9 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Jenn's avatar

Taxes on rich people need to go up by a lot. Rich people have more money than they know what to do with. There is only so much money you can piss away on yachts, estates, ranches, private planes, and trips to Monte Carlo, so why not take one of the billions you have lying around and take a flyer on some magic beans and fairy dust?

Or...you could pay some taxes, support the government that made you so fabulously rich, and still have more money than you know what to do with, but maybe not so much that giving $350 MILLION to a scam artist seems like a good idea. Everybody is a winner in my scenario except one guy: the scam artist.

Expand full comment
Travis's avatar

Hard sell in a country whose culture is essentially defined by "get rich or die trying." The people here fawn over the rich so hard while thinking they have a shot in hell at becoming so themselves. It's lottery logic. Because every now and then people hit jackpots on the slots and lotto tickets, others will keep playing them and just keep forking over money to the house ad infinitum in support of the scheme because, hey, you never know amiright?

We won't get rid of billionaires until we rid ourselves of our sick desire as a nation to become them ourselves. Until we get back to "loyalty to the nation > obscene wealth," we'll be stuck in a national culture defined by "obscene wealth > loyalty to the nation." We reap what we sow.

Expand full comment
Jenn's avatar

Tax increases on the wealthy are quite popular though--polls show that. But the people who would be taxed have the power and money to squelch any changes--look at the carried interest loophole that survived yet again because the system allows one person to hold a bill hostage. So you only need to put the squeeze on one senator to kill things you don't like.

Expand full comment
Attractive Nuisance's avatar

I’d settle for just enforcing the laws we have. Maybe the increased IRS budget will help but it seems to only be sufficient to bring audit and enforcement resources back to the inadequate level before Republicans gutted it using the Lois Lerner faux scandal (which, by the way, has not yet been adequately reported on, in my view).

Expand full comment
Travis's avatar

When senate margins are this thin, the billionaire class only needs to buy off one senator when team blue is in charge. They've already owned all of team red since Reagan.

Expand full comment
Kathy Balles's avatar

Certainly passing the billions on to their children isn't doing the offspring any favors; we've seen plenty examples of that. One billionaire (Warren Buffett maybe?) believed in passing only enough money so the children had to do something, but enough to do anything they wanted.

Expand full comment
Jenn's avatar

Gates did that too. Estate taxes should be much higher with a deferral program for closely held businesses. Liquid assets can be taxed and the heirs get the after tax proceeds. Non-liquid assets like farmland and closely held businesses can apply for a deferral so no tax is owed unless the entity is sold, at which time the estate tax needs to be paid out of the proceeds. That removes the argument that "death taxes" caused forced sales for farmers and small business owners that want to continue the family business.

Expand full comment
Barb Z's avatar

I like this deferral concept for non-liquid assets. Why have I not heard of it before?

Expand full comment
Jenn's avatar

I have no idea other than democrats are financially illiterate and terrible at marketing.

Expand full comment
ErrorError