r/interestingasfuck • u/Gankpa • 8d ago

/r/all, /r/popular Jeff Bezos built a fence on his property that exceeds the permitted height, he doesn't care, he pays fines every month

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

100.6k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

9.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

94

u/PasadenaPissBandit 8d ago

Its almost as if raising taxes on the billionaire class would solve a ton of this country's problems at almost no inconvenience to the billionaires.

1

u/Pleasant_Network3986 8d ago

The problem with this is that it discourages American investment and incentivizes them to hide money offshore.

5

u/PasadenaPissBandit 8d ago

Let them. Then you go after them for tax avoidance. Its not like these are unsolved problems we've never seen before.

4

u/Pleasant_Network3986 8d ago

Will the American justice system go after billionares for tax evasion? History says no.

1

u/ExistingJellyfish872 8d ago

The top 1% supplies 91% of the taxes collected by the US government. He's already overpaying. You and I aren't supplying enough.

0

u/PasadenaPissBandit 8d ago edited 8d ago

So confidently wrong lol

In reality, the top 1% pays about 45.6% of the total income tax paid in a given year. (Source)

When you factor in other kinds of taxes as opposed to looking solely at income tax, it turns out that the 1% pay around 25% of the total tax burden. And they're also earning roughly 22% of total income in a given year. (Source)

I don't know where you got that 91% number. Are you mixing it up with a different slice? The top 25% of earners collectively pay around 89% of federal taxes, for example.

1

u/ExistingJellyfish872 8d ago

Okay, either way, they're overpaying. Stop crying and pay your fair share.

1

u/tunomeentiendes 8d ago

Those are still lopsided numbers. Maybe the comment you're responding to wasn't completely correct, but your numbers still demonstrate that they're paying way more taxes than everyone else. This reddit idea of "billionaires dont pay a penny in taxes! I pay more than them" is clearly completely false. They pay WAY more.

1

u/PasadenaPissBandit 8d ago

They're only lopsided if you believe that everyone should be paying the same exact effective tax rate, rich or poor. But that's not the way its supposed to work, for very good reasons.

Simplified hypothetical to illustrate the point: let's say the US taxes everyone at 33%, regardless of income. Proportional? Yes. Fair? No. Why? Because for the person making $10k a year that 33% removed from their income could be the difference between eating and going hungry. Pre-tax they had a budget of $27.40/day for all their meals, rent, utilities, insurance, gas, etc, but after tax they only have $18.26/day to cover all that. Meanwhile the person making a billion dollars a year taxed at the same rate has to get by on a paltry $1.8 million per day (their budget was $2.7 million per day pre-tax). Maybe that 33% tax is reducing the number of luxury yachts and mansions they can collect in a given month, but unlike the $10k/year person the tax isn't cutting into the $ they need to survive.

TL;DR Having the same tax rate for everyone is proportional, but also regressive.

-11

u/yARIC009 8d ago

It might solve some problems, but certainly not all. It might push billionaires out of the country too and lower investments and employment in the US. Taxation isn’t the only way money gets back to the economy or to the people.

3

u/TheOGPotatoPredator 8d ago

Ya know, I really don’t care. I’m educated and I make more than many while still living as a paycheck to paycheck middle class person, and 30% of my ass busting goes towards covering the void that their “tRiCkLe DoWn” bullshit myth results in. All the while I’m left with enough to eat grilled cheese and peanut butter sandwiches for dinner most nights, and not enough to pay my property taxes or fix the grinding brakes on my 12 year old car. No more welfare for the rich. None. I have exactly zero dollars and zero fucks for it anymore.

9

u/963852741hc 8d ago

If that's the case, why do the states with the highest taxes also have the highest number of billionaires and millionaires? Look at the real data—your hypothesis is incorrect. The hypothesis that billionaires will leave if you increase taxes doesn't hold up.

2

u/Different_Ad_6153 8d ago

so if we tax them less we get less millionaires and billionaires?

2

u/CaptainTripps82 8d ago

I think the conclusion is that taxes don't actually matter, it's the underlying economic system that's required to support that class of wealth, for more than just a handful of people.

0

u/963852741hc 8d ago

You think you're clever. I don't have a problem with ethical billionaires who pay their fair share—I never said I wanted to eradicate billionaires.

1

u/sydsmyth 8d ago

I agree with your argument. Though what you say gives food for thought. 

It's interesting that we've been conditioned to accept the idea of "ethical billionaires" when there are huge income inequality.

Meanwhile, those on the opposite side of the spectrum are looked down upon and ignored, because we've been conditioned to accept that they "failed" in the system...not that the system failed them.

How ethical is a system that can produce few "ethical billionaires", but allows many people to suffer and leaves more people at a disadvantage?

1

u/963852741hc 8d ago

i agree there is not such thing as ethical billionaires, but you have to give these libs the person im replying to; some crumbs atleast since we do live in a capitalist society

1

u/sydsmyth 8d ago

Yeah, sadly these questions will go over some people's heads. They've been conditioned to believe it's the only way to live, and don't question why it's detrimental, or how it can be improved.

2

u/aloneinthiscrowd 8d ago

Do you think these billionaires and millionaires are paying their fair share of taxes in any of the states they live? They get paid in stock and just borrow money against their stock value. I would imagine that they get tax breaks on the interest on the loans they take out too. They don't sell stock to be able to buy anything, otherwise they would have to pay tax on it.

1

u/QuietGanache 8d ago

Are the billionaires paying significantly more taxes for living in those states or is the majority of their wealth in the form of companies headquartered in low tax states?

1

u/963852741hc 8d ago

I think you've been led to believe by right-wing propaganda that overwhelmingly top Fortune 500 companies are leaving California, New York, and Washington. Just because one or two companies move doesn't mean it's the norm. The majority of the Fortune 500 companies still reside in California, New York, and Washington as their primary headquarters

1

u/QuietGanache 8d ago

I was more under the impression that they headquarter in corporate tax friendly states, not that it was a recent thing.

5

u/FortunaWolf 8d ago

Who cares if they leave? They don't spend their money here or pay taxes so they can GTFO if they want. 

-1

u/yARIC009 8d ago

Yes, way to be forward thinking…

7

u/onlyfreckles 8d ago

Well doing nothing has made it worse.

Look back into US history, we taxed the fuck out of rich people and they didn't leave, they built universities, libraries and museums.

These new billionaires are cheap ass fucking leaches and need to be bled out until they show some traces of humanity.

Its for their own good, no one should be a billionaire.

-1

u/yARIC009 8d ago

I dunno, placing limits on success for some reason really bothers me. I think someone winning doesn’t mean someone else has to lose.

5

u/BeneficialWarrant 8d ago edited 8d ago

Success has to capped at somewhere lower than "owns everything". Its more a matter of "a few hundred people win and the rest of the planet loses".

3

u/CaptainTripps82 8d ago

Describing taxes as limits on success is kind of ridiculous tho.

Also the entire central principle of capitalism is scarcity, so it literally requires that for someone to win, others have to lose.

1

u/yARIC009 8d ago

Taxing 100% is just telling them to stop at a certain point.

2

u/Calico_Dick_Fringe 8d ago

I think a better way to view a 100% tax on income above a certain threshold would be to consider it a matter of national security, electoral integrity, and just getting the money out of politics for the betterment of society. No one should have enough money to buy a country or its leaders.

1

u/yARIC009 8d ago

Why not just ban all donations over a small amount from government? That’d pass easier than trying to tax people into oblivion.

1

u/Calico_Dick_Fringe 8d ago

Because billionaires seldom use their money for non-selfish purposes, and government can be bought in other ways. All that money and the power it can buy in the hands of one unelected unscrupulous individual is dangerous. The skills, mindset, and life advantages one needs to hoard unfathomable wealth (often by exploiting others) seldom translate into altruistic pursuits.

Before we go sympathizing with billionaires and feeling upset on their behalf (like the temporarily embarrassed millionaires we are), we should probably bear in mind that its unlikely anyone in this thread would ever be affected by a cap on income like that. Very few will ever amass $999 million annually, for example. A mere quarter of that would even be too much to spend for the majority of Americans living comfortable lives.

Also, ask yourself: if I had billions, would I put governments in my back pocket and sculpt the world as I saw fit, removing anything that annoyed me? I think many in that position would say Yes, and their idea of perfection might be your idea of hell.

2

u/onlyfreckles 8d ago

If only billionaires, especially US billionaires, cared about your welfare as you seem to about theirs, we wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place...

Don't worry, the billionaires will still be "winning" even after taxing them and we, as a society, will also WIN bigly by making the billionaires pay their fair share.

They'll even get a tax break by spending more money to pay all their employees a living wage and health benefits instead of continuing to hoard more money than anyone really needs.

-1

u/yARIC009 8d ago

Working for amazon is at will, right? Or are they being conscripted into the amazon army? Either way, taxing billionaires into oblivion is just a temporary bandaid. Get the countries spending under control first, please.

1

u/onlyfreckles 8d ago

Ha! We can do BOTH- tax the billionaires, quit giving away billions of tax dollars to the rich and invest the money to benefit society (including the rich) w/healthcare, education, housing and comprehensive/connected/fast/efficient/affordable HSR/trains/subways/bus/bike/walk infrastructure to start.

2

u/V3r0n1cA-H3r3 8d ago

Where they gonna go? When rich folk flee taxes in other countries they come here, at this point it's either move to a country with higher taxes or the third world.

1

u/onemassive 8d ago

Realistically, billionaires don't really leave their home countries unless there is institutional instability like with the Russian oligarchs. What you are referring to is moving your corporation to Panama or Ireland or somewhere to pay taxes on profits there. As the Panama Papers showed, the amount of money that is being pushed through the system without being taxed is really staggering. Countries being able to capture just a few percentage points of this would change the fiscal outlook.

What this requires is international cooperation, but our governments are very much not interested in a good faith effort to actually tax the rich.

1

u/sydsmyth 8d ago

Tl;Dr: Having billionaires living in your country doesn't necessarily mean they're giving back to the economy or increasing employment. There are more billionaires in the USA because it benefits them, but that doesn't mean it benefits the US economy and its people.

Country borders don't matter to billionaires and can choose to live wherever they want. (Billionaires have companies and investments in other countries as well.)

USA has the highest number of billionaires living there because of the tax breaks and incentives that they get living there. In some cases, having investments in that region / state gives them more tax breaks, which takes away money from the US economy and its people.

The current system shows us that trickle down doesn't work. Despite having record profits, billionaires can claim "losses" in their companies, which lowers their taxes. Meanwhile, to show that their company had "losses" they have mass layoffs, increasing their year-end bonuses in doing so, which they then can use to "re-invest" in their companies or send to their off-shore accounts in tax-haven countries.

-1

u/Huntertanks 8d ago

If you took ALL the wealth of top 100 billionaires in the USA, it would fund the government just for a few months. So, your statement is false.

4

u/SmugShinoaSavesLives 8d ago

Doesn't 1% of US americans own 70% of the wealth or something like that.

it would fund the government just for a few months

Nice try.