Taxes on the rich

[Michchamp]

Interesting seeing how income tax rates across the board have changed since 1950, as shown in this article from the NYT.

some blurbs:

Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

His claim sparked a debate about the fairness of the tax system. In the end, the expert consensus was that, whatever Buffett?s specific situation, most wealthy Americans did not actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. ?Is it the norm?? the fact-checking outfit Politifact asked. ?No.?

Time for an update: It?s the norm now.

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate ? spanning federal, state and local taxes ? than any other income group, according to newly released data.​

Going back to Reagan's tax cuts, this has been a "taking"... the wealthy keeping more income and pushing their fair share of the burden on lower income Americans.

also, I wish they would stop referring to Trump's "tax cut"... it was a HUGE cut for the ultra-wealthy, a moderate cut for the low income brackets, and a tax increase for everyone else. My fucking taxes went up so that the Waltons, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros (the remaining ones) etc. could pile on more money...

A taking:

the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.

The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
​

 

[Michchamp]

For some of you peons too close to the ground to understand how this works, note that the highest salaried people aren't working that much harder, justifying their income. for them, it's all leverage and personal connections.

when you already have a pile of money, it's a lot easier to negotiate a higher salary for yourself.

and when a CEO gets a raise, it's not because he or she is working harder, it's because they convinced their board of directors (usually after packing it with their cronies) to ram through another handout to them from the company trough. CEO pay is not correlated to company performance.

CEOs who make 200 times more per year than a fry cook are not working 200 times harder than the fry cook. They most likely grew up already wealthy and connected, and regularly leverage those advantages into higher pay for themselves. And a lot of them are psychopaths.

Used to be (50 years ago) business managers were mostly engineers or scientists (typically chemists), i.e. they had actual technical knowledge and skill... now they're all dime-a-dozen MBAs.

 

[tinselwolverine]

And a lot of them are psychopaths

One on five, the article says.

That?s not that many.

That?s no higher than the rate in prison.

 

[Spartanmack]

For some of you peons too close to the ground to understand how this works, note that the highest salaried people aren't working that much harder, justifying their income. for them, it's all leverage and personal connections.

when you already have a pile of money, it's a lot easier to negotiate a higher salary for yourself.

and when a CEO gets a raise, it's not because he or she is working harder, it's because they convinced their board of directors (usually after packing it with their cronies) to ram through another handout to them from the company trough. CEO pay is not correlated to company performance.

CEOs who make 200 times more per year than a fry cook are not working 200 times harder than the fry cook. They most likely grew up already wealthy and connected, and regularly leverage those advantages into higher pay for themselves. And a lot of them are psychopaths.

Used to be (50 years ago) business managers were mostly engineers or scientists (typically chemists), i.e. they had actual technical knowledge and skill... now they're all dime-a-dozen MBAs.

for you idiots who have your heads in the clouds (more likely, the sand) you don't get paid relative to how hard you work. You earn relative to the value of your skills, resources and other things like the risk you take. The chef at a restaurant may work harder than the owner (not guaranteed, but he or she may) but it's not their $.5mm dollars on the line or their name and house on the bank note that provided the funds to build the restaurant. And if it fails, only the "CEO" loses his or her house, everyone else collects a little unemployment until they find the next job from someone willing to take risk. So if you think the cooks, wait staff, bus boys, dishwashers, etc should get paid more because you think they worker harder, you're an idiot, plain and simple.

A CEO may not work 200x harder than a fry cook but again, that's a tremendously stupid way to measure value. What the CEO does is probably worth a lot more to the company than what a fry cook does. Now whether that's 200x more valuable is debatable, but if you think the CEO is just as replaceable as a fry cook, again you're an idiot, plain and simple. Now I know by now you've realized you're wrong but you won't admit it so your next post is going to accuse me of being a billionaire bootlicker, etc, etc. But that's far from the truth - I've said many times here before that CEO pay in the US in particular is too high and I regularly vote against executive pay packages in proxy votes. But I also think regulating executive pay is a bad idea and things like a living wage or raising the minimum wage are even worse for reasons I've spelled out here many times.

By the way, it's also not true that most wealth in America is inherited. The vast majority of wealth in America is created. Not every rich person is a Walton.

 

[Spartanmack]

Interesting seeing how income tax rates across the board have changed since 1950, as shown in this article from the NYT.

some blurbs:

Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

His claim sparked a debate about the fairness of the tax system. In the end, the expert consensus was that, whatever Buffett?s specific situation, most wealthy Americans did not actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. ?Is it the norm?? the fact-checking outfit Politifact asked. ?No.?

Time for an update: It?s the norm now.

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate ? spanning federal, state and local taxes ? than any other income group, according to newly released data.​

Going back to Reagan's tax cuts, this has been a "taking"... the wealthy keeping more income and pushing their fair share of the burden on lower income Americans.

also, I wish they would stop referring to Trump's "tax cut"... it was a HUGE cut for the ultra-wealthy, a moderate cut for the low income brackets, and a tax increase for everyone else. My fucking taxes went up so that the Waltons, Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, the Koch Bros (the remaining ones) etc. could pile on more money...

A taking:

the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.

The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
​

this is clearly wrong. anyone who thinks the poor in America aren't also better off than they were even 50 years ago has no idea what they're talking about. No idea. they're just sheep buying the bullshit class warfare narrative being stoked by morons like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. What matters is the level of poverty not the wealth gap. Stop pretending you give a shit about poor people and admit you just hate rich people and are way more concerned about equality of outcome than equality of opportunity.

 

[tomdalton22]

It says that higher payroll taxes are the reason for the higher % for lower income households (Medicare and social security taxes)

 

[Spartanmack]

It says that higher payroll taxes are the reason for the higher % for lower income households (Medicare and social security taxes)

I doubt he read the full article and I'm certain he was assuming that no one else would either.

 

[tinselwolverine]

America is a free country. Nobody has shackled a fry cook to the fryer. If that person wants to stay in culinary, that person could get training as a chef or go to junior college and get training more broadly in hospitality management.

Is he going to earn as much as a CEO? No. But the fry cook can make significantly more money doing something other than being a fry cook if the fry cook gets training and works hard.

Maybe he could go to the bank and get a loan and start franchising, or open his own joint and if successful, sell franchise licenses for it. Maybe then that person could be a CEO.

Roy Crok was a middle-aged guy pounding the pavement selling commercial milkshake blenders when he came across McDonald?s.

 

[Spartanmack]

America is a free country. Nobody has shackled a fry cook to the fryer. If that person wants to stay in culinary, that person could get training as a chef or go to junior college and get training more broadly in hospitality management.

Is he going to earn as much as a CEO? No. But the fry cook can make significantly more money doing something other than being a fry cook if the fry cook gets training and works hard.

Maybe he could go to the bank and get a loan and start franchising, or open his own joint and if successful, sell franchise licenses for it. Maybe then that person could be a CEO.

Roy Crok was a middle-aged guy pounding the pavement selling commercial milkshake blenders when he came across McDonald?s.

I think it was Ray ("a" not "o") Kroc (swap the "K" and the "c") who stole the McDonald's concept from the McDonald brothers. All of the rest of what you say here is true, and fairly obvious but the left is not concerned with how others might lift themselves up. Their goal is to achieve equality of outcome by penalizing success - well, in their minds rich people are rich by dint of birth and not actual hard work. It's simply not fair that 1 person makes more money that someone else at the same company so vote for them and through the tyranny of the majority, they'll make it "legal" to steal from some and give to others.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think it was Ray ("a" not "o") Kroc (swap the "K" and the "c") who stole the McDonald's concept from the McDonald brothers. All of the rest of what you say here is true...

I saw the movie ?The Founder,? and it made Kroc look like an asshole, but he made an argument to the brothers that they were significantly enriched by his franchising more so than they would have been had he not come along.


I happened to be at this McDonald?s and got a keto burger. There is a little bit of McDonald?s memorabilia there and I talked to the manager there about the movie. The folks at that location work too happy about the way Kroc was depicted in the film.

EDIT: From Forbes, see the section the the handshake and the contract. The brothers settled for $2.7 million, ownership and operation of their own franchise, and a verbal commitment from Kroc for a 1% ongoing royalty. They got the settlement amount, but Kroc built a restaurant across the street that put the brothers out of business and reneged on the 1% royalty.

So he definitely screwed them, maybe he didn?t full on steal from them. As the writer of the article points out, and I tend to agree, they probably ended up better off financially then they would have had Ray Kroc not come alone.

 

[tomdalton22]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djI_ret3S9g

 

[byco42]

Solution: Repeal the 16th amendment. What’s next?

 

[Spartanmack]

I saw the movie ?The Founder,? and it made Kroc look like an asshole, but he made an argument to the brothers that they were significantly enriched by his franchising more so than they would have been had he not come along.


I happened to be at this McDonald?s and got a keto burger. There is a little bit of McDonald?s memorabilia there and I talked to the manager there about the movie. The folks at that location work too happy about the way Kroc was depicted in the film.

EDIT: From Forbes, see the section the the handshake and the contract. The brothers settled for $2.7 million, ownership and operation of their own franchise, and a verbal commitment from Kroc for a 1% ongoing royalty. They got the settlement amount, but Kroc built a restaurant across the street that put the brothers out of business and reneged on the 1% royalty.

So he definitely screwed them, maybe he didn?t full on steal from them. As the writer of the article points out, and I tend to agree, they probably ended up better off financially then they would have had Ray Kroc not come alone.

I'm not disputing that the brothers didn't benefit financially, but that's not really the point. It was their idea, their concept, their creation they didn't want bastardized by Kroc. Had they been less successful, they'd have no one to blame but themselves but I think they were pretty successful and happy with what they had. Enriching them doesn't excuse the underhanded and shady things Kroc did to steal their idea and profit far more massively from it than they would have or did. Kroc was a bad guy and the ends don't justify the means I guess is what I'm saying.

 

[Spartanmack]

Solution: Repeal the 16th amendment. What?s next?

repeal the corporate tax, establish an exempt level of income up to which no taxes are levied, say $30 maybe $40k/yr then establish a flat tax (I think 14% was the number floated around by the last flat tax candidate) on all income above that amount with no deductions for anything (not kids, mort interest, education, etc, etc). Since there's no more double taxation of corporate income, all dividends, interest and capital gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income - no carried interest. Everyone files their tax return on a form the size of a postcard. I would keep things like deferred tax savings plans like 401k and IRAs to encourage savings and have our economy more balanced between consumption and savings.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Kroc was a bad guy and the ends don't justify the means I guess is what I'm saying.

He was a bad guy; as I said he definitely screwed them.

It was a good movie.

Maybe Kroc isn?t the best feel good example for fry cook becomes CEO.

Maybe Tom Monahan would have been better.

 

[Spartanmack]

He was a bad guy; as I said he definitely screwed them.

It was a good movie.

Maybe Kroc isn?t the best feel good example for fry cook becomes CEO.

Maybe Tom Monahan would have been better.

he was the last owner to bring a World Series Championship to Detroit but he was also a bit off his rocker, wasn't he? How about Dave Thomas? As bad as some of his commercials were, I think he was in general a pretty good dude.

and I also enjoyed The Founder.

 

[byco42]

repeal the corporate tax, establish an exempt level of income up to which no taxes are levied, say $30 maybe $40k/yr then establish a flat tax (I think 14% was the number floated around by the last flat tax candidate) on all income above that amount with no deductions for anything (not kids, mort interest, education, etc, etc). Since there's no more double taxation of corporate income, all dividends, interest and capital gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income - no carried interest. Everyone files their tax return on a form the size of a postcard. I would keep things like deferred tax savings plans like 401k and IRAs to encourage savings and have our economy more balanced between consumption and savings.

Then Congress can raise the tax %, lower the tax-exempt ceiling, or both separately, or both at the same time. It does not solve the core issue: government gets its cut first and always.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Then Congress can raise the tax %, lower the tax-exempt ceiling, or both separately, or both at the same time. It does not solve the core issue: government gets its cut first and always.

And government gets its cut last too.

Government gets its cut first, last and always.

 

[tinselwolverine]

he was the last owner to bring a World Series Championship to Detroit but he was also a bit off his rocker, wasn't he? How about Dave Thomas? As bad as some of his commercials were, I think he was in general a pretty good dude.

and I also enjoyed The Founder.

Nobody made a movie about either of them.

Perhaps they weren?t sinister enough to be that compelling.

 

[Spartanmack]

Nobody made a movie about either of them.

Perhaps they weren?t sinister enough to be that compelling.

it's Hollywood, they can make them out to be as sinister as they want. Take Dave Thomas' adoption activism - they could say he adopted a whole mess of kids to provide child labor for Wendy's restaurants or worse...

they could make Tom Monahan out to be really evil and say he was the real inspiration for the Noid?

I think both those stories would sell more tickets than a guy who stole other peoples' ideas and wifes...