Comment by nickpp

2 days ago

[flagged]

Obviously you need a strong and prosperous economy. But like you noticed yourself you also need to tax it, to deliver benefits to your population

  • > you also need to tax it, to deliver benefits to your population

    The benefits were already delivered by that strong and prosperous economy in form of products and services.

    Taxation is of course necessary to fund government spending but we need to keep in mind its drawbacks: from discouraging productive activity and slowing economic growth to giving politicians funds to buy votes with populist social policies.

Strong and prosperous economy built by progressive tax rate that used to tax up to 70% of non-work income, and now tax most of it 27-29% (depending on the corporate taxe of the state). The people who can use loopholes to avoid income taxes also pay reduced consumption tax (they usually pay the 'Use tax' rather than sale tax in the US, and can basically ignore VAT in Europe).

  • Americans really gloss over that the 50s was a high-water mark for both the economy and tax rates.

  • That's a common misconception. Although the top tax rates were indeed high, they kicked in at such high income levels and included so many deductions and loopholes that the effective tax rate were much closer to 50%.

    And it makes sense, considering human nature and motivation: how much would you work considering the taxation? Me:

    0-20%: I work as hard, want to excel and advance; I will take risks and invest in entrepreneurial endeavors

    20-40%: I will do my duty, 9-5 then hit the door to spend time with the family; actively seek low-responsibility low risk high stability and lots of benefits government jobs

    >40%: f that s, I will take my welfare payments and do various cash jobs without declaring that income; stay in my parents basement playing Xbox, smoking weed and jerking off

    • Counting consumption and estate taxes, i'm pretty sure you're just above 40%, so i guess you're on benefits?

      In the US, unless you or your family own a holding with a lot of companies, the country taxes you between 50 and 40% (well, 30 and 50%, but food stamps are a bit weird so i will exclude them here). If you manage to get rich enough to be able to optimize your taxation, you are only taxed on company profits (so 21% to federal, 27-29% depending on your state) and sometime use taxe (sales taxe doesn't really apply anymore).

      I have benefited from VAT-free school furniture most of my life because my uncle owned a company that bought office furniture regularly, and VAT-free sport clothing/tools because of a similar scheme by his wife and her companies.

      I assure you you pay more taxes overall than people holding a few companies, and the more you own, the easier it get to avoid VAT and taxes in general (the owner of the Yacht my sister used to cook for was hired by the Yachting company as the captain or something for his vacations: avoided VAT on buying the Yacht, avoid VAT on a personal cook, avoid VAT on food. And if this specific company loose a small amount of money every year, tax write-off baby!).

      Zucman wrote The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. It's an interesting read, and

      1 reply →

  • Sure, capitalism isn't perfect. No economic system is, mainly because they're all composed of us semi-evolved chimps. Every economic system has that problem. Getting rid of or severely constraining economic freedoms isn't a solution, it makes it worse.

    • Ok but if its taken you just three comments to get to "well... nothing is perfect I guess" where did that initial conviction come from?? Like why even play out this same argument if your heart isn't even in it? Is it a sense of obligation? If anything, you do your entire position a disservice by folding so quickly. It just goes to show noone deep down even believes these stories anymore, even we expect others to.

      Like, yes, we are discussing an "imperfection" here! You are the one that asserting the greater perfection, not the lesser.