Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

Loopholes is such an interesting term. I'm going to admit there are often unintended loopholes, created by shortcomings in legislation that were not obvious when drafted, that people like me have used to structure transactions or tell clients what to do. Eliminate them, sure, but I'm not sure that gets you much traction.

Then you get to the tough stuff, impacting pubic policy. One man's tax loophole is another man's stimulus. Tax loopholes are one of the great mysteries of modern politics that everyone thinks are bad, but never disappear.

Is allowing a federal tax deduction for state and local taxes a bad loophole (be careful how you answer with this crowd including me) ?

Is allowing loopholes like deductions or credits for alternative to fossil fuels bad? Are you willing to end domestic manufacturing tax breaks, low-income housing credits, and ethanol subsidies? The list that Congress has and will come up with is endless.

The single largest "loophole," according to Treasury data, involves multinational corporations. These companies can defer taxes on some foreign income by deferring dividend payments. And a crusading Democratic President supposedly was going to eliminate the deduction until he got a call from a certain group of donors.

The second largest loophole is the depriving the U.S. Treasury of over $100 billion in revenue over the next five years, is even more untouchable: tax-free interest on municipal bonds. You want to have a discussion on that one with Chancellor Christ?

Largest loophole number 3 is a manufacturing and extraction subsidy, called the Domestic Production Activities Deduction. So what is your response to domestic organized labor unions on this one?

Is manipulating the tax code in order to shape the economy really that bad? We don't live in an authoritarian country where some bureaucrats just tells people how they must act. We induce them. Maybe if I call it regulation, you will like it better?


,

---

Very true. I agree and appreciate you sharing your expertise. "Just close all the loopholes!" is a cliche. One which I just used, somewhat cavalierly.

Thought provoking thread, DiabloWags! The nuances of this topic are quite debatable.

---

This stuff is a lot more nuanced than tax and spend versus income inequality. The problem in a free society is using tax policy to achieve what we think is good often creates distortions, that can in the aggregate, can also create wealth inequalities. Wags, Dajo, you and others all make some valid points, and I agree, good for Wags to get our intellectual juices moving.

I know my first sentence all sounds really heavy, but as you can see while I can wax some about the state of affairs, I struggle to come up with solutions. Flat taxes on luxury items is pretty weak stuff, truth be told.

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

Bingo!

I often wonder who the liberals like dajo think are going to wind up making up for the Top 1% who pay 46% of California's taxes ...should dajo get his way and marginal rates get raised to 70% .... and the Top 1% move out of California.

If the bottom brackets arent paying any taxes and the Top 1% are no longer carrying 46% of the tax burden, guess who's going to get hit with a higher tax burden?

Can you say the MIDDLE CLASS?

Gavin knows this.
But Bernie and dajo dont.

---

Why don't you go ahead and make up more things about me and my views. It wouldn't be the first time.

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

Loopholes is such an interesting term. I'm going to admit there are often unintended loopholes, created by shortcomings in legislation that were not obvious when drafted, that people like me have used to structure transactions or tell clients what to do. Eliminate them, sure, but I'm not sure that gets you much traction.

Then you get to the tough stuff, impacting pubic policy. One man's tax loophole is another man's stimulus. Tax loopholes are one of the great mysteries of modern politics that everyone thinks are bad, but never disappear.

Is allowing a federal tax deduction for state and local taxes a bad loophole (be careful how you answer with this crowd including me) ?

Is allowing loopholes like deductions or credits for alternative to fossil fuels bad? Are you willing to end domestic manufacturing tax breaks, low-income housing credits, and ethanol subsidies? The list that Congress has and will come up with is endless.

The single largest "loophole," according to Treasury data, involves multinational corporations. These companies can defer taxes on some foreign income by deferring dividend payments. And a crusading Democratic President supposedly was going to eliminate the deduction until he got a call from a certain group of donors.

The second largest loophole is the depriving the U.S. Treasury of over $100 billion in revenue over the next five years, is even more untouchable: tax-free interest on municipal bonds. You want to have a discussion on that one with Chancellor Christ?

Largest loophole number 3 is a manufacturing and extraction subsidy, called the Domestic Production Activities Deduction. So what is your response to domestic organized labor unions on this one?

Is manipulating the tax code in order to shape the economy really that bad? We don't live in an authoritarian country where some bureaucrats just tells people how they must act. We induce them. Maybe if I call it regulation, you will like it better?


,

---

Very true. I agree and appreciate you sharing your expertise. "Just close all the loopholes!" is a cliche. One which I just used, somewhat cavalierly.

Thought provoking thread, DiabloWags! The nuances of this topic are quite debatable.

---

Yes, loophole is a word like socialism. It means different things to do different people so it means nothing outside of demagoguery.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

72.5 million households -- or 40% of total households -- will pay no federal income taxes for tax year 2022

---

That's very interesting. It's also apples and oranges to what Big C and I are saying.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

72.5 million households -- or 40% of total households -- will pay no federal income taxes for tax year 2022

---

That's very interesting. It's also apples and oranges to what Big C and I are saying.

---

You said "99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes." You were clearly incorrect in this statement, unless you think 70 million households are unemployed, despite the "greatest" unemployment numbers ever!

calpoly said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

You described liberalism. Definitions of socialism are all over the map. I'm a liberal.

---

Cool story.

---

Yeh, but socialism basically equalizes poverty. It does not create wealth.

---

It depends on how you define socialism. Some think the Scandinavian countries are socialist but they have some very wealthy citizens!

---

They are not socialist. Have been moving away from socialism lately if they ever were.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

You described liberalism. Definitions of socialism are all over the map. I'm a liberal.

---

Cool story.

---

Yeh, but socialism basically equalizes poverty. It does not create wealth.

---

It depends on how you define socialism. Some think the Scandinavian countries are socialist but they have some very wealthy citizens!

---

They are not socialist.

---

You better clear that statement with diablo

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

72.5 million households -- or 40% of total households -- will pay no federal income taxes for tax year 2022

---

That's very interesting. It's also apples and oranges to what Big C and I are saying.

---

You said "99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes." You were clearly incorrect in this statement, unless you think 70 million households are unemployed, despite the "greatest" unemployment numbers ever!

---

I think 70 million households pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and some even property taxes. Those are taxes.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

72.5 million households -- or 40% of total households -- will pay no federal income taxes for tax year 2022

---

That's very interesting. It's also apples and oranges to what Big C and I are saying.

---

You said "99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes." You were clearly incorrect in this statement, unless you think 70 million households are unemployed, despite the "greatest" unemployment numbers ever!

---

I think 70 million households pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and some even property taxes. Those are taxes.

---

I thought you were having an honest debate. I didn't realize you were being intentionally misleading. Shame on you.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

bearister said:

---

Big C said:

---

Maybe some wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, while others are largely able to avoid them. If so, this should be addressed.

But when I take a bird's-eye view of American society today, one of the last improvement ideas that would occur to me is to make an adjustment that would allow wealthy people to be even wealthier.

---

Which one are you, Big C?

---

LOL, I am actually a confirmed capitalist. Regulated capitalism. I am in favor of Americans becoming wealthy! And as they do (and forever after), they should pay their fair share in taxes, since they are able to live in a country that has the infrastructure in which people can become wealthy. The tricky and controversial part is defining what constitutes "fair".

I have a feeling that, with some help from the numbers crunchers, I could devise a system in which all Americans paid somewhere between 5-49% of their income in taxes (federal + state!) and we would still have more tax revenue than we do now. Something to do with closing loopholes.

---

I agree with everything here though I'd add that probably 99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes.

---

72.5 million households -- or 40% of total households -- will pay no federal income taxes for tax year 2022

---

That's very interesting. It's also apples and oranges to what Big C and I are saying.

---

You said "99% of income earning Americans already pay 5% - 49% of their income in taxes." You were clearly incorrect in this statement, unless you think 70 million households are unemployed, despite the "greatest" unemployment numbers ever!

---

I think 70 million households pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and some even property taxes. Those are taxes.

---

I thought you were having an honest debate. I didn't realize you were being intentionally misleading. Shame on you.

---

Big C made a statement. You made assumptions about that statement based on words that weren't there and your own interpretation that you wanted to focus on. I commented on the actual words in Big C's statement and, I think, injected a bigger picture into the previous conversation. I guess my approach of using actual true words derailed you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

Income and money are part of a social contract and construct, to believe that the wealthy create wealth without the country providing for them is delusional and a denial of the macro picture. It's symbiotic. You get great wealth (often ore than any person needs or deserves) and in exchange you re-contribute a relatively meager part of your earnings. All the playing with percentages you've quoted do not disguise inequity in the system and the responsibility of the wealthy to fund MORE than they do and not tax dodge and legislate against the needs of the many. Not socialism, just a fair and decent society with a healthy middle class that drives prosperity for all.

---

There is a huge disconnect here. As Wags will tell you probably with actual statistics, a lot of income and wealth these days is generated outside this county, or in the case of Californian outside the state for high end taxpayers. Wags just demonstrated that it is not a meager part of one's income outside of the ultra rich, and moreover that formual you suggest is not working in the high income states like CA and NY, where wealth distribution is at its worse. The guys getting soaked are not billionaires, it's the entrepreneurs and professionals who have to take high salaries and taxable money.

Go back and read Wag's post and try to apply some financial literacy. He is talking about people who earn income and the percentages they have to pay of the taxes collected. The percentage he is talking about doesn't include Carl Icahn, because Carl Ichan has essentially no taxable income. Carl is not in the numerator or denominator of the percentages . Yet when some liberal whack job comes out and starts screaming about raising income tax rates, you nod your head and start talking about fair share and concepts about meager amounts of taxes. Some guy who actually has employees and must put money back into his business in California to grow it, doesn't really see your confiscatory views of 53% or more percent of his income (this includes federal and state marginal rates, Obamacare surcharge and CA add-on fees) are not "meager" enough. Yet look what percentage of the overall taxes these guys pays. And in a bad economy when their income goes down, and there isn't enough taxes to cover all the social welfare spending you want, you scream injustice and wealth distribution. The narrative is off. This may come as shock, but 53% of a tax hit for Carl on no taxable income, really doesn't increase his taxes when you say it should now be what would you coal meager, ....60%, 70%, what would make you happy?

To respond to Dajo, who makes a valid point, we really have to look at what might work to increase income of the lower earners. At one point we had a tight job market (and we still do in some business sectors) and wages were rising. Maybe creating a strong jobs economy is good even if it creates some inflation (or put another way, maybe some inflation is the price we pay to reduce income equality, especially under current tax limitations). In regard to current tax limits, it really hard (and likely illegal w/o a constitutional amendment) to come-up with a workable tax scheme to go after the Carl Ichan's of the world. Maybe a flat rate use tax on taxes on assets over a certain value? The problem is Carl just moves

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

The short version to me is that W2 high income earners, like me, are getting slaughtered by the combination of federal and CA state tax. As WIAF explained, the current tax law is extremely favorable towards people whose income derives from real estate or hedge fund folks. It makes no sense that a professional W2 earner is getting socked for 54% with virtually no deductions and Uber wealthy (top 1/4 of 1%) who work in hedge funds pay closer to 20%. This was part of the attack on blue-state professionals who were previously able to deduct state income tax off the federal, but since Trump's support wasn't from the blue states, that benefit evaporated. I know SEVERAL people who are planning on retiring to Nevada, Arizona, or Texas. Like a lot of you, I like living in California and want to be close to my kids and grandkids so I'm stuck paying.

juarezbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

Income and money are part of a social contract and construct, to believe that the wealthy create wealth without the country providing for them is delusional and a denial of the macro picture. It's symbiotic. You get great wealth (often ore than any person needs or deserves) and in exchange you re-contribute a relatively meager part of your earnings. All the playing with percentages you've quoted do not disguise inequity in the system and the responsibility of the wealthy to fund MORE than they do and not tax dodge and legislate against the needs of the many. Not socialism, just a fair and decent society with a healthy middle class that drives prosperity for all.

---

There is a huge disconnect here. As Wags will tell you probably with actual statistics, a lot of income and wealth these days is generated outside this county, or in the case of Californian outside the state for high end taxpayers. Wags just demonstrated that it is not a meager part of one's income outside of the ultra rich, and moreover that formual you suggest is not working in the high income states like CA and NY, where wealth distribution is at its worse. The guys getting soaked are not billionaires, it's the entrepreneurs and professionals who have to take high salaries and taxable money.

Go back and read Wag's post and try to apply some financial literacy. He is talking about people who earn income and the percentages they have to pay of the taxes collected. The percentage he is talking about doesn't include Carl Icahn, because Carl Ichan has essentially no taxable income. Carl is not in the numerator or denominator of the percentages . Yet when some liberal whack job comes out and starts screaming about raising income tax rates, you nod your head and start talking about fair share and concepts about meager amounts of taxes. Some guy who actually has employees and must put money back into his business in California to grow it, doesn't really see your confiscatory views of 53% or more percent of his income (this includes federal and state marginal rates, Obamacare surcharge and CA add-on fees) are not "meager" enough. Yet look what percentage of the overall taxes these guys pays. And in a bad economy when their income goes down, and there isn't enough taxes to cover all the social welfare spending you want, you scream injustice and wealth distribution. The narrative is off. This may come as shock, but 53% of a tax hit for Carl on no taxable income, really doesn't increase his taxes when you say it should now be what would you coal meager, ....60%, 70%, what would make you happy?

To respond to Dajo, who makes a valid point, we really have to look at what might work to increase income of the lower earners. At one point we had a tight job market (and we still do in some business sectors) and wages were rising. Maybe creating a strong jobs economy is good even if it creates some inflation (or put another way, maybe some inflation is the price we pay to reduce income equality, especially under current tax limitations). In regard to current tax limits, it really hard (and likely illegal w/o a constitutional amendment) to come-up with a workable tax scheme to go after the Carl Ichan's of the world. Maybe a flat rate use tax on taxes on assets over a certain value? The problem is Carl just moves

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

The short version to me is that W2 high income earners, like me, are getting slaughtered by the combination of federal and CA state tax. As WIAF explained, the current tax law is extremely favorable towards people whose income derives from real estate or hedge fund folks. It makes no sense that a professional W2 earner is getting socked for 54% with virtually no deductions and Uber wealthy (top 1/4 of 1%) who work in hedge funds pay closer to 20%. This was part of the attack on blue-state professionals who were previously able to deduct state income tax off the federal, but since Trump's support wasn't from the blue states, that benefit evaporated.

---

I agree with this. I am in this category except in New Jersey. But I think it's worth pointing out you seem to be conflating a marginal rate (54%) with an average rate (20%). I bet that 54% marginal rate usually corresponds to about a 30% average rate. Still unfair.

juarezbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

Income and money are part of a social contract and construct, to believe that the wealthy create wealth without the country providing for them is delusional and a denial of the macro picture. It's symbiotic. You get great wealth (often ore than any person needs or deserves) and in exchange you re-contribute a relatively meager part of your earnings. All the playing with percentages you've quoted do not disguise inequity in the system and the responsibility of the wealthy to fund MORE than they do and not tax dodge and legislate against the needs of the many. Not socialism, just a fair and decent society with a healthy middle class that drives prosperity for all.

---

There is a huge disconnect here. As Wags will tell you probably with actual statistics, a lot of income and wealth these days is generated outside this county, or in the case of Californian outside the state for high end taxpayers. Wags just demonstrated that it is not a meager part of one's income outside of the ultra rich, and moreover that formual you suggest is not working in the high income states like CA and NY, where wealth distribution is at its worse. The guys getting soaked are not billionaires, it's the entrepreneurs and professionals who have to take high salaries and taxable money.

Go back and read Wag's post and try to apply some financial literacy. He is talking about people who earn income and the percentages they have to pay of the taxes collected. The percentage he is talking about doesn't include Carl Icahn, because Carl Ichan has essentially no taxable income. Carl is not in the numerator or denominator of the percentages . Yet when some liberal whack job comes out and starts screaming about raising income tax rates, you nod your head and start talking about fair share and concepts about meager amounts of taxes. Some guy who actually has employees and must put money back into his business in California to grow it, doesn't really see your confiscatory views of 53% or more percent of his income (this includes federal and state marginal rates, Obamacare surcharge and CA add-on fees) are not "meager" enough. Yet look what percentage of the overall taxes these guys pays. And in a bad economy when their income goes down, and there isn't enough taxes to cover all the social welfare spending you want, you scream injustice and wealth distribution. The narrative is off. This may come as shock, but 53% of a tax hit for Carl on no taxable income, really doesn't increase his taxes when you say it should now be what would you coal meager, ....60%, 70%, what would make you happy?

To respond to Dajo, who makes a valid point, we really have to look at what might work to increase income of the lower earners. At one point we had a tight job market (and we still do in some business sectors) and wages were rising. Maybe creating a strong jobs economy is good even if it creates some inflation (or put another way, maybe some inflation is the price we pay to reduce income equality, especially under current tax limitations). In regard to current tax limits, it really hard (and likely illegal w/o a constitutional amendment) to come-up with a workable tax scheme to go after the Carl Ichan's of the world. Maybe a flat rate use tax on taxes on assets over a certain value? The problem is Carl just moves

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

The short version to me is that W2 high income earners, like me, are getting slaughtered by the combination of federal and CA state tax. As WIAF explained, the current tax law is extremely favorable towards people whose income derives from real estate or hedge fund folks. It makes no sense that a professional W2 earner is getting socked for 54% with virtually no deductions and Uber wealthy (top 1/4 of 1%) who work in hedge funds pay closer to 20%. This was part of the attack on blue-state professionals who were previously able to deduct state income tax off the federal, but since Trump's support wasn't from the blue states, that benefit evaporated. I know SEVERAL people who are planning on retiring to Nevada, Arizona, or Texas. Like a lot of you, I like living in California and want to be close to my kids and grandkids so I'm stuck paying.

---

On a further note, it's true that the top 10% pay a huge percentage of the overall income taxes. That being said, income inequality is way, way, our of whack in this country. I'm sure several folks on BI are members of the top 1% or maybe 2% based on income. There's a very tiny percentage of extraordinarily wealthy families and individuals of wealth that dwarfs the rest of us. Not sure if it's true, but it's been posited that Bezos, Gates, and Musk have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. I would imagine that if one added up all members of the Walton Family they'd be there too. I'm not suggesting we tax their wealth, but I'm asking that their income be taxed the same way the working wealthy are. I think that would level things at least a little.

dajo9 said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

Income and money are part of a social contract and construct, to believe that the wealthy create wealth without the country providing for them is delusional and a denial of the macro picture. It's symbiotic. You get great wealth (often ore than any person needs or deserves) and in exchange you re-contribute a relatively meager part of your earnings. All the playing with percentages you've quoted do not disguise inequity in the system and the responsibility of the wealthy to fund MORE than they do and not tax dodge and legislate against the needs of the many. Not socialism, just a fair and decent society with a healthy middle class that drives prosperity for all.

---

There is a huge disconnect here. As Wags will tell you probably with actual statistics, a lot of income and wealth these days is generated outside this county, or in the case of Californian outside the state for high end taxpayers. Wags just demonstrated that it is not a meager part of one's income outside of the ultra rich, and moreover that formual you suggest is not working in the high income states like CA and NY, where wealth distribution is at its worse. The guys getting soaked are not billionaires, it's the entrepreneurs and professionals who have to take high salaries and taxable money.

Go back and read Wag's post and try to apply some financial literacy. He is talking about people who earn income and the percentages they have to pay of the taxes collected. The percentage he is talking about doesn't include Carl Icahn, because Carl Ichan has essentially no taxable income. Carl is not in the numerator or denominator of the percentages . Yet when some liberal whack job comes out and starts screaming about raising income tax rates, you nod your head and start talking about fair share and concepts about meager amounts of taxes. Some guy who actually has employees and must put money back into his business in California to grow it, doesn't really see your confiscatory views of 53% or more percent of his income (this includes federal and state marginal rates, Obamacare surcharge and CA add-on fees) are not "meager" enough. Yet look what percentage of the overall taxes these guys pays. And in a bad economy when their income goes down, and there isn't enough taxes to cover all the social welfare spending you want, you scream injustice and wealth distribution. The narrative is off. This may come as shock, but 53% of a tax hit for Carl on no taxable income, really doesn't increase his taxes when you say it should now be what would you coal meager, ....60%, 70%, what would make you happy?

To respond to Dajo, who makes a valid point, we really have to look at what might work to increase income of the lower earners. At one point we had a tight job market (and we still do in some business sectors) and wages were rising. Maybe creating a strong jobs economy is good even if it creates some inflation (or put another way, maybe some inflation is the price we pay to reduce income equality, especially under current tax limitations). In regard to current tax limits, it really hard (and likely illegal w/o a constitutional amendment) to come-up with a workable tax scheme to go after the Carl Ichan's of the world. Maybe a flat rate use tax on taxes on assets over a certain value? The problem is Carl just moves

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

The short version to me is that W2 high income earners, like me, are getting slaughtered by the combination of federal and CA state tax. As WIAF explained, the current tax law is extremely favorable towards people whose income derives from real estate or hedge fund folks. It makes no sense that a professional W2 earner is getting socked for 54% with virtually no deductions and Uber wealthy (top 1/4 of 1%) who work in hedge funds pay closer to 20%. This was part of the attack on blue-state professionals who were previously able to deduct state income tax off the federal, but since Trump's support wasn't from the blue states, that benefit evaporated.

---

I agree with this. I am in this category except in New Jersey. But I think it's worth pointing out you seem to be conflating a marginal rate (54%) with an average rate (20%). I bet that 54% marginal rate usually corresponds to about a 30% average rate. Still unfair.

---

Thanks for the correction....yes....if hedge fund guys making half a billion a year are taxed 30% rather than 20%, it's better, but still makes no sense. We can thank Sen Sinema for that.

juarezbear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

Income and money are part of a social contract and construct, to believe that the wealthy create wealth without the country providing for them is delusional and a denial of the macro picture. It's symbiotic. You get great wealth (often ore than any person needs or deserves) and in exchange you re-contribute a relatively meager part of your earnings. All the playing with percentages you've quoted do not disguise inequity in the system and the responsibility of the wealthy to fund MORE than they do and not tax dodge and legislate against the needs of the many. Not socialism, just a fair and decent society with a healthy middle class that drives prosperity for all.

---

There is a huge disconnect here. As Wags will tell you probably with actual statistics, a lot of income and wealth these days is generated outside this county, or in the case of Californian outside the state for high end taxpayers. Wags just demonstrated that it is not a meager part of one's income outside of the ultra rich, and moreover that formual you suggest is not working in the high income states like CA and NY, where wealth distribution is at its worse. The guys getting soaked are not billionaires, it's the entrepreneurs and professionals who have to take high salaries and taxable money.

Go back and read Wag's post and try to apply some financial literacy. He is talking about people who earn income and the percentages they have to pay of the taxes collected. The percentage he is talking about doesn't include Carl Icahn, because Carl Ichan has essentially no taxable income. Carl is not in the numerator or denominator of the percentages . Yet when some liberal whack job comes out and starts screaming about raising income tax rates, you nod your head and start talking about fair share and concepts about meager amounts of taxes. Some guy who actually has employees and must put money back into his business in California to grow it, doesn't really see your confiscatory views of 53% or more percent of his income (this includes federal and state marginal rates, Obamacare surcharge and CA add-on fees) are not "meager" enough. Yet look what percentage of the overall taxes these guys pays. And in a bad economy when their income goes down, and there isn't enough taxes to cover all the social welfare spending you want, you scream injustice and wealth distribution. The narrative is off. This may come as shock, but 53% of a tax hit for Carl on no taxable income, really doesn't increase his taxes when you say it should now be what would you coal meager, ....60%, 70%, what would make you happy?

To respond to Dajo, who makes a valid point, we really have to look at what might work to increase income of the lower earners. At one point we had a tight job market (and we still do in some business sectors) and wages were rising. Maybe creating a strong jobs economy is good even if it creates some inflation (or put another way, maybe some inflation is the price we pay to reduce income equality, especially under current tax limitations). In regard to current tax limits, it really hard (and likely illegal w/o a constitutional amendment) to come-up with a workable tax scheme to go after the Carl Ichan's of the world. Maybe a flat rate use tax on taxes on assets over a certain value? The problem is Carl just moves

What makes this so bizarre to me is the one politician that seems to grasp this is of all people Gavin Newsom. He rejected supporting several of the last tax grabs supported by his party by saying income was too transferrable. It is like capital, it goes where it is liked. Yes Gavin often says some contradictory, poll induced stuff, and some things he supports don't alway help the economy. But if Gavin gets why soaking income earners with more taxes makes no sense, why don't you guys? The high end wage earner can move and zoom from another state, and they have had enough. There is a reason large law firms consider assisting their clients in this area a growth practice.

---

The short version to me is that W2 high income earners, like me, are getting slaughtered by the combination of federal and CA state tax. As WIAF explained, the current tax law is extremely favorable towards people whose income derives from real estate or hedge fund folks. It makes no sense that a professional W2 earner is getting socked for 54% with virtually no deductions and Uber wealthy (top 1/4 of 1%) who work in hedge funds pay closer to 20%. This was part of the attack on blue-state professionals who were previously able to deduct state income tax off the federal, but since Trump's support wasn't from the blue states, that benefit evaporated. I know SEVERAL people who are planning on retiring to Nevada, Arizona, or Texas. Like a lot of you, I like living in California and want to be close to my kids and grandkids so I'm stuck paying.

---

On a further note, it's true that the top 10% pay a huge percentage of the overall income taxes. That being said, income inequality is way, way, our of whack in this country. I'm sure several folks on BI are members of the top 1% or maybe 2% based on income. There's a very tiny percentage of extraordinarily wealthy families and individuals of wealth that dwarfs the rest of us. Not sure if it's true, but it's been posited that Bezos, Gates, and Musk have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. I would imagine that if one added up all members of the Walton Family they'd be there too. I'm not suggesting we tax their wealth, but I'm asking that their income be taxed the same way the working wealthy are. I think that would level things at least a little.

---

How about taxing capital gains at the same rate as income?

calpoly said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo said:

---

Liberal. Not socialist.

---

Sorry, but you sound confused.

A primary tenet of socialist policy is a Government that redistributes income by taking income (the tax) from someone who earns more and giving the proceeds, as a subsidy, to someone who earns less.

---

You described liberalism. Definitions of socialism are all over the map. I'm a liberal.

---

Cool story.

---

Yeh, but socialism basically equalizes poverty. It does not create wealth.

---

It depends on how you define socialism. Some think the Scandinavian countries are socialist but they have some very wealthy citizens!

---

Don't hold your breath too long.

If you are talking about European socialism, it is has triggered a booming business called golden passport programs in southern EU countries to leave the high tax Scandinavian countries.

Not is Sweden where capital gains tax is pretty average compared to other countries, company tax is very low, and there's no property or inheritance tax. Even the overall tax hit for billionaires is way under 50%, which is not true for say a California billionaire who is not willing to play the I have no taxable income game. There is a nation VAT which might be an answers to some tax avoidance in the US if not for some legal impediments and the reaction of different states.

Finland on the other hand, is losing its wealthy leading to the saying "it is a lottery win to be born in Finland", which usually is followed up with "and you need a lottery win to be able to afford to live there…"


. Wealthy Finns' emigration trends indicative of tax avoision ...https://www.helsinkitimes.fi finland-news domestic.The wealth gap in Finland is widening - EURACTIV.comhttps://www.euractiv.com politics short_news the-...
And then Norway:

Billionaires leave Norway in response to rising taxeshttps://www.taxolution.ch norway-wealth-exodus

Rich Norwegians flee to low-tax Switzerland as wealth levy biteshttps://www.ft.com Economy Europe Norway


Wealthy Norwegians flee confiscation by wealth tax - NEWS.MChttps://news.mc 2022/12/18 wealthy-norwegians-fle...

dajo9 said:

---

How about taxing capital gains at the same rate as income?

---

Ummm..... short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income.

Catching up here…

I'm guessing DiabloWags is bitter ranting because it's tax preparation time, and the majority of his income comes from securities trading (based on prior posts), and this income is something he can't hide/escape from because all Sales Trades are reported to the SEC.

Wife shows wealth retention strategies that don't apply.

Yes?

I find it interesting how much discussion revolves around people getting to keep their own nuggets rather than how we can collectively create the best overall society as possible via taxation policy. Bearister and Dajo and BigC win points from me along these lines.

In the end, we all die and take nothing with us. Therefore, if we split to New Zealand with our "bag", as my father has pondered, along with TX or FLA, have we contributed all we could have? I don't think so.

Odonto, whom I respect, chimes in with an echo of Diablo's thought that is pervasive in America, that socialism does not create wealth. I have given a lot of thought to this… why did the USSR fail? Because (in my layman's mind) there is little motivation for anyone to strive without strong linkage to reward.

And this brings about the most interesting query in my mind… if mankind is only motivated by gain, and yet the poor become bitter, dis-spirited to the point of giving up or even committing crimes against the rich when they recognize they are society's "losers"…. I mean, this is a problem!! Wealth inequality in extreme/excess is a big psychological problem for many individuals, and therefore for society as a whole. Meritocracy, by definition, tells us that those who are rich merited it, while those poor also unfortunately deserve it. That's a psychological whammy!

…You see, I posit that standards of living are today WAY better for ALL Americans (minus the mentally deranged homeless, of which has always existed but our current society produces in excess) than 100 years ago (roughly dated, unimportant).
Indoor plumbing
HVAC
TV
Internet
Telephones
Cars, planes
Grocery stores produce aisle, etc.
Container ships from china
Home Depot, Walmart

These are all things that is any of our gg grandparents had access to, they would have felt like KINGS!!!

Yet, this is NOT necessarily enough to motivate every single one of today's Americans. No, apparently, everyone needs MORE than all that! I mean, just look at this debate, above.

Therefore, I must conclude that wealth is entirely relative, and therefore so is motivation.

My gg grandfather busted his ass in a cement factory in Yankton SD to put food on the table for his children. That was motivation enough.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, only to say that I think most of all this discussion about fairness is BS because it's all just based in a silly notion.

Perhaps we need a better mindset about why we get up each day and go to work. Perhaps we can be motivated while still being not so selfish about needing our kingdom AND an island, too.
Perhaps an impossibility.

…Pause…
My proposal has been to laud tax payers. Have THAT public reverence be the prize, not the island.
Build monuments to tax payers who help lift the tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free!
Make the rich WANT to achieve such immortal status!
Let's see what THAT value system could generate both in terms of overall wealth and wealth equality.

My stepfather Used to have some saying like "it's illegal to avoid paying taxes, but it's unethical to not try to reduce one's tax bill as much as possible."
I have to say, I disagree!
Is it immoral? I won't go so far, for he paid and donated plenty. But he also had plenty, and would today be completely blind to the struggles of so many.
For reference, he'd be 100 in another week or two, died at 93, Parkinson's.

Am I a socialist for what I've expressed?
Hardly!
But it's the accusatory insult of our times.
And it's a far too simplistic one at that.

juarezbear said:

---

Thanks for the correction....yes....if hedge fund guys making half a billion a year are taxed 30% rather than 20%, it's better, but still makes no sense. We can thank Sen Sinema for that.

---

The income that a hedge fund manager receives (if he's making money on the year) is taxed as a return on investment as opposed to a salary or compensation for services rendered. Most fund managers have a 2 and 20% performance arrangement in which they charge a 2% management fee of the assets under management and take 20% of the profits. That's their incentive fee. This incentive fee is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 23.8% as opposed to ordinary income tax rates, where the top marginal rate is 37% on income over $578,000.

Most of your very wealthy families make money via long-term capital gains in the stock market. People like the Waltons of Walmart fame as well as many CEO's. They have stock option grants that are held for more than one year. This is not a loophole. They are being taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 23.8%

If you dont like where the long-term capital gains rate is, then lobby your Congressman to raise it. But I would suggest that you do some homework and understand that a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue than a higher one.

Case in point: In 2007, the IRS raised $122 Billion with a 15% tax rate as opposed to only $7.8 Billion in 1977 ( which is roughly $27 Billion in 2007 dollars ) with a 40% tax rate. When Bush signed into law a cut in the top rate from 20% to 15%, REVENUE INCREASED FROM $51 BILLION IN 2003 TO $127 BILLION IN 2007.

(These were tax cuts that were always meant to be permanent, but they came with a 10 year expiration date because Congress passed them thru an arcane budget process known as "reconciliation" that later became famous for allowing Obamacare to become law. In any event, Obama and Congress cut a deal in 2010 to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years. The phase out of the Death Tax was left out of the deal).

FWIW: The long-term cap gains rate has never been more than 29.19% over the last 44 years.
It's currently at 23.8%

PS. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer dropped the bill's so-called carried interest tax provision in the Inflation Reduction Act in order to secure Sinema's vote. The bill instead, imposes a 1% tax on all corporate share buybacks along with a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% on companies with more than $1 Billion in revenues.

concordtom said:

---

Catching up here…

I'm guessing DiabloWags is bitter ranting because it's tax preparation time, and the majority of his income comes from securities trading (based on prior posts), and this income is something he can't hide/escape from because all Sales Trades are reported to the SEC.

---

Concord Tom said:

---

I don't know where I'm going with all this, only to say that I think most of all this discussion about fairness is BS because it's all just based in a silly notion.

---

Yes, the silly "notion" that the Top 5% of earners paid 62.7% of all income taxes.
Are you sure you arent a Faux News viewer who has great difficulty accepting FACTS?

And you'd be terribly wrong with your misguided assumptions about where my earnings come from Tom.
Not the first time I might add.

Most of my income does not come from short-term capital gains. Moreover, it's pretty comical of you to make such a bizarre assertion that I'd be interested in trying to hide/escape from reporting income. - - - And for what it's worth, all brokerage trade data is reported to the IRS for income tax purposes, not the SEC.

All this . . . from someone who claims to have once managed $20 Billion in a mutual fund.
You're a funny guy!

concordtom said:

---

Catching up here…

I'm guessing DiabloWags is bitter ranting because it's tax preparation time, and the majority of his income comes from securities trading (based on prior posts), and this income is something he can't hide/escape from because all Sales Trades are reported to the SEC.

Wife shows wealth retention strategies that don't apply.

Yes?

I find it interesting how much discussion revolves around people getting to keep their own nuggets rather than how we can collectively create the best overall society as possible via taxation policy. Bearister and Dajo and BigC win points from me along these lines.

In the end, we all die and take nothing with us. Therefore, if we split to New Zealand with our "bag", as my father has pondered, along with TX or FLA, have we contributed all we could have? I don't think so.

Odonto, whom I respect, chimes in with an echo of Diablo's thought that is pervasive in America, that socialism does not create wealth. I have given a lot of thought to this… why did the USSR fail? Because (in my layman's mind) there is little motivation for anyone to strive without strong linkage to reward.

And this brings about the most interesting query in my mind… if mankind is only motivated by gain, and yet the poor become bitter, dis-spirited to the point of giving up or even committing crimes against the rich when they recognize they are society's "losers"…. I mean, this is a problem!! Wealth inequality in extreme/excess is a big psychological problem for many individuals, and therefore for society as a whole. Meritocracy, by definition, tells us that those who are rich merited it, while those poor also unfortunately deserve it. That's a psychological whammy!

…You see, I posit that standards of living are today WAY better for ALL Americans (minus the mentally deranged homeless, of which has always existed but our current society produces in excess) than 100 years ago (roughly dated, unimportant).
Indoor plumbing
HVAC
TV
Internet
Telephones
Cars, planes
Grocery stores produce aisle, etc.
Container ships from china
Home Depot, Walmart

These are all things that is any of our gg grandparents had access to, they would have felt like KINGS!!!

Yet, this is NOT necessarily enough to motivate every single one of today's Americans. No, apparently, everyone needs MORE than all that! I mean, just look at this debate, above.

Therefore, I must conclude that wealth is entirely relative, and therefore so is motivation.

My gg grandfather busted his ass in a cement factory in Yankton SD to put food on the table for his children. That was motivation enough.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, only to say that I think most of all this discussion about fairness is BS because it's all just based in a silly notion.

Perhaps we need a better mindset about why we get up each day and go to work. Perhaps we can be motivated while still being not so selfish about needing our kingdom AND an island, too.
Perhaps an impossibility.

…Pause…
My proposal has been to laud tax payers. Have THAT public reverence be the prize, not the island.
Build monuments to tax payers who help lift the tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free!
Make the rich WANT to achieve such immortal status!
Let's see what THAT value system could generate both in terms of overall wealth and wealth equality.

My stepfather Used to have some saying like "it's illegal to avoid paying taxes, but it's unethical to not try to reduce one's tax bill as much as possible."
I have to say, I disagree!
Is it immoral? I won't go so far, for he paid and donated plenty. But he also had plenty, and would today be completely blind to the struggles of so many.
For reference, he'd be 100 in another week or two, died at 93, Parkinson's.

Am I a socialist for what I've expressed?
Hardly!
But it's the accusatory insult of our times.
And it's a far too simplistic one at that.

---

I'm not sure where a lot of this is going either or the whole thing on labels. My suggestion is if you don't feel you or your family are not contributing sufficiently, you can contribute to charities that support causes you deem important, or to business or government (people actually do give government money beyond their tax bill) that will create jobs or other social goods that you consider make our world better.

That said, a lot of this is pretty condescending (not intentionally I suspect) to guys like Juarez who are getting hammered by taxes and see taking care of generations of family as a priority in a very high cost state. He doesn't need monuments.

My comments were not meant as an attack.
These are philosophical questions on the nature man man, and our times.

I added the personal stuff for the reader's context.

I don't need people's criticism of me in response, and yes, I had responsibilities for the performance of $20B AUM. I don't know why you keep coming back to that. It must impress you. But it was just a job.

Look, guys, I'm quite similar to you. I want my castle and island, too.
But I'm also just pondering these things in order to question our societal assumptions - we take much for granted as fact. But much of our notions are "social constructs", beliefs passed down. Where does innate behavior end and culture begin?

I'm sorry if I offended either of you. I didn't mean to.

I just meant that I'm more fascinated with the questions of how to create more wealth equality (better societal psychological health) than how to keep more of mine - without killing motivation, which is the engine, as Odonto and others allude to.

Conclusion: change the reward from being a multi multi millionaire to something else.

And happiness studies reveal the same - after so much, there is a diminishing return. Yes, money buys happiness - to a point. The first $100k is huge! But if you have $10M, the next 100k is nothing. So, at that level, money can't buy happiness. Love, respect, friendship… but by then we've conditioned ourselves to always be on the hunt for that next dollar. Then we become like ebenezer Scrooge.

I didn't get to read in any post by Juarez. Anyone on the hunt to help support others is on a good hunt. Castle and island not necessary.

concordtom said:

---

Catching up here…

I'm guessing DiabloWags is bitter ranting because it's tax preparation time, and the majority of his income comes from securities trading (based on prior posts), and this income is something he can't hide/escape from because all Sales Trades are reported to the SEC.

Wife shows wealth retention strategies that don't apply.

Yes?

I find it interesting how much discussion revolves around people getting to keep their own nuggets rather than how we can collectively create the best overall society as possible via taxation policy. Bearister and Dajo and BigC win points from me along these lines.

In the end, we all die and take nothing with us. Therefore, if we split to New Zealand with our "bag", as my father has pondered, along with TX or FLA, have we contributed all we could have? I don't think so.

Odonto, whom I respect, chimes in with an echo of Diablo's thought that is pervasive in America, that socialism does not create wealth. I have given a lot of thought to this… why did the USSR fail? Because (in my layman's mind) there is little motivation for anyone to strive without strong linkage to reward.

And this brings about the most interesting query in my mind… if mankind is only motivated by gain, and yet the poor become bitter, dis-spirited to the point of giving up or even committing crimes against the rich when they recognize they are society's "losers"…. I mean, this is a problem!! Wealth inequality in extreme/excess is a big psychological problem for many individuals, and therefore for society as a whole. Meritocracy, by definition, tells us that those who are rich merited it, while those poor also unfortunately deserve it. That's a psychological whammy!

…You see, I posit that standards of living are today WAY better for ALL Americans (minus the mentally deranged homeless, of which has always existed but our current society produces in excess) than 100 years ago (roughly dated, unimportant).
Indoor plumbing
HVAC
TV
Internet
Telephones
Cars, planes
Grocery stores produce aisle, etc.
Container ships from china
Home Depot, Walmart

These are all things that is any of our gg grandparents had access to, they would have felt like KINGS!!!

Yet, this is NOT necessarily enough to motivate every single one of today's Americans. No, apparently, everyone needs MORE than all that! I mean, just look at this debate, above.

Therefore, I must conclude that wealth is entirely relative, and therefore so is motivation.

My gg grandfather busted his ass in a cement factory in Yankton SD to put food on the table for his children. That was motivation enough.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, only to say that I think most of all this discussion about fairness is BS because it's all just based in a silly notion.

Perhaps we need a better mindset about why we get up each day and go to work. Perhaps we can be motivated while still being not so selfish about needing our kingdom AND an island, too.
Perhaps an impossibility.

…Pause…
My proposal has been to laud tax payers. Have THAT public reverence be the prize, not the island.
Build monuments to tax payers who help lift the tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free!
Make the rich WANT to achieve such immortal status!
Let's see what THAT value system could generate both in terms of overall wealth and wealth equality.

My stepfather Used to have some saying like "it's illegal to avoid paying taxes, but it's unethical to not try to reduce one's tax bill as much as possible."
I have to say, I disagree!
Is it immoral? I won't go so far, for he paid and donated plenty. But he also had plenty, and would today be completely blind to the struggles of so many.
For reference, he'd be 100 in another week or two, died at 93, Parkinson's.

Am I a socialist for what I've expressed?
Hardly!
But it's the accusatory insult of our times.
And it's a far too simplistic one at that.

---

We don't have to view everything as a question of extremes. It's not communism vs. unrestricted capitalism. Communism was created as a response to unrestricted capitalism. Fascism was a response to communism. Liberalism a response to fascism. And liberalism won out in the 20th century. As we drift back to unrestricted capitalism, we should remember that our grandparents had it right.

….and how was that???

concordtom said:

---

….and how was that???

---

Liberalism is a subset of capitalism. Done right, it preserves the incentives of capitalism while providing opportunity and safety nets. It empowers workers. It also sends money back into the demand side of the economy growing the economy. That's what our grandparents did.

How?

concordtom said:

---

How?

---

Strong civic engagement, high voter turnout, worker solidarity, taking on the Supreme Court, and exerting the power of democracy over the power of money.

They raised taxes, built universities and highways, empowered labor unions, and redistributed money through programs like social security and Medicare. They did things they were told could not be done.

Are you saying that you had a "problem" with Barack Obama being President for 8 years?
Did you not like him or his policies?
They didnt "trickle" down to you?

concordtom said:

---

My comments were not meant as an attack.
These are philosophical questions on the nature man man, and our times.

I added the personal stuff for the reader's context.

I don't need people's criticism of me in response, and yes, I had responsibilities for the performance of $20B AUM. I don't know why you keep coming back to that. It must impress you. But it was just a job.

Look, guys, I'm quite similar to you. I want my castle and island, too.
But I'm also just pondering these things in order to question our societal assumptions - we take much for granted as fact. But much of our notions are "social constructs", beliefs passed down. Where does innate behavior end and culture begin?

I'm sorry if I offended either of you. I didn't mean to.

I just meant that I'm more fascinated with the questions of how to create more wealth equality (better societal psychological health) than how to keep more of mine - without killing motivation, which is the engine, as Odonto and others allude to.

Conclusion: change the reward from being a multi multi millionaire to something else.

And happiness studies reveal the same - after so much, there is a diminishing return. Yes, money buys happiness - to a point. The first $100k is huge! But if you have $10M, the next 100k is nothing. So, at that level, money can't buy happiness. Love, respect, friendship… but by then we've conditioned ourselves to always be on the hunt for that next dollar. Then we become like ebenezer Scrooge.

I didn't get to read in any post by Juarez. Anyone on the hunt to help support others is on a good hunt. Castle and island not necessary.

---

When you make it personal, it comes off as you are the better person for wanting to spend on society and the guy complaining about his tax hit or trying to save on taxes is selfish. I don't think that is what you intended, but the tone is condescending. A higher road approach is discussing policy, trends, aggregate results and aspirations. Dajo's responses to you is well suited as examples. We have been down this road before where a good discussion has degenerated into the personal, and candidly I'm been guilty before of that.

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you saying that you had a "problem" with Barack Obama being President for 8 years?
Did you not like him or his policies?
They didnt "trickle" down to you?

---

Anything Obama did is just scratching at the surface of the trickle down policies Reagan gave us 40 years ago

Good thread overall, with (relatively) limited acrimonious partisanship and thoughtful content.

This is the problem essentially, in a few graphs:






https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

Note that the stagnation in middle class income is all the more glaring because it took place starting in the 70s/80s, while technology was just taking off, resulting in large and consistent gains in productivity, which should have translated in greater wealth for the middle class. I was in a long-distance relationship in the late 80s, and my monthly phone bills were $300-$500, $1,200 in 2023 dollars, vs $40/mo for unlimited Whatsapp today. A decent 486 PC in 1990 cost around $3,000, which translates to $7,250 today adjusted for inflation.

That period, the 70s-80s, was the start of globalization, and the outsourcing of the US industrial base, part of a general shift in the economy from an industrial capitalism to financial capitalism. Countries like China, S. Korea or Germany are still primarily practising the former type of capitalism, while the US, UK have moved on to the latter. The loss of high-paying middle class jobs that followed is at least in part responsible in the economic decline shown above, with more wealth being generated by capital, and less by labor.

One of the main structural problems leading to the general mismanagement of the American economy is the near-complete capture of the regulatory process. US health policy is set by corporate health providers, insurers and big pharma, US foreign policy by the MIC etc. Along the same lines, Wall Street drives the uber-wealthy tax structure.

Some possible solutions:
-Tax financial transactions (Warren's initiative)
-Eliminate payroll taxes for small businesses, and for lower/middle incomes employed by large companies
-Tax wealth for very high-wealth individuals, starting for example at 0.1% for wealth above $10M, scaling up to 1% above $100M.
-Tax imports at a higher rate. The US has had a large trade deficit, and is in a good position vs its main trading partners (China, Canada, S Korea, Germany etc)

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Are you saying that you had a "problem" with Barack Obama being President for 8 years?
Did you not like him or his policies?
They didnt "trickle" down to you?

---

Anything Obama did is just scratching at the surface of the trickle down policies Reagan gave us 40 years ago

---

Thanks, but I didnt ask you.

I clearly asked Going4Roses.
I wanted to learn what his thoughts were.
Hopefully he can reply back in his own words and not use a TikTok video as a surrogate.

Cal88 said:

---

Good thread overall, with (relatively) limited acrimonious partisanship and thoughtful content.

This is the problem essentially, in a few graphs:

---

This is what MAGA means to the wealthy people that hold their noses and vote for the GOP.