Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

The Dutch guy who went to Davos and told the billionaires 'Eff U, pay your taxes!' has been a hoot. Speaking truth to power caught my attention as has his career and speaking engagements or interviews. His book 'Utopia for Realists' got him to the Davos party and I'll have to read it.
In case you haven't payed to close attention to the guy, this TEDtalk lecture was a good one. I like his going after the b#llsh!t jobs:

In them United States the top 20% of earners pay in excess of 85% of the total taxes. You can google "percentage of taxes paid by wealthy 2018" to get the figures. The "2018" was my effort to get the latest figures (most of what is available seems to be between 2015-2017). When you talk to those in the upper 10/20% they will tell you how much they are paying and also how much of the total they are paying. They do not talk about how much they are making.

This one has always been of interest to me. Some are suggesting that the rich should get charged more. We have done that in the past and I have no problem with that. The rich, for instance, get tax breaks on many of the things they do for their income. Capital gains, for instance, is charged at a lower rate (there are several of these sorts of things). I will also agree that the rich pay more than those who are not rich (and that is dandy with me). My point is that we have an INCOME tax and, as such, it should cover ALL income! Nailing somebody, for instance, 2% because they are rich is probably not a great idea. If we just kept the current system but applied it to ALL income, we would probably increase our income tax revenues significantly.

The reason for the complexity and size of our code is pretty simple. When we fix it we add to it, when somebody buys enough politicians to 'help' it gets added to. When we want to do something for the poor it gets added to. Taxes are for paying bills - not social engineering! I believe its possible to create a fair and just tax code. I also believe that once a tax code is established that it cannot be changed without a 2/3 majority, in both houses agreeing to such. That, at least, would go far, insofar as the complexity is concerned.
s a little like Social Security. The plan was that everybody pays in and gets to retire on what they paid in. It was not a giveaway. The giveaway was in SSI (Social Security Supplimental Income). this was setup to help people who
My point is that if we are not going to eventually go broke giving it all to the very rich (the last income tax 'cut' was a really bad idea) then we need to actually do something about our tax code. We currently have what is considered one of the more complex, confusing, and arcane tax codes in the entire world. Its literally books long and nobody really understands it all. Its a bit like a religious tome with a bunch of accounts as the tax priest class. Anytime our congress 'fixes' it actually means that they haven't removed anything so much as they have added yet more to an already incompreheIn them United States the top 20% of earners pay in excess of 85% of the total taxes. You can google "percentage of taxes paid by wealthy 2018" to get the figures. The "2018" was my effort to get the latest figures (most of what is available seems to be between 2015-2017). When you talk to those in the upper 10/20% they will tell you how much they are paying and also how much of the total they are paying. They do not talk about how much they are making.

This one has always been of interest to me. Some are suggesting that the rich should get charged more. We have done that in the past and I have no problem with that. The rich, for instance, get tax breaks on many of the things they do for their income. Capital gains, for instance, is charged at a lower rate (there are several of these sorts of things). I will also agree that the rich pay more than those who are not rich (and that is dandy with me). My point is that we have an INCOME tax and, as such, it should cover ALL income! Nailing somebody, for instance, 2% because they are rich is probably not a great idea. If we just kept the current system but applied it to ALL income, we would probably increase our income tax revenues significantly.

The reason for the complexity and size of our code is pretty simple. When we fix it we add to it, when somebody buys enough politicians to 'help' it gets added to. When we want to do something for the poor it gets added to. Taxes are for paying bills - not social engineering! I believe its possible to create a fair and just tax code. I also believe that once a tax code is established that it cannot be changed without a 2/3 majority, in both houses agreeing to such. That, at least, would go far, insofar as the complexity is concerned.

There are a lot of suggestions going on, right now - each and every one will increase the complexity and bulk of the code (not a real good idea) This is not a simple thing and cannot be done overnight. All that being said, its really time to at least start the process?

Here's a thought: how about we set tax rates to a percentage of GDP? I don't have the math skills to establish rates, yet, but it seems to work conceptually:

Assume that income is related to domestic output and that all income is treated equally (wages, capital gains, interest, dividends, inheritance). If the GDP is a fixed number (annually), the ratio between one's income and the adjusted GDP should be easily calculated. As a gross example:

If the GDP is $1 million, and my income is $100, my ratio is 1/10,000 of the GDP, so I'd pay 1/10 thousandth of the federal budget. Obviously there are a lot of other calculations, but the concept is straightforward, rational, and fair. To the billionaires that complain that they contribute to the GDP, they only get taxed to the extent that is true, and no more. One beauty of the system is that it is self adjusting. GDP goes up, taxes go down; budget goes up, taxes go up.

An Automated Payment Transaction Tax is another good one. A tiny fee on each and every automated movement of funds into or out of any account. Collected automatically by banks and card services on each transaction as it occurs. I suggest that it be phased in first to fund social programs and ultimately increased as all other forms of taxation are decreased until it would eventually replace all taxation and the need to pay or collect taxes at all.
Here's how it works according to WIKI...

You know that we just vastly simplified the tax code by changing what is and is not deductible. Most taxpayers will find the standard deduction is better for them than itemizing. Keeping track of our deductions was most of the tax complexity the vast majority of us had to deal with. There are a huge number of rules in the code to make things fair for people with special situations. It started out simple but grew over the years as new complexities arose. But for most of us, those arcane rules do not apply. For example, there is all that stuff about depreciating your oil wells. I don't know about you, but I don't have any oil wells! Most of those rules are there for a reason. You start throwing them away and some business activities become vastly profitable or economically unfeasible. You would be changing the economy for no reason other than a love of simplicity: So the prudent thing is to tread carefully. Propose a change and have CBO analyze the effects before you enact it. Even something as benign sounding as charging the same tax rates on all income would be horribly disruptive. The effects would probably be a massive flight of money out of stocks, a market collapse, and a depression.

The IRS has done a great job of keeping things simple. They have a form that everybody starts with and then additional forms (with their rules) for added complexities. Most people need very few of those additional forms. I own a farm, have rentals, and usually some stocks so I need some more forms. But I find those forms pretty straightforward. They have dozens and dozens of forms I don't need to fill in. In effect, they are hiding that complexity from me because it does not apply.

If we keep on adding to the tax code we are going to be in trouble. Its already an incredible mess. Too many people, businesses, good works, problems, etc. Taxes are to pay the bills, nothing more and nothing less. The trick is to have a code wherein EVERYBODY pays in. I mean that literally. If somebody is poor then they should still pay something in. The way we are doing now there are a large number of folks who pay in absolutely nothing. I am told that includes some that are very rich and very clever.

We need a code that is bullet proof, very difficult to change, add, delete, etc. For all the deals, social engineering, etc. there should be some kind of set-aside which is public and has an ending date on it. Why, for instance, should any income be off the table, or considerably less, than what others pay on their income?

The arguments of the rich are very simple. They pay more so they should get a break. Get rid of those breaks and they will be paying a LOT more. I am also for taxing traded stocks, so .05 cents or even .025 cents per share. For most that will be very little. However, them with the huge computers are trading, literally and automatically, millions of shares a day. They are 'special' so they get a 'special' tax. The tax itself is so small that it wouldn't even be noticed by most.

All that daily volume of microsecond stock trades lowers the "friction" of trading considerably: It decreases the difference between buy and sell prices. Get rid of it and that difference affects everybody in the market.

I also think your worry over poor people not paying is overblown. If they did pay a lower limit, that limit would be either inconsequential or significant. If inconsequential, why bother collecting it at some expense that their payment would probably not cover. If significant, then you are taking an important part of their income! $50 may not mean much to you, but it could be a week's worth of food for a poor family. Income disparity is so high in this country that you will never come up with an acceptable minimum tax payment.

I could be one of those "rich" people you are complaining about who doesn't pay. I could make $150,000 in long term capital gains and pay no tax on it. Because in prior years I lost money in long term capital investments and I have $150,000 in loss-carry-forward. Complex? Yes Unfair? No

The other big complexity is depreciation. I buy farm equipment with a limited useful life. So I have to track the loss of that equipment's value every year. That is deductible against the income I make from the farm. Complex? Yes Unfair? No

Read the Automated Payment Tax I outlined above. It could completely eliminate tax codes altogether.

Just think, we're not even talking about the battle over resources yet. Talk about working to get to the work.

>automated payment tax

To easy to just pay cash and avoid the tax. In that aspect it's like the lottery. A voluntary tax to fund schools doesn't fund them nearly enough.