COVID-19 numbers

[TDub]

The issue there ( likely not for me, but for a lot of the USA, as I agree with all of those in principle ) are words like 'reasonable' taxes and 'ultra' wealthy and 'strong' workers rights.

That's a sliding scale.

I think, as I've said in other threads on this topic, that a lot of people don't comprehend just how much wealth is concentrated at the furthest-right reaches of the net worth curve. It's staggering how much good could be done without even coming close to (1) disincentivizing building a great company (for example), or (2) impacting anyone's lifestyle in any way.

I'm not talking about telling a family making $4 million a year that they'll need to think about their tax burden when considering whether to buy a beach home and a place in the mountains.

You're being generous by saying people making $4 million shouldn't be targeted, that's sadly not the vibe I get when we talk about a progressive income tax.

I think a lot (maybe most?) lump people making say $250,000 in with the super rich. "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, my neurosurgeon, and my buddy who owns 7 regional successful hardware stores need to pay their fare share!"

I don't think that most people understand math and that a billion is ONE THOUSAND times more than a million.

But I'm with you, I think there's that pool of money that the truly super-wealthy are just sitting on. I used to buy into the notion that these were the people who created/funded new businesses and therefore new jobs. But then I look at Sam Walton's heirs...they're not using their billions to create new jobs, certainly not good ones.

I wish we'd bring back the inheritance tax. 100% of anything above, say $1.5 million. You'd start to see those billionaires spending their money then. I know, that's something rife with loopholes and creates all kinds of problems, but man...old money, and rich families staying rich feels so British and the antithesis of everything American.

100% tax on inheritance over 1.5m? I dont know about that.

[PhDhawk]

I think, as I've said in other threads on this topic, that a lot of people don't comprehend just how much wealth is concentrated at the furthest-right reaches of the net worth curve. It's staggering how much good could be done without even coming close to (1) disincentivizing building a great company (for example), or (2) impacting anyone's lifestyle in any way.

I'm not talking about telling a family making $4 million a year that they'll need to think about their tax burden when considering whether to buy a beach home and a place in the mountains.

You're being generous by saying people making $4 million shouldn't be targeted, that's sadly not the vibe I get when we talk about a progressive income tax.

I think a lot (maybe most?) lump people making say $250,000 in with the super rich. "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, my neurosurgeon, and my buddy who owns 7 regional successful hardware stores need to pay their fare share!"

I don't think that most people understand math and that a billion is ONE THOUSAND times more than a million.

But I'm with you, I think there's that pool of money that the truly super-wealthy are just sitting on. I used to buy into the notion that these were the people who created/funded new businesses and therefore new jobs. But then I look at Sam Walton's heirs...they're not using their billions to create new jobs, certainly not good ones.

I wish we'd bring back the inheritance tax. 100% of anything above, say $1.5 million. You'd start to see those billionaires spending their money then. I know, that's something rife with loopholes and creates all kinds of problems, but man...old money, and rich families staying rich feels so British and the antithesis of everything American.

100% tax on inheritance over 1.5m? I dont know about that.

Why not? Why should someone be rich because his/her parents were rich? And I would only apply it to children, not spouses.

Like I said, there are obvious loopholes in all this. But why do we say Jeff Bezos's kids should become multi-billionaires the day he dies? They didn't create Amazon.

I mean, hell, why do we even think people who are dead should have any say in what happens to their estates via their will? They're dead. They have less interest in it than anyone at that point. We do that because that's what we've always done and I'm not sure there's good justification for it.

It produces people like Donald Trump...there's all the reason you need to know that we shouldn't have familial dynasties.

[jfish26]

I think that's punitive to the point of disincentivizing productive work.

[Mjl]

You're being generous by saying people making $4 million shouldn't be targeted, that's sadly not the vibe I get when we talk about a progressive income tax.

I think a lot (maybe most?) lump people making say $250,000 in with the super rich. "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, my neurosurgeon, and my buddy who owns 7 regional successful hardware stores need to pay their fare share!"

I don't think that most people understand math and that a billion is ONE THOUSAND times more than a million.

But I'm with you, I think there's that pool of money that the truly super-wealthy are just sitting on. I used to buy into the notion that these were the people who created/funded new businesses and therefore new jobs. But then I look at Sam Walton's heirs...they're not using their billions to create new jobs, certainly not good ones.

I wish we'd bring back the inheritance tax. 100% of anything above, say $1.5 million. You'd start to see those billionaires spending their money then. I know, that's something rife with loopholes and creates all kinds of problems, but man...old money, and rich families staying rich feels so British and the antithesis of everything American.

100% tax on inheritance over 1.5m? I dont know about that.

Why not? Why should someone be rich because his/her parents were rich? And I would only apply it to children, not spouses.

Like I said, there are obvious loopholes in all this. But why do we say Jeff Bezos's kids should become multi-billionaires the day he dies? They didn't create Amazon.

I mean, hell, why do we even think people who are dead should have any say in what happens to their estates via their will? They're dead. They have less interest in it than anyone at that point. We do that because that's what we've always done and I'm not sure there's good justification for it.

It produces people like Donald Trump...there's all the reason you need to know that we shouldn't have familial dynasties.

Sooo this.

I was furious that my taxes went up, or that our deficit went way up, in part so that we could get rid of the estate tax, protecting people who made millions without earning it.

[PhDhawk]

I think that's punitive to the point of disincentivizing productive work.

Wouldn't it incentivize people to spend/use their money while they're alive? Wouldn't it incentivize paying employees more money rather than simply accumulating wealth? Wouldn't more people do what Gates and Buffett did and create foundations, or what Carnegie and Rockefellar did with their money at the ends of their lives rather than just making sure their familial line is rich in perpetuity?

And I think we should crack down on nepotism too. Fucking, none of us should even have to be aware of who Jared Kushner is.

[PhDhawk]

100% tax on inheritance over 1.5m? I dont know about that.

Why not? Why should someone be rich because his/her parents were rich? And I would only apply it to children, not spouses.

Like I said, there are obvious loopholes in all this. But why do we say Jeff Bezos's kids should become multi-billionaires the day he dies? They didn't create Amazon.

I mean, hell, why do we even think people who are dead should have any say in what happens to their estates via their will? They're dead. They have less interest in it than anyone at that point. We do that because that's what we've always done and I'm not sure there's good justification for it.

It produces people like Donald Trump...there's all the reason you need to know that we shouldn't have familial dynasties.

Sooo this.

I was furious that my taxes went up, or that our deficit went way up, in part so that we could get rid of the estate tax, protecting people who made millions without earning it.

AND...this is off topic, but fuck it, I'm getting myself wound up. How come the taxes taken out of my paycheck each month can't just be the correct amount of taxes. Every year I end up paying a bunch of money in (plus a penalty) even though my wife and I claim zero deductions. It's bullshit. We shouldn't even have to pay a year end income tax, it should just be taken out from each paycheck. And for those who would miss their refund....fuck that, you're just giving the government a zero interest loan for 12-16 months.

The "Adam ruins everything" (which is normally a pretty shitty tv show) had a good analogy about the IRS and paying taxes. It's like having the pizza delivery guy ask you how much you think the pizza is worth? paying him 10 bucks and then going to prison because it was suppose to be 12. If there's an amount I'm supposed to be taxed at, and the IRS knows what it is, just take that amount every month and leave me alone.

[Deleted User 310]

100% inheritance tax seems insane. I dont think it is wrong for billionaires to ensure their kids and grandkids and great grandkids should be taken care of.

I definitely dont think it should be 0% though.

[Mjl]

Why not? Why should someone be rich because his/her parents were rich? And I would only apply it to children, not spouses.

Like I said, there are obvious loopholes in all this. But why do we say Jeff Bezos's kids should become multi-billionaires the day he dies? They didn't create Amazon.

I mean, hell, why do we even think people who are dead should have any say in what happens to their estates via their will? They're dead. They have less interest in it than anyone at that point. We do that because that's what we've always done and I'm not sure there's good justification for it.

It produces people like Donald Trump...there's all the reason you need to know that we shouldn't have familial dynasties.

Sooo this.

I was furious that my taxes went up, or that our deficit went way up, in part so that we could get rid of the estate tax, protecting people who made millions without earning it.

AND...this is off topic, but fuck it, I'm getting myself wound up. How come the taxes taken out of my paycheck each month can't just be the correct amount of taxes. Every year I end up paying a bunch of money in (plus a penalty) even though my wife and I claim zero deductions. It's bullshit. We shouldn't even have to pay a year end income tax, it should just be taken out from each paycheck. And for those who would miss their refund....fuck that, you're just giving the government a zero interest loan for 12-16 months.

The "Adam ruins everything" (which is normally a pretty shitty tv show) had a good analogy about the IRS and paying taxes. It's like having the pizza delivery guy ask you how much you think the pizza is worth? paying him 10 bucks and then going to prison because it was suppose to be 12. If there's an amount I'm supposed to be taxed at, and the IRS knows what it is, just take that amount every month and leave me alone.

You did step 2 on your w4? You don't just adjust deductions, you need to get more withheld based on your wife's income. And you can always just choose a number yourself for that. But your employer doesn't factor in your wife's income.

[PhDhawk]

I dont think it is wrong for billionaires to ensure their kids and grandkids and great grandkids should be taken care of.

I think it's wrong to perpetuate a caste system.

We talk about white privilege being a bad thing. This is countless times worse.

And this wouldn't prevent them from taking care of their grandkids, they'd just have to do it while they still are alive.

And I'd have a 0% inheritance tax up to some cutoff, I gave $1.5 million as that threshold, I'd be willing to move it. This wouldn't prevent anyone from inheriting a house, or small business, or grandma's biscuit recipe, or some sentimentally important item.

I just don't understand why if I have a million shares of apple stock and I die, that means they all go to the product of a zygote I helped make, especially if said zygote is an adult.

[PhDhawk]

Sooo this.

I was furious that my taxes went up, or that our deficit went way up, in part so that we could get rid of the estate tax, protecting people who made millions without earning it.

AND...this is off topic, but fuck it, I'm getting myself wound up. How come the taxes taken out of my paycheck each month can't just be the correct amount of taxes. Every year I end up paying a bunch of money in (plus a penalty) even though my wife and I claim zero deductions. It's bullshit. We shouldn't even have to pay a year end income tax, it should just be taken out from each paycheck. And for those who would miss their refund....fuck that, you're just giving the government a zero interest loan for 12-16 months.

The "Adam ruins everything" (which is normally a pretty shitty tv show) had a good analogy about the IRS and paying taxes. It's like having the pizza delivery guy ask you how much you think the pizza is worth? paying him 10 bucks and then going to prison because it was suppose to be 12. If there's an amount I'm supposed to be taxed at, and the IRS knows what it is, just take that amount every month and leave me alone.

You did step 2 on your w4? You don't just adjust deductions, you need to get more withheld based on your wife's income. And you can always just choose a number yourself for that. But your employer doesn't factor in your wife's income.

That's the bullshit part I'm talking about.

I don't think employers should be the ones doing the withholding. The IRS should. And no one should have to file income tax at all. For anyone who gets a check, the amount should just be taken out.

For sure there shouldn't be a late penalty, like I said, if you overpay, you don't get paid any accrued interest on your taxes.

Lots of countries have return-free taxing systems and it's stupid that we don't.

We should also be taxed as individuals not as a family unit.

[jfish26]

I dont think it is wrong for billionaires to ensure their kids and grandkids and great grandkids should be taken care of.

I think it's wrong to perpetuate a caste system.

We talk about white privilege being a bad thing. This is countless times worse.

And this wouldn't prevent them from taking care of their grandkids, they'd just have to do it while they still are alive.

And I'd have a 0% inheritance tax up to some cutoff, I gave $1.5 million as that threshold, I'd be willing to move it. This wouldn't prevent anyone from inheriting a house, or small business, or grandma's biscuit recipe, or some sentimentally important item.

I just don't understand why if I have a million shares of apple stock and I die, that means they all go to the product of a zygote I helped make, especially if said zygote is an adult.

I think it makes sense to allow for substantial wealth to be passed down. I don't know what the number is where a tax should be phased in, but it feels like north of another zero after your proposal.

[PhDhawk]

I think morally, what Bill Gates is doing with his children is something close to "the right thing to do".

I don't remember the exact amount he's leaving his children, several million dollars each, I think. Which is something like 0.01% of his fortune.

He said something like, he wanted to leave them enough money to do whatever they want, but not enough to do nothing.

I just don't see an ethical argument for a child to inherit billions of dollars. I think it's an antiquated way of thinking that made more sense when everyone was a subsistence farmer.

[jfish26]

There's quite a gap between $1.5 million, though, and "billions".

[Deleted User 310]

There's quite a gap between $1.5 million, though, and "billions".

Agreed. Or even $15 million.

[PhDhawk]

That was a number I pulled out of the air.

Maybe you start taxing at 1.5 million and progressively increase from there.

But to the point MJL made. I just don't see why the Accountant making $90K has to pay a higher tax rate and the top level inheritance tax rate has dropped 20% over the past couple decades.

The argument against it is that it's already been taxed, but that was when it was someone else's money. If you got a windfall of money for sharing half your genetic information rather than working for it, tax the shit out of it, and be happy you got any money given to you. Let people who do something productive to earn their money keep more of it.

[PhDhawk]

Fish, I think this is where you and I are on the same page with this. And this just shows that we, in the US at least, fail to understand wealth, or numbers, or the difference between rich and super rich.



I mean, look at this bullshit. I'm saying we shouldn't even START taxing estates until $1.5 million, but instead we have the top level of tax CAPPED out at $1 million.

This means that someone who inherits $2 million pays the same rate on the second $1 million, as the person who inherits $2 billion dollars pays on $1,999,000,000. THAT's the problem.

We differentiate more between $60,000 and $80,000 than we do between $2.5 million and $2.5 billion. So that means a 1.3 fold increase in money matters more than a 1,000 fold increase.

[TDub]

That was a number I pulled out of the air.

Maybe you start taxing at 1.5 million and progressively increase from there.

But to the point MJL made. I just don't see why the Accountant making $90K has to pay a higher tax rate and the top level inheritance tax rate has dropped 20% over the past couple decades.

The argument against it is that it's already been taxed, but that was when it was someone else's money. If you got a windfall of money for sharing half your genetic information rather than working for it, tax the shit out of it, and be happy you got any money given to you. Let people who do something productive to earn their money keep more of it.

Well. Technically the wealth in thw inheritance money has already had tax paid on it when it was made. Its just a gift to the benefactor.


But. You can only receive i believe 13k per year in gift money tax free. So im not sure why inheritance would be different than that

[pdub]

I think families should be able to work to make sure their children are supported to the point where they may not need to hold a steady job. Doesn't sound fair - but I think it is the right of a parent to get to that point ( I don't have kids ) .

I would say lower the taxes on inheritance on something under 2 million per dependent??? and then scale it up significantly after that - more brackets for the upper end.

[PhDhawk]

That was a number I pulled out of the air.

Maybe you start taxing at 1.5 million and progressively increase from there.

But to the point MJL made. I just don't see why the Accountant making $90K has to pay a higher tax rate and the top level inheritance tax rate has dropped 20% over the past couple decades.

The argument against it is that it's already been taxed, but that was when it was someone else's money. If you got a windfall of money for sharing half your genetic information rather than working for it, tax the shit out of it, and be happy you got any money given to you. Let people who do something productive to earn their money keep more of it.

Well. Technically the wealth in thw inheritance money has already had tax paid on it when it was made. Its just a gift to the benefactor.

I hear that, and I used to believe it. But if I own a car dealership and sell you a car, the money you buy it with was taxed, as was the money from all my other sales. But when I pay my self my salary out of my profits, the money gets taxed again. What's the difference? It changed hands after a deal.

Well in an estate the money goes from on person to another person following the deceased final deal.

[PhDhawk]

I think families should be able to work to make sure their children are supported to the point where they may not need to hold a steady job. Doesn't sound fair - but I think it is the right of a parent to get to that point ( I don't have kids ) .

I would say lower the taxes on inheritance on something under 2 million per dependent??? and then scale it up significantly after that - more brackets for the upper end.

Why do dead people get rights? They can't marry, vote, etc. Why do they get to control the shit they used to own?

Your second statement is more or less what I'm saying. I know I said 100%, but I'm couped up in a pandemic, and watching people get pissed about racial inequality, when I think socioeconomic inequality is an even bigger issue, while our president transitions into full fascist dictator, and all the while rich people increase their wealth, while everyone else looses, so I went overboard.

The way we're doing it is basically the opposite of what your second paragraph wants. We tax any estate over $10,000 but then don't differentiate anything above a million.

And this is why when Vega says he wants to tax the wealthy, I don't buy it because we as a culture don't seem to understand what defines wealth. Inheriting a million dollars doesn't make you rich. Inheriting a billion makes you crazy rich, yet they're taxed essentially the same.