It's Time to Tax the Billionaires

Saturday, May 04, 2024

Economist Gabriel Zucman writes a guest opinion piece for the New York Times about billionaires' shrinking tax bill. "In the 1960s, the 400 richest Americans paid more than half of their income in taxes ... Today, the superrich control a greater share of America's wealth than during the Gilded Age of Carnegies and Rockefellers."

Posted by retort at 07:50 AM | 79 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

It was time to tax the billionaires decades ago.

It is now time to eat the billionaires.

#1 | Posted by DarkVader at 2024-05-04 08:58 AM

Oh boy, this article is really gonna rankle Madbomber. Be prepared for his long-winded, relentless, boring lectures.

The money they once paid in taxes is now spent on buying Judges, politicians, Law Enforcement agencies, Local School Boards etc..

When State, County, City, and Feds have been purchased, they can lower their tax burden every year (see Repub agendas every time Congress goes into session).

FDR had cures for this, but in his day the entire Republican party wasn't owned by billionaires, the SC hadn't passed CU, there wasn't unlimited dark money, and bribing the SC wasn't a thing.

"FDR had cures for this"

So did Stalin...

Joe plays a terrible Robin hood role.

"nothing will fundamentally change"

Anyone care to take a guess at Joe's quote above?

When was it said? Who was his target audience? And, what "change" was he talking about?

He's blowing smoke up your ass just like he was doing when he got drop-kicked out of the 1988 campaign.

But carry on, don't let hisown words slow you down.

Will never happen. Why? Because they bribe politicians more than you.

It's an NYT article.

In my own way, I am limiting income inequality by refusing to pay money to the NYT company to read this article. That way the rich don't become richer.

You're welcome.

#6 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You are a follower of Donald J. Trump, Anti-Christ.

When you try to act moral you make us giggle.

I guess that means you have value.

I would like to be able to contribute...but not if it means creating more income inequality. Because I hear that's a bad thing.

Factiousness is the last refuge of cowards.

"Not billionaires! They're our betters!"

DumbBummer better stay the ---- in Germany.

It's WAY past time to tax billionaires, who along with corporations, have reaped most of the tax benefits passed in three bills during two unitary GOP governments: Bush and Trump.

And they've skewed the tax code to allow all kinds of skullduggary to prevent taxation on the massive wealth they've accumulated, especially over the past 8 years.

Republicans have claimed this trickles down to the other 95% of us, but it hasn't.

"The top 1% earned 14.6% of all wages in 2021 -- twice as high as their 7.3% share in 1979. The bottom 90% received just 58.6% of all wages in 2021, the lowest share on record, and far lower than their 69.8% share in 1979."
www.investopedia.com

FYI:
'The top 1 percent's income share rose from 20.1 percent in 2019 to 22.2 percent in 2020 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 38.8 percent to 42.3 percent.'

taxfoundation.org

I'd say that they pay more than their 'fair share'.

" I'd say that they pay more than their 'fair share'."

I'd say you're employing Republican Math.

In Actual Math, when tax rates go down, and the wealthiest pay a larger portion, that means their income has gone up more than enough to compensate for the lower rates.

Yeah that's fine if you only count income taxes. Income isn't the only way taxation reaches the government.

There are also: sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, road taxes, gas taxes, and myriad of other taxes on people. Those taxes are skewed heavily toward the poor and make them give a significantly larger portion of their income to taxes than the 1%. So stop being disingenuous.

The reality is, the rich should certainly be taxed at a dramatically higher rate.

The other thing I would do is treat every dollar of income and other benefits exactly the same, while getting rid of every other form of taxation except income. I want the government to be properly funded, but I also want to see tax rates instantly recognizable in your paycheck. I want the entire country to immediately be able to say "hey, why the f#%^ is my pay check down 10 dollars this week?

'The top 1 percent's income share rose from 20.1 percent in 2019 to 22.2 percent in 2020 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 38.8 percent to 42.3 percent.'
taxfoundation.org

I'd say that they pay more than their 'fair share'.

#16 | POSTED BY MSGT

And you would be wrong.

First: Their fair share used to be 91%.
Second: the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.

www.amazon.com

"Second: the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households."

Yeah. The bottom 50% of households paid somewhere around 4% in federal income tax rates.

And? They then paid a 20 % off their income in all of the other taxes. They are taxed WAY disproportionately to their income. It takes a very skewed trading of narrow data to come to any other conclusion.

"Yeah. The bottom 50% of households paid somewhere around 4% in federal income tax rates."

Do you mean they provide 4% of the federal income tax revenue, or do you mean their effective Federal income tax rate is 4%, or both, or something else?

The bottom 50% of households paid somewhere around 4% in federal income tax rates.
#20 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The bottom 50% of households earned less than 4% of what billionaires annually take.

But. It's typical of this fkkking idiot, who's paid completely with taxpayer dollars, to champion income inequality.

He's benefitted his entire life from living in a socialist system where his only requirement was to follow orders.

Ya gotta love people who lay it on the line for wealthy people who wouldn't pee on them if they were on fire, even if said billionaires needed to take a pee.

I attribute this to the cult-like following that the very wealthy have of people who wish they could be just like them... and not pay a fair share of their total income in taxes.

It is now time to eat the billionaires.

#1 | POSTED BY DARKVADER

Yes. They should be pit roasted, like pigs.

My suggestion would be to give billionaires a choice. They may lose 10 percent of their net worth every year to either benevolence or taxes.

First: Their fair share used to be 91%.

#19 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2024-05-05 02:21 PM | REPLY

That wasn't their effective rate.

Not that it matters. If every billionaire is taxed at an effective rate of 100%, it can't come close to keeping up with govt spending.

@#27 ... it can't come close to keeping up with govt spending. ...

Irrelevant.

The discussion is billionaires paying their fair share, not how much government spends.

Indeed even with a balanced budget, the billionaires should still pay their fair share.

The simple the existance of so many billionaires while nations are going deeper in debt is symptomatic of serious socioeconomic issues.

While some billionaires are known for their philanthropic efforts, most are not sharing their wealth in proportion to their fortunes.

The state of the economy and personal debt is evident of social and economic inequalities I believe they are directly responsibile.

@#29 ... The simple the existance of so many billionaires while nations are going deeper in debt is symptomatic of serious socioeconomic issues. ...

Or, more likely, indicative of people in political power who actively transfer the wealth of the Country to the already wealthy.

For instance, fmr Pres Trump's tax cut.

Lamp,

What do you propose instead?

@#31 ... What do you propose instead? ...

A progressive tax that is actually progressive.

The more money you suck out of the economy, the higher the tax rate should be.

Lamp,

Trump's tax cuts increased the Child Tax Credit and Standard Deductions doubled.

This is due to sunset around 2025.

If Biden wins will he allow the sunset to take effect?

BJ, that was chickenfeed compared to what Trump and his billionaire friends got...

"Trump's tax cuts helped billionaires pay less than the working class for first time

Taxes on the rich have been falling for decades. In 1960 the 400 richest families paid as much as 56% in taxes, by 1980 the rate had fallen to 40%. But Trump's tax cuts " his most significant legislative victory " proved a tipping point.

Thanks to the controversial tax package the top 0.1% of US households were granted a 2.5% tax cut that pushed their rate below that of the lower 50% of US earners."

www.theguardian.com

Lamp,

However, to take full advantage of these tax reductions you need to have an income.

Personally, I believe that's how this should work.

Corky,

It's not "chickenfeed" to the working lower and middle class who benefitted.

Wake up.

@#33 ... Trump's tax cuts increased the Child Tax Credit and Standard Deductions doubled. ...

Mere pennies compared to the dollars that the wealthy got.

Most of Trump's $2trillion tax cut went to the wealthy and corporations.

@#35 ... However, to take full advantage of these tax reductions you need to have an income.

Personally, I believe that's how this should work. ...

What, exactly are you trying to say?

That lower- and middle-class workers do not have an income?

Is that what you are saying?

Please be more specific.

@#6 ... It's not "chickenfeed" to the working lower and middle class who benefitted. ...

And your point is, what?

"Standard Deductions doubled."

Not true, or at best, misleading.

What happened is the Personal Exemption was melded into the Standard Deduction ... making it almost impossible to claim itemized deductions.

This directly led to one of my clients having to pay more taxes, since the $6,000 she donated to her church no longer moved the needle.

Same for folks with a lot of medical expenses: in the old days, it would've made a difference. Under the Trump code, most folks could have five figures of medical expenses, and it wouldn't change the bottom line by a penny. It's not unusual for $25,000 of out of pocket medical expenses after insurance to offer NO relief whatsoever.

In the long equation, regular folks saw their taxes rise, and rich folks saw them plummet.

Lamp,

The working lower and middle class have an income and they benefitted from the Trump tax cuts.

The lowest tax brackets also benefitted by raising the ceiling.

What are you confused about?

Biden has already said he will let Trump's tax breaks expire if he is reelected.

He's also saying he won't raise taxes on people making less than $400K.

So...figure that one out.

" The state of the economy and personal debt is evident of social and economic inequalities I believe they are directly responsible."

Then you should probably blame the authors of the last four tax codes. Do you need a reminder who those are?

Reagan, Dubya, Dubya II, and Trump.

" The working lower and middle class have an income and they benefitted from the Trump tax cuts."

Only the first few years. As of this point, taxes are higher than they were at the start of the Trump tax code.

@#41 ... The working lower and middle class have an income and they benefitted from the Trump tax cuts. ...

Once again, pennies compared to the dollars.

Why do you seem to strive so hard to avoid that aspect of the discussion?

@#41 ... What are you confused about? ...

I am not confused.

I merely state, and have stated in the past, that the wealthy need to carry more weight for the benefits they obtain from the economy.

See, simple.

Not confusing at all.

Now, explain why the opposite of that seems to have occurred over the past couple decades.

Dan,

From what I have read, "most people got a tax cut".

The majority of people don't itemize and never have.

Of course you're going to see different statistics since you do tax returns (sounds to me) of people with more complicated returns and mostly likely itemize (or used to).

- Wake up.

I'm already woke enough... you could use some tuning up.

Trump conceded some chickenfeed for the poor to Dems in legislation so he could slop himself and the other billionaire hogs with big tax cuts.

And you couldn't care less.

Corky,

I agree we need tax reform and close loopholes.

Just don't say Trumps cuts only benefitted the rich.

You are being obtuse, and obfuscating for Trump again.

I never said only... but his cuts, as usual, were weighted to the wealthy.

"From what I have read, "most people got a tax cut""

At first.

Not ultimately.

In my practice, I see the wealthy get much, MUCH more opportunity. For example, folks with an HSA can get a tax deduction for their medical expenses, but ONLY by prepaying. Folks eeking by, all too often pass. My wealthy clients ALWAYS max out.

Same with 401k plans at work. Some folks can't max out and still pay bills. My wealthy folks max out, do backdoor conversions, open additional retirement accounts if self-employed, and take advantage of every other opportunity, like regular (subsidized) home energy upgrades.

"Just don't say Trumps cuts only benefitted the rich."

Then don't say trumps tax cuts didn't benefit mostly the rich.

Dubya's worst code had 27% going to the top 1%. Trump's had 60%, and that was early; the percentage has only gone up since inception. Meanwhile, foreign investors got over 15%, while American workers got only 15%. Did you catch that? Foreign investors got more than American workers.

Anyone believing this was a tax cut for the regular guy got hornswoggled.

"I agree we need tax reform and close loopholes."

Not the way you vote.

@$48 ... Just don't say Trumps cuts only benefitted the rich. ...

I did not say that.

What I did say in #37 was...

... Most of Trump's $2trillion tax cut went to the wealthy and corporations. ...

Since that comment, all I have I have seen from your alias is deflection and obfuscation.

Why not face up to it?

Fmr Pres Trump's tax cuts were aimed at the wealthy, with a pittance for the non-wealthy.

@#48 ... I agree we need tax reform and close loopholes. ...

Your comments do not sound like that statement.

Your comments seem to say that you are quite happy with the mere pittance you get from the GOP tax cuts for the wealthy.

I've not yet seen you say you are against those tax cuts for the wealthy, only that I am confused because I do not understand how they benefit the lower- and middle-class folk.

Lamp,

I've said several times we need tax reform that benefits the working poor and middle class and small businesses.

@#55 ... I've said several times we need tax reform that benefits the working poor and middle class and small businesses. ...

Yet you seem to support those who do not do that.

Why?

Time to tax the living F out of them!
Eff them all!

@#57 ... Time to tax the living F out of them!
Eff them all! ...

I disagree.

www.archives.gov

... This case presented a major issue that challenged the Constitution: Does the Federal Government hold sovereign power over states? The proceedings posed two questions: Does the Constitution give Congress power to create a bank? And could individual states ban or tax the bank? The court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government.

Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Government and concluded, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." ...

[emphasis mine]

Been saying this for decades.

Trickle Down Economics was the largest
economic lie perpetrated on the American
Public in the last 50 years. It has never
worked, it was never meant to work. It was
just meant to shift wealth and tax burden,
riches to the rich, tax burden to the middle
class. And in that, it worked like a charm.

That anyone cannot still understand that this
is what the policy accomplished, and the magnitude
of the lie that it was, remains mind boggling to me...

Earth,

David Stockman who was Reagans budget director and who coined the phrase "Trickle Down theory", later referred to TDT as a Trojan Horse that benefits the rich.

We need direct incentives that benefit the working poor, middle class and small business.

TDT has long since been disavowed as trickling down.

" We need direct incentives that benefit the working poor, middle class and small business."

Then you should start voting for the folks trying to do that.

Instead, you voted for the guy who passed a tax code to help the richest ... especially folks who do what Trump does.

Dan,

You really think it's that simple?

Personally I have multiple priorities how I vote.

Democrats have lost me with some of their social priorities which impacts society on much deeper level than money.

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2024-05-06 09:15 AM | REPLY

Like what for an example?!

Trump's tax cuts .... Standard Deductions doubled.

That's the lie they want you to fall for.

2017 Standard deduction was $12700 and was going to be $13000 under the existing law.
2018 standard deduction was $24000 under trump tax scam.

How is that double?

If it were truly doubled it would be $26000.

Personal exemptions were $4050 in 2017 and $0 in 2018

So a family of five with standard deduction and personal exemptions would have been $33250 under old tax laws and now it is $24000 under the tax scam.

www.cbpp.org

The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises

Was skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top " for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent " are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2]

Failed to deliver promised economic benefits. Trump Administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would "very conservatively" lead to a $4,000 boost in household income.[5] New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw "no change in earnings" from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply.[6] Similarly, rigorous research concluded that the tax law's 20 percent pass-through deduction, which was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, has largely failed to trickle down to workers in those companies who aren't owners.[7] Like the Bush tax cuts before it,[8] the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure.