Economics: billionaire's tax (2023 Update)

<snip>

Wealth is now more heritable than height in the USA. It's a lot more likely to be possible if your parents were wealthy.

Millionaires are pretty common these days. If you own you own home for long enough to pay of the mortgage, you are very likely to be a millionaire.

Bernie is just being careful not to alienate people who might vote for him.

makes the point that the US has more economic inequality than is good for it. Comparing individual states within the US produces the same correlations as comparing advanced industrial countries - too much economic inequality comes with undesirable social problems, even for the richer members of the less equal societies. The Gini index is a fairly crude measure of inequality, and it isn't the one the "Spirit Level" uses, but Sweden does pretty well with a Gini coeffcient of 0.29.

The US is at 41.50. Australia isn't great at 35.80 and the UK isn't much better at 33.20. France is at 32.70, japan does better at 32.10 (and has a culture of not showing off your wealth). Germany at 31.70 is a bit better. The Netherlands and Denmark are at 28.20.

Absolute equality give a Gini coefficient of zero, which is known not to work - this isn't about getting absolute equality, but keeping the differences down below the levels that are depressing and irritating.

Since John Doe is depressingly irritating, he may not appreciate that this can be a problem.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 31 Oct 2021 09:01:06 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sllm0h$8nh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

KgT2YiZ8Tctx

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 31 Oct 2021 09:17:57 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <slln05$8nh$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

dG6/PklnyG0O

Edward Hernandez snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:0uyfJ.277147$ snipped-for-privacy@usenetxs.com:

snip

You are such an idiot. You make Usenet worse with this regardless of what he has done to you or does.

Please stop, you pathetic cringing milksop.

I wanted to get the basis of the number so I could evaluate the logic of your comment. Your reasoning that the tax laws must be progressive because so many don't pay taxes is not logical. "Progressive" taxing means the poor pay a smaller portion of their income or wealth than the rich. There's nothing in this one fact that says it's not the rich who pay no income tax.

So how many of the 47% pay no tax because they are poor and how many pay no tax because they have great accountants who know how to work the tax law?

Anyone could say the exact same thing about you. The difference is his posts have a purpose while yours are just your ego showing.

Every name you use to insult others is something that has been applied to you before. That's why your vocabulary is so foul.

STFU and go away.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 31 Oct 2021 22:19:15 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sln4p3$oge$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

BIrkO9NiNYGn

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 1 Nov 2021 01:21:35 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <slnfev$vsa$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

OGVaeUNXvkV1

If off-topic posts were worth a dollar JD would be rich

JL is anti-Musk, except when he's pro-Musk, which is when someone who's not him is anti-Musk for different reasons than he is.

Better tools you could never engineer, I think they just come that way.

It doesn't matter, your average wingnut views this as evidence of how clever they are and as an aspirational goal, not a negative.

The wingnut is a useful man. He knows his place in the strata of society and has the ability to throw a punch in a downwards direction on command. He will rarely dare to throw a punch upwards, no matter how many he takes from that direction, as he's scared shitless of offending his betters.

The implication is that this percentage is always the same exact people year over year, and that they're all the same (dark-skinned and poor) Democrat-voters.

But e.g. retired people typically don't pay federal income taxes either, and they're included in that statistic as just one not entirely dark-skinned Democrat-voter demographic.

All right-wing propaganda is geared towards Great White Demographic-Replacement theory in the modern era. As it is the only card they have left.

There, you got the meaning pretty well. The question is, what is the meaning of the statistic? Why do I care how many do or don't pay income tax? It would seem someone is suggesting a significant portion of the 47% are not paying their "fair share". Then what is the meaning of that? Is it because the tax law is has too many loopholes or because there are a lot of people who are just plain cheating the law?

My point is the 47% number is pretty meaningless as are many numbers people get upset about.

You seem to be focusing on income which I believe excludes capital gains, a major portion of the wealth of the... wealthy.

Depending on your income you can have any number of deductions that put you in the zero tax bracket. Depreciation is not a good one to assume because it only shifts the tax from now to when you collect your capital gains as it reduces your basis.

And become part of the 47%.

So this brings us around to my original question, what is the purpose of mentioning the percentage of tax payers (or was it households) that pay no income tax? Why should any of us care about that number?

The entire point is to instigate class warfare so you can acquire, or remain in, power. The same goes for pronouncements of racism. The Dims just don't have any other arrows in their quiver - how well did "defund the police" work out for them? A record gain in homicides in one year, that's how well.

They're easy arrows when the Trump party goes out of its way to prove what a pack of bigots it is every chance it gets.

Yeah, we don't need electric cars or online bookstores. We were doing fine with horses and libraries.