building structural impediments to fairness like Heritage Foundations. Too late. But bringing on the pitchforks and torches is inevitable in human nature and greed.

[DCHawk1]

"The analysis from OMB and CEA economists estimates that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in America paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their income—including income from their wealth that goes largely untaxed—in Federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018. That’s a lower rate than many ordinary Americans pay."

And in this way, the fact that the top 1% pay 44% of all income tax…demonstrates JUST HOW MUCH wealth is accumulated at the far right end of the curve.

Taxing the "accumulation of wealth," is tricky to say the least, especially since the overwhelming majority of that "wealth" is unrealized. Tax year 2022 would be an absolute fiscal disaster, for example, if we get into the business of taxing unrealized gains -- because we would have to treat unrealized losses similarly. Collecting $500 million in taxes from Elon Musk sounds great, but sending him a $500 million check for his losses sounds less great.

PhD: where is that quote from? EDIT: never mind. Found it. And it's an argument (from the White House) explicitly about unrealized capital gains.

[pdub]

Then maybe detract this comment:

"The fact of the matter is that the "ultra-rich" are mostly a figment of your imagination and the "ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share" are entirely fictional."

And this one too actually because we don't need to do that ( raise taxes on the middle and lower class )*. We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) at a much larger rate than what is current than we can taxing the middle class:

"If we, as a nation, want to continue to spend as we do on guns AND butter, we will have to be honest with ourselves and raise taxes on the middle class and the working poor. You can't have a European social welfare state without European tax rates (and European economic growth rates)."

This is mostly ok-ish:

"The idea that there is this goose out there, somewhere laying golden eggs, and all we need to do is to catch it and tax those eggs properly is rube-bait disinformation that has circulated (unsubstantiated) for 2 centuries."

And then realize that these changes alone ( see below ) won't solve the issue ( overspending ). But they would help.

*sticking to your guns AND butter comment...but of course, another method of cutting government deficit is shifting what and where is spent around - i.e. I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military.

[Sparko]

Can't we just start huge distractive gun rights trans abortion arguments and leave the wealthy alone?

[jfish26]

"The analysis from OMB and CEA economists estimates that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in America paid an average of just 8.2 percent of their income—including income from their wealth that goes largely untaxed—in Federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018. That’s a lower rate than many ordinary Americans pay."

And in this way, the fact that the top 1% pay 44% of all income tax…demonstrates JUST HOW MUCH wealth is accumulated at the far right end of the curve.

Taxing the "accumulation of wealth," is tricky to say the least, especially since the overwhelming majority of that "wealth" is unrealized. Tax year 2022 would be an absolute fiscal disaster, for example, if we get into the business of taxing unrealized gains -- because we would have to treat unrealized losses similarly. Collecting $500 million in taxes from Elon Musk sounds great, but sending him a $500 million check for his losses sounds less great.

PhD: where is that quote from? EDIT: never mind. Found it. And it's an argument (from the White House) explicitly about unrealized capital gains.

Something something we don’t do this because it’s easy, we do it because it’s hard.

(That’s a joke.)

I would just point out that many people already pay estimated taxes, and then true them up (one way or the other). Life goes on.

[DCHawk1]

Then maybe detract this comment:

"The fact of the matter is that the "ultra-rich" are mostly a figment of your imagination and the "ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share" are entirely fictional."

And this one too actually because we don't need to do that ( see below )*. We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class:

"If we, as a nation, want to continue to spend as we do on guns AND butter, we will have to be honest with ourselves and raise taxes on the middle class and the working poor. You can't have a European social welfare state without European tax rates (and European economic growth rates)."

This is mostly ok-ish:

"The idea that there is this goose out there, somewhere laying golden eggs, and all we need to do is to catch it and tax those eggs properly is rube-bait disinformation that has circulated (unsubstantiated) for 2 centuries."

*sticking to your guns AND butter comment...but of course, another method of cutting government deficit is shifting what and where is spent around - i.e. I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military.

"Then maybe detract this comment:"

No.

"We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class"

False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

"I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military."

OK. I never said you couldn't/shouldn't. But understand two things: first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense.

[pdub]

One decent way to start is by taxing gains on asset transfer and to minimize the loophole of using that locked wealth as income in cheap loans.

I'd also argue for a stepped gains tax.

[DCHawk1]

I would just point out that many people already pay estimated taxes, and then true them up (one way or the other). Life goes on.

That's true on a year-over-year basis, but it's not quite the same thing on an extended basis.

Additionally, it's based on the false premise (that is a plague in sooo many ways) that, over time, markets (and, by extension, individual stocks) always go up.

The period chosen by the White House (in PhD's quote) is instructive. From 2010-2018, there were no major market disruptions and the Fed was able consistently to goose markets higher by giving money away. Not only is that not the norm, historically, it's not been the norm more recently.

[DCHawk1]

Can't we just start huge distractive gun rights trans abortion arguments and leave the wealthy alone?

You can and you did.

[pdub]

Then maybe detract this comment:

"The fact of the matter is that the "ultra-rich" are mostly a figment of your imagination and the "ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share" are entirely fictional."

And this one too actually because we don't need to do that ( see below )*. We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class:

"If we, as a nation, want to continue to spend as we do on guns AND butter, we will have to be honest with ourselves and raise taxes on the middle class and the working poor. You can't have a European social welfare state without European tax rates (and European economic growth rates)."

This is mostly ok-ish:

"The idea that there is this goose out there, somewhere laying golden eggs, and all we need to do is to catch it and tax those eggs properly is rube-bait disinformation that has circulated (unsubstantiated) for 2 centuries."

*sticking to your guns AND butter comment...but of course, another method of cutting government deficit is shifting what and where is spent around - i.e. I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military.

"Then maybe detract this comment:"

No.

"We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class"

False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

"I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military."

OK. I never said you couldn't/shouldn't. But understand two things: first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense.

"No"

Well then that's your issue.
You have a gigantic hole in your argument because that is not fictitious.
See above posts from JFish, PhD, me.
They do not pay their fair share. The ultra wealthy are not fictitious.

"False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so."

The wealth of the top 1% increased by $6.5 trillion last year.
Increasing ( or cutting off loopholes ) the taxes on gains for the wealthy AND increasing the income tax for the wealthy would earn you more money than taxing the middle class the same %.*

"first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense."

Sigh.
If you don't spend half your budget on the military, then that's a surrender on Ukraine.
Second, change the law.

*Of course, reasonable politicians/our leaders, would find that years were gains were less/slim, then budget spending also would have to be slim.

[PhDhawk]

You don't even need to tax wealth. You just need to redifine what income is. Close the loopholes that they're using to not pay taxes.

If I get a job and get paid, it's income. Fine.
If I referee some games on the weekend and earn some extra cash, the gov't says that's "income". I say it's a side hustle. But I'm poor and have no influence.
If I sell Beanie babies on e-bay. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's a return on investment and should be taxed at a lower rate. But, again, I'm poor and have no influence.
If I go to Vegas and win big at the tables. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's not, but again I loose because I'm (relatively) poor and have no influence.

But Warren and Mark can pay themselves a falsely low salary. Take out loans as their spending money....what amounts to their income...at a low interest rate and never pay income taxes.

If they're taking out $100 million in loans....just tax that as income, like everything else. It's much more of an income than the other bullshit that gets taxed like income.

[DCHawk1]

You don't even need to tax wealth. You just need to redifine what income is. Close the loopholes that they're using to not pay taxes.

If I get a job and get paid, it's income. Fine.
If I referee some games on the weekend and earn some extra cash, the gov't says that's "income". I say it's a side hustle. But I'm poor and have no influence.
If I sell Beanie babies on e-bay. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's a return on investment and should be taxed at a lower rate. But, again, I'm poor and have no influence.
If I go to Vegas and win big at the tables. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's not, but again I loose because I'm (relatively) poor and have no influence.

But Warren and Mark can pay themselves a falsely low salary. Take out loans as their spending money....what amounts to their income...at a low interest rate and never pay income taxes.

If they're taking out $100 million in loans....just tax that as income, like everything else. It's much more of an income than the other bullshit that gets taxed like income.

Fine. That's a fair and reasonable argument.

That said, it won't close the deficits. And it's not what the White House quote was about.

I'm mostly agnostic about how one taxes those on the far right of the income curve.

[DCHawk1]

Then maybe detract this comment:

"The fact of the matter is that the "ultra-rich" are mostly a figment of your imagination and the "ultra-rich who don't pay their fair share" are entirely fictional."

And this one too actually because we don't need to do that ( see below )*. We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class:

"If we, as a nation, want to continue to spend as we do on guns AND butter, we will have to be honest with ourselves and raise taxes on the middle class and the working poor. You can't have a European social welfare state without European tax rates (and European economic growth rates)."

This is mostly ok-ish:

"The idea that there is this goose out there, somewhere laying golden eggs, and all we need to do is to catch it and tax those eggs properly is rube-bait disinformation that has circulated (unsubstantiated) for 2 centuries."

*sticking to your guns AND butter comment...but of course, another method of cutting government deficit is shifting what and where is spent around - i.e. I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military.

"Then maybe detract this comment:"

No.

"We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class"

False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

"I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military."

OK. I never said you couldn't/shouldn't. But understand two things: first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense.

"No"

Well then that's your issue.
You have a gigantic hole in your argument because that is not fictitious.
See above posts from JFish, PhD, me.
They do not pay their fair share. The ultra wealthy are not fictitious.

"False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so."

The wealth of the top 1% increased by $6.5 trillion last year.
Increasing ( or cutting off loopholes ) the taxes on gains for the wealthy AND increasing the income tax for the wealthy would earn you more money than taxing the middle class the same %.*

"first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense."

Sigh.
If you don't spend half your budget on the military, then that's a surrender on Ukraine.
Second, change the law.

*Of course, reasonable politicians/our leaders, would find that years were gains were less/slim, then budget spending also would have to be slim.

This is mostly emotive gibberish. But I do like this bit: "Second, change the law."

Why do you wanna throw grandma from the train, Paul Ryan?

[pdub]

Also suggestions:

Stop overseas business profit loophole where companies can just keep gains in other countries.
Halve the military budget ( you'd still be outspending the next country by 250 to 300 billion ).
Increase income tax on top 1%.
Tax gains when passed on to heirs.

[pdub]

"Then maybe detract this comment:"

No.

"We can get more money taxing the upper class ( in all forms of wealth ) than we can taxing the middle class"

False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

"I dunno, maybe don't spend around half of the budget on the military."

OK. I never said you couldn't/shouldn't. But understand two things: first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense.

"No"

Well then that's your issue.
You have a gigantic hole in your argument because that is not fictitious.
See above posts from JFish, PhD, me.
They do not pay their fair share. The ultra wealthy are not fictitious.

"False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so."

The wealth of the top 1% increased by $6.5 trillion last year.
Increasing ( or cutting off loopholes ) the taxes on gains for the wealthy AND increasing the income tax for the wealthy would earn you more money than taxing the middle class the same %.*

"first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense."

Sigh.
If you don't spend half your budget on the military, then that's a surrender on Ukraine.
Second, change the law.

*Of course, reasonable politicians/our leaders, would find that years were gains were less/slim, then budget spending also would have to be slim.

This is mostly emotive gibberish. But I do like this bit: "Second, change the law."

Why do you wanna throw grandma from the train, Paul Ryan?

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

[twocoach]

Now do "tools available to the ultra wealthy to grow their net worth without reporting it as income as to avoid having to pay taxes on it"

[PhDhawk]

You don't even need to tax wealth. You just need to redifine what income is. Close the loopholes that they're using to not pay taxes.

If I get a job and get paid, it's income. Fine.
If I referee some games on the weekend and earn some extra cash, the gov't says that's "income". I say it's a side hustle. But I'm poor and have no influence.
If I sell Beanie babies on e-bay. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's a return on investment and should be taxed at a lower rate. But, again, I'm poor and have no influence.
If I go to Vegas and win big at the tables. The gov't says that's "income". I say it's not, but again I loose because I'm (relatively) poor and have no influence.

But Warren and Mark can pay themselves a falsely low salary. Take out loans as their spending money....what amounts to their income...at a low interest rate and never pay income taxes.

If they're taking out $100 million in loans....just tax that as income, like everything else. It's much more of an income than the other bullshit that gets taxed like income.

Fine. That's a fair and reasonable argument.

That said, it won't close the deficits. And it's not what the White House quote was about.

I'm mostly agnostic about how one taxes those on the far right of the income curve.

It should certainly occur prior to increases to the poor or middle class.

Closing the deficit is also not the only goal.

Also, there doesn't need to be a SINGLE fix all solution. That's randy logic, you should know better. Improvements in the right direction matter.

And it'll do a helluva lot more than 8 year limits on gov't employment or getting rid of the fbi and then replacing it with.....the fbi.

[jfish26]

"No"

Well then that's your issue.
You have a gigantic hole in your argument because that is not fictitious.
See above posts from JFish, PhD, me.
They do not pay their fair share. The ultra wealthy are not fictitious.

"False. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so."

The wealth of the top 1% increased by $6.5 trillion last year.
Increasing ( or cutting off loopholes ) the taxes on gains for the wealthy AND increasing the income tax for the wealthy would earn you more money than taxing the middle class the same %.*

"first, that's a surrender on Ukraine. And second, the major spending issue going forward is (mandatory and off-budget) entitlement spending, not defense."

Sigh.
If you don't spend half your budget on the military, then that's a surrender on Ukraine.
Second, change the law.

*Of course, reasonable politicians/our leaders, would find that years were gains were less/slim, then budget spending also would have to be slim.

This is mostly emotive gibberish. But I do like this bit: "Second, change the law."

Why do you wanna throw grandma from the train, Paul Ryan?

Change the law specifically to how it applies to military spending.

I guess my frustration over this topic runs deeper than what is being argued about here.

We have every conceivable advantage; indeed, nearly every conceivable resource. Right here!

I believe we very much CAN lead in both production of guns AND butter. I believe that a fundamental REQUIREMENT for doing that has to be the promotion and fostering of a system that does not encourage the hoarding of cartoonish levels of wealth in the hands of a few hundred estates.

That does NOT mean one-stop, painless, insta-utopia.