"High speed internet at home is no longer a luxury: it's a necessity for children to learn, workers to do their job, seniors and others to access health care through telemedicine, and for all of us to stay connected in this digital world," a senior administration official told reporters in previewing the announcement."

That's interesting. 100mbs is a requirement.

I just did a speed test on my internet here in Germany. I'm at about 7 mbps. And that's pretty fast for where I live. In some places there is no internet at all.

But, I guess the ability to download a video game in minutes, or stream Netflix on multiple devices are now human rights.

"The rich fleece them."

Sheeeeiiitttt,

The rich are paying your taxes and mine.

Technically we're fleecing them. Or rather the government is fleecing them on our behalf.

Free internet is one of those things that I'm on the fence over.

One one hand, I have trouble supporting a system that caters to and rewards the lowest common denominator. Especially in this case, where it seems that the government's position is that lower income people shouldn't have to pay as much for their video games and movies.

On the other hand, it may increase the amount of digital commerce. I tend to wonder if Amazon has ever done a study on the impact on business if they were to give away cell phones with the Prime App pre-loaded. Especially in markets where Amazon might not be as big.

"Those are the standard speeds the companies already provide, and it would not be cost effective to reset their model."

That's a fair point, but not how I read it in the article. The article seemed to imply that this was a mandated speed. Along with the comment that "high speed internet is no longer a luxury." Sure it is. A luxury that I don't even have access to.

"Fkk off Nazi."

Reactionary Bourgeoise Nazi. You forgot the first part.

"Speak for yourself, -----."

What's next? ---? Pollock?

Stay classy, champ.

Oh, and over here it really isn't the rich paying everyone's taxes. Tax rates are more evenly distributed than in the US.

In other words, unlike the US, lower income earners tend to pay more of their fair share.

"Sure as long as you dont think you can count adding trillions to the deficit as not harmful to the whole country."

That's a good point.

The government shouldn't be spending money it doesn't have.

"Only an utter moron can look at what has happened with wealth inequality since reaganomics was invented and conclude its the rich who are getting fleeced."

Ah, rich people bitching about richer people.

That sounds like a rich people problem to me. Like picking out your taxpayer-funded high speed internet plan.

But I suppose you could ban or penalize UHWN individuals from engaging in those activities that contribute to income inequality.

Do we really need Tesla or Amazon? Apple?

Probably not.

#47

To the needy?

You mean the ones who can't afford to quickly download movies and video games on their own dime?

"That's why the rich need to pay more."

That's why the government needs to spend less.

And technically, it's the poor who need to pay more. In the US, the poor pay almost nothing compared to those earning a comparable income in western Europe.

There's not much else you could statistically squeeze out of the rich.

"Oh so you're retreating to your old "you have an fridge and an iphone so you're "rich" and therefore can't complain about the top .01% getting vastly richer by making everyone else suffer" defense."

Did you consider the logic of the argument you just presented?

The income earning potential of the top .01% has absolutely no income on the income earning potential of the remaining 99.99%. None.

And you'll need to explain to me how the .01% is making the 99.99% suffer.

I'm part of that demographic. I'm not suffering. Maybe you feel like you're suffering because you want to be part of that demographic but can't get there on your own merits?

Maybe?

"Totally. Because that's all the internet is. Moron."

No. That's what high speed internet is for.

You don't need high speed internet to pay your bills or look at facebook.

"If only they could all move to Honduras."

I don't think Honduras regards free high speed internet as a human right.

I know when I lived there I was paying $80 a month for internet. And it wasn't very high speed.

"And they cut funds for the things that allowed class mobility like health, education, and research."

Ah, so what you're saying is that the richer make the less rich suffer by not paying more of their bills.

#62

So...there is a lot of stuff you could do. The question is A) would it achieve the desired effect, and B) what are the negative outcomes going to be from new policy.

Remember, income taxes are basically voluntary. You have to engage in wealth creating activities in order to earn an income, and that income has to be earned before it can be taxed. Statistically, effective tax rates in excess of 45% result in a decline in revenues, because the incentive to engage in wealth creating activities decreases. The other more insidious loss may be the services that resulted in high incomes. For instance, a highly paid surgeon may choose to limit the amount he/she works at higher tax rates. So not only do you lose tax revenues, you also lose that surgeon's medical abilities.

When Reagan passed TRA 86, it was high income earners who complained the most. In the old system, there were sufficient deductions that they more than accounted for the higher marginal rates. So rates do matter to those people.

"25 mbps is more than adequate to be connected for work and a significant amount of play."

I'm at 7 mbs right now in my house. In addition to me being on the computer, there is at least one TV going that I can hear, probably 2-3. And we can only stream. We don't have cable or anything else.

"Then why were you silent about the $2.3 Trillion tax giveaway?"

Are you talking the COVID payments they gave out to everyone? Over, and over, and over again?

They probably shouldn't have done that.

"Not according to the equation."

Is that something you made up?

According to you?

In 2019, the top 1% covered 38% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% paid a little over 3%. In 2015, the top 1% had an average effective tax rate of 33.3%. The lowest Quintile was 1.5%.

"But if, like you say, the rich are paying...they're underpaying, since we're running deficit budgets."

If you think the rich are underpaying, the poor are under-underpaying. The rate paid by the top 1% is more than 20x higher than the lowest quintile.

"Reset them to 1979 rates and then make social security tax exempt again."

And that would probably be perfectly reasonable if those new rates were accompanies by the deduction options that were available in 1979.

It was high income earners that were against TRA 86. The marginal rates may have been lower under the new plan, but they lacked the deduction opportunities available under the old plan, so their effective rates went up.

"Their income is more than 20x higher too, right?"

I depend on if you calculate their income before or after taxes and transfers.

The bottom three quintiles actually have a higher income after taxes and transfers.

But to answer your question, the bottom quintile is ~ $25k and below. The top 1% starts at 504K. So it's pretty much a wash as metric goes, meaningless as it is.

"Feel like doing Federal payroll taxes next?"

Me?

I don't need to.

It's already been done.

"Nationwide, the top 1% of earners account for 38.3% of the nation's total income"

From the article:

"Today, the top 1% of earners in the United States account for about 20% of the country's total income annually."

"There you go again.... being all factual and stuff."

You didn't read the article, didya?

"Fact is, the vast majority of workers (about 70%) pay more in PAYROLL taxes over their lifetimes than income tax."

That's because around 60% see no change to income or see income increased after taxes and transfers. Unlike most taxes, payroll taxes are fair. They're like a VAT. Everyone pays the same percentage, and they're pretty much unavoidable.

Another good chart

"What's "fair" about payroll taxes, or VAT taxes?"

They are evenly applied across all taxpayers.

"MadBomber calls that "Fair."

It's absolutely fair. It's intended to be fair.

And the only reason lower income earners pay a higher rate for payroll taxes is because the benefits they pay for are capped. Paying more payroll taxes wouldn't result in a bigger social security check. It's that way by design.

"That the poor pay a greater share of their income on them."

Which is the mathematical outcome when payroll taxes are capped.

"Are you unaware, or are you signaling you're not in a serious discussion?"

I'm unaware.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

"That's meaningless propaganda to convince morons the rich are overtaxed."

These numbers are coming from the IRS. Are they in the business of creating meaningless propaganda?

"99 people pay .10 one person pays $1,000. Total taxes is $1,009.90. The top 1% pays 99% of the taxes. Again a meaningless statistic."

It would certainly be true...so why would it be meaningless?

"The first problem with The Stat is that it makes no reference to the proportion of income the rich earn."

But I provided that to you. It's 20.4%. It's not a hard number to find. And even then, it doesn't matter.

"Second, and worse still, The Stat ignores the fact that income taxes are just one component of the federal tax system, and federal taxes are just one component of the total tax system."

That's true, interesting, but not compelling. First, you can't do an apples-to-apples comparison if you include state taxes. Second, they don't matter as much because state tax rates are part of one's decision calculus to live in a specific state.

This is where-when someone like Bernie says he wants western European-style economic policy...he's lying. The poor pay taxes in Europe. Far more than in the US. And they pay a VAT. There are one or two progressive contributors to this site who have voiced support for a VAT, but the vast majority are as violently opposed as conservatives. Why? Because while a VAT may provide benefits for low-income earners, it really doesn't punish the rich. Which is what many US progressives are really after.

"Evenly applied, and the poor pay a higher rate?"

I'm not sure what you're asking? Low-income earners pay the same payroll tax rate as anyone else. Just like low-income earners here in Germany pay the same VAT rate as anyone else.

"How is that "evenly applied" like you claimed?"

Again...not sure what you're asking?

#184

Dude, all I can say is review the abject failures of socialism in the past two hundred years.

The good news is that if you still don't like Capitalism. There's still Cuba. There's still North Korea.

Piketty, like most of you. Is a rich person bitching about richer people? And the guy is boring. If you like socialism, get old skool. I think you can get Das Kapital on Kindle. I know you can, actually, because I have it on Kindle.

"You say it's evenly applied. Your link says the poor pay more."

I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "pay more."

As a progressive, you don't understand economics. I think you need to be a bit more clear when you say "pay more."

"Why is it that extremists only see black and white? Crony Capitalism and Marxism are not the only real world choices."

You posted an article stating that capitalism didn't work. I was simply giving you options if that's what you believed.

"Canada and the northern European social democracies are just some examples of how both can be a part of a rational, fair, equitable, and humane social and economic construct."

Huh.

My read was that you wanted no part of that. First, A), every last thing in those countries is fully funded by capitalism. And B) they all tax low-income earners far more than in the US.

If you buy Piketty's argument that capitalism doesn't work, then you buy the argument that the west has failed. Really that the world has failed, because income inequality, which Piky gets picky over, occurs even in countries who economies are rigidly controlled.

He kinda sounds like an old school Marxist idealogue. Kinda like Bernie.

"You sound like the bastard child of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises... dazed and confused by having more than one choice or the combination of choices."

I would accuse you of thinking socialism can be represented outside of Soviet Socialism or National Socialism. How much does socialism have to suck, how many does it have to kill, how many does it have to enslave before you finally abandon it? You're like an abused spouse who can't help but love those who would enslave you.

And we can have a longer convo on FDR if that's your thing. Many economists claim he extended the Great Depression as a result of his policies. I can get that data if you're interested. I suspect you're not. And I'm more than willing to criticize FDR's economic policies. Many were. Until the Japanese attacked the US. At which point most of that became ballwash and a secondary concern to going and ------- up the ----. To which effort FDR granted ridiculous latitude to the joint forces to get after the problem. which of course they did.