How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits(propublica.org)
propublica.org
How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
280 comments
Isn't that what Form 211 does? You can get up to 30% of what the IRS collects.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/form-211.asp
"In 2021, it was reported that 645 claims were submitted, resulting in 179 awards for a total of $36 million on an additional $245 million collected. In 2020, there were 593 claims and 169 awards for a total of $86.6 million paid out on $472 million in additional collections."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/form-211.asp
"In 2021, it was reported that 645 claims were submitted, resulting in 179 awards for a total of $36 million on an additional $245 million collected. In 2020, there were 593 claims and 169 awards for a total of $86.6 million paid out on $472 million in additional collections."
Nice, I was not aware of this. It looks like there are some additional stipulations:
* If the subject of the claim is an individual, they must have $200k+ income in at least one of the relevant years, and the amount recovered must exceed $2mil.
* You can't have obtained the relevant information through your (or your friend/partner/relative's) activities as a federal employee.
* It will probably take about 10 years for the affected party's appeals process to complete itself (see the flow chart on p9 of the linked document, and the chart on p21).
* It also appears that the IRS requires more than the publicly available information described in TFA, as p12 of that document implies that "claims based entirely on publicly available information" are also "non-meritorious". So, the exercise conducted by the journalist appears to not qualify for a reward, even though in at least one of the cases it produced a collection. This bit is unclear to me -- I can't tell if it's just ruling out people who spam submissions saying "public figure X is definitely a tax evader!!!" or if you really need to provide additional non-public documents to get anything. There is a random Forbes article about this [2] that claims "the IRS is happiest when you have first-hand (insider information even better) knowledge of the taxpayer and the tax issues".
But if you jump through all those hoops, you can get 15-30% of the additional money collected. Form 211 itself is pretty short [3].
[1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5241.pdf
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/deanzerbe/2021/06/10/tax-whistl...
[3] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf
* If the subject of the claim is an individual, they must have $200k+ income in at least one of the relevant years, and the amount recovered must exceed $2mil.
* You can't have obtained the relevant information through your (or your friend/partner/relative's) activities as a federal employee.
* It will probably take about 10 years for the affected party's appeals process to complete itself (see the flow chart on p9 of the linked document, and the chart on p21).
* It also appears that the IRS requires more than the publicly available information described in TFA, as p12 of that document implies that "claims based entirely on publicly available information" are also "non-meritorious". So, the exercise conducted by the journalist appears to not qualify for a reward, even though in at least one of the cases it produced a collection. This bit is unclear to me -- I can't tell if it's just ruling out people who spam submissions saying "public figure X is definitely a tax evader!!!" or if you really need to provide additional non-public documents to get anything. There is a random Forbes article about this [2] that claims "the IRS is happiest when you have first-hand (insider information even better) knowledge of the taxpayer and the tax issues".
But if you jump through all those hoops, you can get 15-30% of the additional money collected. Form 211 itself is pretty short [3].
[1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5241.pdf
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/deanzerbe/2021/06/10/tax-whistl...
[3] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf
> So, the exercise conducted by the journalist appears to not qualify for a reward, even though in at least one of the cases it produced a collection.
The journalist (Jeff Ernsthausen) was able to bargain their way into non-public tours, that provided evidence of tax evasion.
Basic sleuthing (photos of premises from the street, phone inquiries about hours, etc) seems like it'd qualify as first-hand information.
The journalist (Jeff Ernsthausen) was able to bargain their way into non-public tours, that provided evidence of tax evasion.
Basic sleuthing (photos of premises from the street, phone inquiries about hours, etc) seems like it'd qualify as first-hand information.
A fraud whistleblower got a 200 million dollar bounty this year from the SEC
Cool! It looks like the SEC whistleblower program has more generous terms than 1% [1]:
> The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.
Submitting a tip appears to be pretty simple, too. If you want anonymity you'll need to go through a lawyer, but other than that, it's just a web form [2]?
[1] https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
[2] https://tcr.sec.gov/TcrExternalWeb/faces/pages/intake.jspx
> The Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected.
Submitting a tip appears to be pretty simple, too. If you want anonymity you'll need to go through a lawyer, but other than that, it's just a web form [2]?
[1] https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower
[2] https://tcr.sec.gov/TcrExternalWeb/faces/pages/intake.jspx
> If you want anonymity you'll need to go through a lawyer
Sounds like a business opportunity then — the company just needs a lawyer on staff. Whistleblower fields the company with a tip, company splits the SEC reward with the whistleblower, maintains anonymity.
Sounds like a business opportunity then — the company just needs a lawyer on staff. Whistleblower fields the company with a tip, company splits the SEC reward with the whistleblower, maintains anonymity.
Sadly this is the type of bounty hunting that seems quite likely to get a bounty placed on one’s own head. Making a career out of angering the rich and powerful by going after their money isn’t likely to end well.
You’ve got it backwards, the rich should fear the masses. There’s a reason Leland Stanford moved to Palo Alto.
> the rich should fear the masses
Only if the masses could coordinate, which doesn't happen easily.
Only if the masses could coordinate, which doesn't happen easily.
Mob emergence is another hazard, and requires little coordination.
[deleted]
What's that reason, for those presently unenlightened?
He wasn’t making many friends and his home in Nob Hill was easy to find.
Ideas are cheap, execution is all that matters.
Actually $279 million.
An interesting part:
> Both the $200 million CFTC award and the $279 million SEC award involved individuals who blew the whistle after the agency had already begun to investigate the misconduct at issue.
An interesting part:
> Both the $200 million CFTC award and the $279 million SEC award involved individuals who blew the whistle after the agency had already begun to investigate the misconduct at issue.
I believe that for the most part, those who call the shots in law enforcement prefer that people involved are subordinate to them such that important exceptions can be made when necessary. Getting amateurs involved screws things up, though it would substantially improve fighting crime.
Bounty hunters would still be subordinate to law enforcement in this hypothetical scheme, because a bounty submission still has to get approved by somebody inside the appropriate regulatory body. If a corrupt regulatory body wants to protect certain individuals for certain reasons, they can still do that in this system.
Note also that the scheme I'm imagining doesn't give bounty hunters any special powers; we're not deputizing people to kick in doors. For example, my understanding of TFA is that the journalist built their cases through public information. The only exception was using their journalist credentials to get access to a "museum" -- but in that case, simply being repeatedly denied seems like sufficient evidence that it's not a museum open to the public, so being a journalist wasn't necessary to the case anyway.
It's more plausible to me that a regulatory agency might be too proud to use this kind of help. I have no special knowledge of the IRS, maybe they're in that category.
Note also that the scheme I'm imagining doesn't give bounty hunters any special powers; we're not deputizing people to kick in doors. For example, my understanding of TFA is that the journalist built their cases through public information. The only exception was using their journalist credentials to get access to a "museum" -- but in that case, simply being repeatedly denied seems like sufficient evidence that it's not a museum open to the public, so being a journalist wasn't necessary to the case anyway.
It's more plausible to me that a regulatory agency might be too proud to use this kind of help. I have no special knowledge of the IRS, maybe they're in that category.
Another thought: What if all corporate accountants were required to be government employees? We can start with transnational companies first. Then LLCs and Incs.
Disincentivize the massive fraud that we see today.
Disincentivize the massive fraud that we see today.
I think this would result in really poor accounting since there’s a big disconnect between a government employer and a company being audited and its books kept.
In theory it works because the government auditor would be more interested in justice than corporate interests. In practice, an embedded external employee would not have the relationships to have viable information and would probably end up doing only the most perfunctory level of work to not be fired.
My org had this issue where our cyber group embedded an employee in each organization (we basically had a federation of different groups with separate funding streams and incentives) but their career ladders were disconnected from the local org. So the boss in the cyber org never really knew the work and just wanted safety. The org wanted to produce for their mission. So it led to this weird cycle where the embedded cyber person would stop stop every new project. The cyber boss was happy and promoted and gave raises. But it was bad for the org because no new projects.
In theory it works because the government auditor would be more interested in justice than corporate interests. In practice, an embedded external employee would not have the relationships to have viable information and would probably end up doing only the most perfunctory level of work to not be fired.
My org had this issue where our cyber group embedded an employee in each organization (we basically had a federation of different groups with separate funding streams and incentives) but their career ladders were disconnected from the local org. So the boss in the cyber org never really knew the work and just wanted safety. The org wanted to produce for their mission. So it led to this weird cycle where the embedded cyber person would stop stop every new project. The cyber boss was happy and promoted and gave raises. But it was bad for the org because no new projects.
It depends on whether accountants’ concerns here are about auditing and fining (indirectly) for non-compliance, or if they’re allowed and expected to block projects.
For SEC compliance reporting, I’ve seen banks take it both very seriously and provide the absolute minimum to pass muster such that the COs could barely do their jobs.
What’s clear is that the “same old” and “reasonable” approaches aren’t working, and a disruption is needed.
For SEC compliance reporting, I’ve seen banks take it both very seriously and provide the absolute minimum to pass muster such that the COs could barely do their jobs.
What’s clear is that the “same old” and “reasonable” approaches aren’t working, and a disruption is needed.
> What if all corporate accountants were required to be government employees?
So then what if a company is seeking to expand internationally, and looking at options for various reasons (including costs, which includes the tax burden). Isn’t it a conflict of interest to have a US government employee weighing in on how to improve a company at the loss of IRS revenue?
And that’s an extreme example. Any company accountant or CFO is going to be involved in regular decisions where “paying less tax” is an important outcome to consider.
So then what if a company is seeking to expand internationally, and looking at options for various reasons (including costs, which includes the tax burden). Isn’t it a conflict of interest to have a US government employee weighing in on how to improve a company at the loss of IRS revenue?
And that’s an extreme example. Any company accountant or CFO is going to be involved in regular decisions where “paying less tax” is an important outcome to consider.
Isn’t that the task of tax attorneys? Different line of work, though same domain of concern.
Depending on the size of the company, you’d probably need a team; but there aren’t too many companies with a tax attorney on the staff so the accounting team would be doing the heavy lifting.
Large and multinational companies (your extreme example) don’t suffer from this problem; nor do medium sized ones.
Many of the smaller businesses rely on dodge—by-cash or function just fine.
In fact, the audit problems caused by tiny, front/fake LLCs and paper companies lead to a real, criminal-level audit trail problem.
Many of the smaller businesses rely on dodge—by-cash or function just fine.
In fact, the audit problems caused by tiny, front/fake LLCs and paper companies lead to a real, criminal-level audit trail problem.
Doesn’t the govt lose large amounts of money to various fraud schemes?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1279664
May be the govt should have private sector auditors to help with that?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1279664
May be the govt should have private sector auditors to help with that?
Yes, by underfunding auditers and accountability. Or throwing out money without any sense of accounting.
Yes, fraudsters will take full advantage of it.
Your example shows why we need more auditers and more frequent auditing, not less.
Yes, fraudsters will take full advantage of it.
Your example shows why we need more auditers and more frequent auditing, not less.
> Your example shows why we need more auditers and more frequent auditing, not less.
Yes more auditors for govt. Not more govt. auditors for business.
More auditing != govt auditing of private business
There is a jump of logic there to go from left to right of the equation.
Yes more auditors for govt. Not more govt. auditors for business.
More auditing != govt auditing of private business
There is a jump of logic there to go from left to right of the equation.
> Yes more auditors for govt. Not more govt. auditors for business.
It was your example.
Explain then the point of your example, beyond “see, government must be incompetent.”
Because I see a leap of logic in saying “government (org) +government (audit)” incompetence implies “private (org) + goverment (audit)” incompetence.
Nevermind that all nuance was stripped away in making a one-liner.
It was your example.
Explain then the point of your example, beyond “see, government must be incompetent.”
Because I see a leap of logic in saying “government (org) +government (audit)” incompetence implies “private (org) + goverment (audit)” incompetence.
Nevermind that all nuance was stripped away in making a one-liner.
"In November 2022, DOD failed its fifth consecutive audit, unable to account for sixty-one percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets."
“The sheer size and scope of the department — which makes up for more than half of the U.S. discretionary spending and has assets that range from personnel and supplies to bases and weapons — makes it difficult to audit. “
“The agency had never expected to pass, however, due to accounting issues officials said could take years to fix. Because accounting records needed to complete the assessment were not available, all five audits received a “disclaimer of opinion,” though there have been improvements each time. ”
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740921-defense-departmen...
The objection you’ve raised, if anything, highlights the need for a neutral outside party to annually audit and create thorough paper trails for very large organizations.
Do you want to pursue this line of argument further?
“The agency had never expected to pass, however, due to accounting issues officials said could take years to fix. Because accounting records needed to complete the assessment were not available, all five audits received a “disclaimer of opinion,” though there have been improvements each time. ”
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740921-defense-departmen...
The objection you’ve raised, if anything, highlights the need for a neutral outside party to annually audit and create thorough paper trails for very large organizations.
Do you want to pursue this line of argument further?
As a side note: One of the primary reasons of how the rich get richer and how public services (our society) degrade is, that we stopped taxing them. For decades now.
Imho, its a shift of the represented interests in policies. We should stop pondering enshitification or greedflation an start seeing it as a systemic issue, that we can observe everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Commodification#In_Marxist_th...
Imho, its a shift of the represented interests in policies. We should stop pondering enshitification or greedflation an start seeing it as a systemic issue, that we can observe everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Commodification#In_Marxist_th...
The bigger problem is a fear of public spending because of perceived incompetence. The stigma comes from a time when only governments had run big bureaucratic systems. Now we can see there is little difference between public and private bureaucracies except for a lack of oversight on the latter.
Still the stigma remains and all public spending is filtered through a profit making entity.
Still the stigma remains and all public spending is filtered through a profit making entity.
The reduction in upper rate marginal taxes and the narrative about government incompetence were both promulgated by the same people. They are not distinct.
The reality is that all human organizations - government, for-profit, not-for-profit - suffer from incompetence, corruption and inefficiency.
The story that the right likes to tell us is that because there is (typically) a choice of companies (and that they are subject to competition with each other), it doesn't matter (as much) if a company suffers from these things, because you can "go elsewhere".
Vertical integration in so many business sectors, along with corporate mergers and the waning of antitrust really does give lie to this, in my opinion.
For example, all US cell phone companies are shit, they all have shitty websites, shitty customer service, shitty rates, idiot salespeople ... moving from T-Mobile to Verizon because the former screwed something up solves absolutely nothing.
The reality is that all human organizations - government, for-profit, not-for-profit - suffer from incompetence, corruption and inefficiency.
The story that the right likes to tell us is that because there is (typically) a choice of companies (and that they are subject to competition with each other), it doesn't matter (as much) if a company suffers from these things, because you can "go elsewhere".
Vertical integration in so many business sectors, along with corporate mergers and the waning of antitrust really does give lie to this, in my opinion.
For example, all US cell phone companies are shit, they all have shitty websites, shitty customer service, shitty rates, idiot salespeople ... moving from T-Mobile to Verizon because the former screwed something up solves absolutely nothing.
> The reality is that all human organizations - government, for-profit, not-for-profit - suffer from incompetence, corruption and inefficiency.
My observation is that size matters. Generally speaking: The larger an entity is, the more difficult it becomes to be a benefit to the public. The ability to cause harm doesn't diminish the same way (if at all).
Governments and NGOs at least have a realized duty to be a public benefit.
The same obligation is typically not recognized for corporations (eg: Shareholder good is applauded - even while it brings brings detriment to society, employees, the company).
My observation is that size matters. Generally speaking: The larger an entity is, the more difficult it becomes to be a benefit to the public. The ability to cause harm doesn't diminish the same way (if at all).
Governments and NGOs at least have a realized duty to be a public benefit.
The same obligation is typically not recognized for corporations (eg: Shareholder good is applauded - even while it brings brings detriment to society, employees, the company).
Well, to a point, you may be right. However, there many very large organizations that generally do better than the majority, so I don't think it's a linear or even necessarily causal relationship. Size certainly makes incompetence, inefficiency and corruption easier, and harder to eliminate.
There's also the problem of balance: several UN organizations, for example, do immense good with remarkably limited resources but occasionally they or their cousins fuck up really badly and cause severe harm. Because of the way our media (and our brains) work, we are much more aware of the fuck ups, but this is not necessarily a rational way to assess their overall efficacy.
I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective. It is almost certainly the case that being "the only game in town" does lead to a different set of incentives for public organizations. But I'm not clear that incentives are for worse behavior, at least not overall. Some parts of it are pretty complex to reason about - there's not a lot of potential within (local) government to get wildly rich, unlike in private corporations, but there's enough to keep small time grifters and scroungers happy. So it's certainly different from the private context, but better or worse is hard to say as a general rule.
There's also the problem of balance: several UN organizations, for example, do immense good with remarkably limited resources but occasionally they or their cousins fuck up really badly and cause severe harm. Because of the way our media (and our brains) work, we are much more aware of the fuck ups, but this is not necessarily a rational way to assess their overall efficacy.
I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective. It is almost certainly the case that being "the only game in town" does lead to a different set of incentives for public organizations. But I'm not clear that incentives are for worse behavior, at least not overall. Some parts of it are pretty complex to reason about - there's not a lot of potential within (local) government to get wildly rich, unlike in private corporations, but there's enough to keep small time grifters and scroungers happy. So it's certainly different from the private context, but better or worse is hard to say as a general rule.
>There's also the problem of balance: several UN organizations, for example, do immense good with remarkably limited resources but occasionally they or their cousins frak up really badly and cause severe harm.
The thing about groups, Zero Want To Clean Their Own House. I mean every bunch of people you can draw a line around. Every group, entity, org, corp, gov, club, lodge, council, society... Poor souls who try to fix things from the inside get quick evidence.
It may be the most universal human failing I know of. And maybe the least discussed.
The thing about groups, Zero Want To Clean Their Own House. I mean every bunch of people you can draw a line around. Every group, entity, org, corp, gov, club, lodge, council, society... Poor souls who try to fix things from the inside get quick evidence.
It may be the most universal human failing I know of. And maybe the least discussed.
> I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective.
They very well might. It's what follows that needs scrutiny.
Having been RW, there was some pride in adhering to a dumb fallacy: It's that if A is beneficial, then B thru Z must be beneficial. Together, A-Z become an ethics-defining principle.
But it's an unthinking, lazy assumption. Only beneficial things are beneficial. B thru Z are only what each is eventually shown to be.
They very well might. It's what follows that needs scrutiny.
Having been RW, there was some pride in adhering to a dumb fallacy: It's that if A is beneficial, then B thru Z must be beneficial. Together, A-Z become an ethics-defining principle.
But it's an unthinking, lazy assumption. Only beneficial things are beneficial. B thru Z are only what each is eventually shown to be.
The big difference is that I can choose not to pay a company I don't like, and that's fine.
Governments will happily make my life crap if I don't pay taxes. I dislike greed as much as the next person, but the monopolized incarceration powers of governments are not to be forgotten.
For some services, collective funding makes sense, like having hospitals that can stop the spread of diseases, or forcing pooling of money to locally maintain an even standard of infrastructure.
Governments will happily make my life crap if I don't pay taxes. I dislike greed as much as the next person, but the monopolized incarceration powers of governments are not to be forgotten.
For some services, collective funding makes sense, like having hospitals that can stop the spread of diseases, or forcing pooling of money to locally maintain an even standard of infrastructure.
It’s ironic that you’re complaining that you can’t avoid paying the government when the only reason you can pay for anything at all is because the government uses its monopoly on violence to protect your property rights. Paying the government is the price of participating in commerce at all.
I don't see the irony. I said that for some services, collective funding (i.e. taxes) makes sense, but not for all.
OP didn't see the difference between governments and the enterprises they provide the framework for. I explained one big difference, and why I don't think collectivizing everything is a good idea.
OP didn't see the difference between governments and the enterprises they provide the framework for. I explained one big difference, and why I don't think collectivizing everything is a good idea.
And is the monopoly issuer of currency used to make those payments
> The big difference is that I can choose not to pay a company I don't like, and that's fine.
Which phone company do you positively like ? Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ? How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
Which phone company do you positively like ? Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ? How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
And which power company? PG&E has made it almost not worth it to harness the free power of the sun on my roof with their NEM 3.0 rules, that they passed just before holiday break after delaying for so long and against mass public outrage. They also snuck in a rename to “net billing tariff” (NBT), also called “solar billing plan” in some contexts. https://aurorasolar.com/blog/cpuc-voted-californias-net-bill... Has a decent overview of the changes for the curious.
Which for-profit prison company are you willing to pay for?
Which private military contractors do you want your tax dollars going to?
(Comment is meant to be added on to yours, not contradict you.)
Which private military contractors do you want your tax dollars going to?
(Comment is meant to be added on to yours, not contradict you.)
> Which phone company do you positively like ?
Digitech Mobile is great so far. I think that particular question is very regional. In Switzerland (and Sweden,) the competition between them works well, IMHO.
> Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ?
I don't have a choice where I live. I.e. it's as bad as a monopoly. It used to be good, but then UPC was bought by Sunrise, and they seem intent on making me leave ASAP.
> How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
Blissfully ignorant.
Digitech Mobile is great so far. I think that particular question is very regional. In Switzerland (and Sweden,) the competition between them works well, IMHO.
> Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ?
I don't have a choice where I live. I.e. it's as bad as a monopoly. It used to be good, but then UPC was bought by Sunrise, and they seem intent on making me leave ASAP.
> How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
Blissfully ignorant.
well you got 3 choices in each of those industries. Leaving a country is much harder than leaving a crappy cable company.
> Leaving a country is much harder than leaving a crappy cable company
That's an interesting take. Sometimes it's roughly the same, in particular when the cable company has a def acto monopoly in the country (the smaller your country is, the worse it probably gets).
I've talked to a few people who see it as an indicator of the place's quality of life: do they have enough consumer protection to either force the monopoly to provide decent service or not have a monopoly in the first place ? how expensive is it ? (basic lifeline services at crazy price will usually go with other primary goods and services also priced crazily)
Basically, a juridiction that can't do anything about their internet won't be able to do much about a lot of other issues directly impacting their population and economy. Sometimes you just need to leave your state, sometimes your country, but either way getting away from that specific juridiction is often the better choice.
That's an interesting take. Sometimes it's roughly the same, in particular when the cable company has a def acto monopoly in the country (the smaller your country is, the worse it probably gets).
I've talked to a few people who see it as an indicator of the place's quality of life: do they have enough consumer protection to either force the monopoly to provide decent service or not have a monopoly in the first place ? how expensive is it ? (basic lifeline services at crazy price will usually go with other primary goods and services also priced crazily)
Basically, a juridiction that can't do anything about their internet won't be able to do much about a lot of other issues directly impacting their population and economy. Sometimes you just need to leave your state, sometimes your country, but either way getting away from that specific juridiction is often the better choice.
How many choices you have will change a lot depending on your country, but I think there are many constants. Mobile and internet providers tend to collude and align their offering to the other competitors. There must be exceptions, but I can't think of any. On the other side telecom companies getting sued for collusion feels like part of life.
On Qualcomm, as far as I know any mobile phone sold in the west will have a networking chipset from Qualcomm or pay royalties/patents to Qualcomm for using their technology. Apple was trying to do something about it with their switch to Intel chips, but it didn't end well for them (I think they absorbed the Intel cell modem division and might be trying for a second time at some point in the future ?)
On Qualcomm, as far as I know any mobile phone sold in the west will have a networking chipset from Qualcomm or pay royalties/patents to Qualcomm for using their technology. Apple was trying to do something about it with their switch to Intel chips, but it didn't end well for them (I think they absorbed the Intel cell modem division and might be trying for a second time at some point in the future ?)
> The big difference is that I can choose not to pay a company I don't like, and that's fine.
Were capitalism regulated, I'd agree with you - however the reality is that capitalism these days has devolved into monopoly and rent seeking:
Unhappy with your phone and especially internet provider? Good luck finding a new one, in most cases there is no competition at all or it's just as bad. Unhappy with your social network, say because there are too many Nazis and conspiracy theorists running rampant? Bad luck, no federation requirement means you'll lose all your followers and they'll lose you. Unhappy with your bank? Competition is just as fucked up. Unhappy with your railroad transport provider? Tough luck, they own the rails so you can't get another company to ship your stuff. Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives. Your email provider banned you because you sent a photo of your naked child to the pediatrician? Even an international media outrage won't help you get your account, your digital life back.
The list goes on and on and on, and the common point is that anti-trust enforcement has gone completely down the drain.
Were capitalism regulated, I'd agree with you - however the reality is that capitalism these days has devolved into monopoly and rent seeking:
Unhappy with your phone and especially internet provider? Good luck finding a new one, in most cases there is no competition at all or it's just as bad. Unhappy with your social network, say because there are too many Nazis and conspiracy theorists running rampant? Bad luck, no federation requirement means you'll lose all your followers and they'll lose you. Unhappy with your bank? Competition is just as fucked up. Unhappy with your railroad transport provider? Tough luck, they own the rails so you can't get another company to ship your stuff. Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives. Your email provider banned you because you sent a photo of your naked child to the pediatrician? Even an international media outrage won't help you get your account, your digital life back.
The list goes on and on and on, and the common point is that anti-trust enforcement has gone completely down the drain.
>Unhappy with your social network, say because there are too many Nazis and conspiracy theorists running rampant? Bad luck, no federation requirement means you'll lose all your followers and they'll lose you.
I don't know how a government would enforce this. Nor if we want them to. Yes, you will and arguably should lose your followers if you move sites, and that's because your followers are passive browsers who don't care about you specifically. None of us are Taylor Swift who will have millions follow wherever she decides to go. That's one offset of anonymity in this case.
Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
> Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives.
Again, yes that makes sense. you acknoledging that they have better OS's seems to be submitting that there's value in their service. Personally, I can replicate 99% of what I use on Linux and a de-Googled AOSP, but it will vary from user to user (RIP to the artists stuck in the Adobe suite). Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
I don't know how a government would enforce this. Nor if we want them to. Yes, you will and arguably should lose your followers if you move sites, and that's because your followers are passive browsers who don't care about you specifically. None of us are Taylor Swift who will have millions follow wherever she decides to go. That's one offset of anonymity in this case.
Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
> Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives.
Again, yes that makes sense. you acknoledging that they have better OS's seems to be submitting that there's value in their service. Personally, I can replicate 99% of what I use on Linux and a de-Googled AOSP, but it will vary from user to user (RIP to the artists stuck in the Adobe suite). Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
> I don't know how a government would enforce this. Nor if we want them to.
Mandate that services over a certain user threshold expose open interfaces to which competitors can bind. That has worked reasonably well in banking and telecommunication.
> Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
Unlike Mastodon federation or SEPA bank accounts, there is no legal requirement for the old service provider to assist in moving accounts, and I was talking about Googlemail which ties an entire person's identity across a multitude of services to one account. The person in my scenario lost everything from their mail account to the apps bought on their smartphone.
> Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
Agreed but there have been many cases where the "better service" just bought up the competition. Adobe is the best example, and up next I'd classify Atlassian. Both of their respective stacks still show the signs of integration after decades.
Mandate that services over a certain user threshold expose open interfaces to which competitors can bind. That has worked reasonably well in banking and telecommunication.
> Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
Unlike Mastodon federation or SEPA bank accounts, there is no legal requirement for the old service provider to assist in moving accounts, and I was talking about Googlemail which ties an entire person's identity across a multitude of services to one account. The person in my scenario lost everything from their mail account to the apps bought on their smartphone.
> Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
Agreed but there have been many cases where the "better service" just bought up the competition. Adobe is the best example, and up next I'd classify Atlassian. Both of their respective stacks still show the signs of integration after decades.
This is a good argument to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, right?
But thanks to the libertarian narrative you’re furthering, government is obliged to contract so many things to private companies, so now you get all the worst of both worlds (contractors charge high rates to government and waste lots of money, and government now compels us to pay the bill for companies we don’t like).
I see a lot of propaganda expended on convincing the voting public of this "public incompentence", almost as if someone is paying to maintain this status quo.
It's all marketing at the end of the day.
But tbf, after a decade of a many public sector projects, I have first-hand seen really incompetent and wasteful actions on huge scales. Perhaps there should he a whistle blower program for reporting such things?
But tbf, after a decade of a many public sector projects, I have first-hand seen really incompetent and wasteful actions on huge scales. Perhaps there should he a whistle blower program for reporting such things?
> incompetent and wasteful actions on huge scales
As others have pointed out, this is independent of whether we're talking about the government or private sector.
Regardless, when I see workers on a road crew standing around I don't think "wasted tax dollars", I think "money going back into the economy."
Of course in my view of a fair society it would be a preponderance of idle, wealthy money that is going back into the economy.
As others have pointed out, this is independent of whether we're talking about the government or private sector.
Regardless, when I see workers on a road crew standing around I don't think "wasted tax dollars", I think "money going back into the economy."
Of course in my view of a fair society it would be a preponderance of idle, wealthy money that is going back into the economy.
There is a fundamental difference between public and private and that is one of consent. We have no consent when it comes to government actions.
Look at the amount of money wasted on the the war on drugs.
Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?
Look at the amount of money wasted on the the war on drugs.
Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?
Oh, but tons of people totally believe in the war on drugs and voted for politicians who directly support that crap. So it's "kinda" consented to, in fact explicitly sought. Just like all the "tough on crime" crap we get to hear about, so many of us think it's utterly ridiculous and the absolute wrong approach, but many are also all about that philosophy and absolutely want the government enacting such policies.
>Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?
How about tied up in physical assets like artwork, which they then use in a scam to lower their tax liability? That seems like one option, explored within the article under discussion.
How about tied up in physical assets like artwork, which they then use in a scam to lower their tax liability? That seems like one option, explored within the article under discussion.
> Where do you think wealthy money is if not in the economy?
Being leveraged to extract rents, the very enemy of productivity.
Being leveraged to extract rents, the very enemy of productivity.
>As others have pointed out, this is independent of whether we're talking about the government or private sector.
being able to boot people is a huge difference. You could make the company millions in one month and be fired the next month by a private company, simply because it gave them an extra dollar for their quarterly earnings statement. There's an actual process for ejecting an incompetent public sector employee, to a point that it's much easier to reassign them instead. Contractors are a whole other issue as well, especially with the ways government signs contracts.
>Of course in my view of a fair society it would be a preponderance of idle, wealthy money that is going back into the economy.
that should theoretically be a function of the stock market... we all know how that ends.
being able to boot people is a huge difference. You could make the company millions in one month and be fired the next month by a private company, simply because it gave them an extra dollar for their quarterly earnings statement. There's an actual process for ejecting an incompetent public sector employee, to a point that it's much easier to reassign them instead. Contractors are a whole other issue as well, especially with the ways government signs contracts.
>Of course in my view of a fair society it would be a preponderance of idle, wealthy money that is going back into the economy.
that should theoretically be a function of the stock market... we all know how that ends.
The history of the idea is quite interesting. It all start in the post-WWII period, right after the RAND Corporation was created to retain talent amid the US armed forces demobilization. Shortly after, a bunch of government agencies were being created and there was no abstraction defined to impose constraints on how they should operate and be funded, after some initial success with RAND's economists' policy analysis during the Kennedy administration, it began to spread to newly formed agencies and thus the language of efficiency gained weight. Then the Chicago school comes in, eventually antitrust starts to be dismantled with arguments like "if they raise prices too much, then competitors will come and eat their lunch", yadda yadda, completely ignoring entry barriers and today due to the flexibility of the language you have actors using government ineptness as a basis to decrease or halt any public spending when it suits them. It's a powerful way of assessing resource allocation, but it can't be the only one.
Presumably the Russians have included it in the agenda of their 10 million++ person troll farm, the TRUE source of all negative rumours about Western nations (the Canadian government and journalists dismiss all sorts of things as being "factually" only Russian trolls, and the majority of the (online) public absolutely loves it!
Look at Japan, across the board, as just one example, now look at the US - you genuinely think there isn't substantial incompetence and corruption here?
Watch out for propaganda, it comes in many forms, from a variety of sources. One of those is your own consciousness.*
Look at Japan, across the board, as just one example, now look at the US - you genuinely think there isn't substantial incompetence and corruption here?
Watch out for propaganda, it comes in many forms, from a variety of sources. One of those is your own consciousness.*
Can you actually give examples of competent public spending? The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering.
On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget?
The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?
On any given night 4000 people are sleeping on San Francisco's streets and the government can't solve that with a $636 million a year budget?
The US spends more per student than any other nation and somehow we have worse educational outcomes?
I mean I think the tougher claim would be "there is no competent public spending in the US". The US across the Federal, State, and local governments alone spends a lot. It's pretty likely that some of it is competent.
But separately, what does "competent" mean? Is it a measure of waste, as in we could've done what the DoD does for less? Is it a measure of useless spending, as in we shouldn't have spent money on X because X doesn't work? I don't think the (narrowing to the federal government here) the US has a monopoly on wasteful or misguided spending. I think anyone here who's worked for a company can come up with plenty of examples of incompetent spending by their employer.
I think "the US is bad at spending money so it should spend as little money as possible" argument is really weird framing, because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money. But if anyone can find one at a large scale, or even define what "good" means, I'm interested.
Or, I'm sympathetic to a "large entities are necessarily bad at spending" argument, but then I think we need to assail big corporations with the same zeal we assail big government.
But separately, what does "competent" mean? Is it a measure of waste, as in we could've done what the DoD does for less? Is it a measure of useless spending, as in we shouldn't have spent money on X because X doesn't work? I don't think the (narrowing to the federal government here) the US has a monopoly on wasteful or misguided spending. I think anyone here who's worked for a company can come up with plenty of examples of incompetent spending by their employer.
I think "the US is bad at spending money so it should spend as little money as possible" argument is really weird framing, because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money. But if anyone can find one at a large scale, or even define what "good" means, I'm interested.
Or, I'm sympathetic to a "large entities are necessarily bad at spending" argument, but then I think we need to assail big corporations with the same zeal we assail big government.
> because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money
No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it. The government is taking money from individuals for their supposed benefit.
No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it. The government is taking money from individuals for their supposed benefit.
Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument?
Society (that's us) want things for society and it turns out they cost money. We would love to pay for these things with razor-like efficiency but we live in an imperfect world. (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.)
The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society. (And here the increasing wealth disparity we have been seeing is almost certainly bad for societies health.)
Society (that's us) want things for society and it turns out they cost money. We would love to pay for these things with razor-like efficiency but we live in an imperfect world. (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.)
The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society. (And here the increasing wealth disparity we have been seeing is almost certainly bad for societies health.)
> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument?
I don't have property. The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires.
> The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society
Yeah this post is about some billionaire dodging taxes. Billionaires are the obvious scapegoat but the fact is tax increases on billionaires are not enough to fund the multi trillion dollar ambitions of the government. The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
I don't have property. The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires.
> The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society
Yeah this post is about some billionaire dodging taxes. Billionaires are the obvious scapegoat but the fact is tax increases on billionaires are not enough to fund the multi trillion dollar ambitions of the government. The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
>The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires.
No, it wasn't.
No, it wasn't.
Someone made that claim and the original poster seems to believe that "government waste" is a myth.
No, please don't generalize like that. It is not clear which "original poster" you mean, but all of the ones in this chain seem to be arguing that there is waste, but that there is no evidence that the government is not inherently more wasteful in its spending than other large organizations.
It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
Someone did make a claim approximately to that effect, but not a parent of this comment. It didn't start this discussion. And the you're mischaracterizing the comment about government waste as well.
Sure they are, we just need a wealth tax. Done and dusted.
I didn't understand the OP to have said that all people that say that are paid shills. To be sure though, people who do complain about wasteful government spending are in fact playing into the interests of the wealthy who want to keep more of their billions.
I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want.
> The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large.
It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.
I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want.
> The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large.
It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.
> (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.)
It could equally well be spent by me if left in my wallet rather than taxed away and wasted.
It could equally well be spent by me if left in my wallet rather than taxed away and wasted.
Sure, but what about the billionaires. When they get a huge tax break do they go down to the local diner and give the waitress a $1,000,000 tip? Probably not -- they invest it into making more money -- consolidating more wealth for themselves.
> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children?
Because you have to deal with and eventually depend upon other people's kids.
Because you have to deal with and eventually depend upon other people's kids.
>As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it
How much money have you ever earned all by yourself? If not for the government, me and a few buddies would come and take it.
Hell, I bet you even got all that stuff in the first place from a corporation that only exists due to governmental regulation, who has to follow a contract to pay you because if they don't, you'll sue them in government courts.
How much money have you ever earned all by yourself? If not for the government, me and a few buddies would come and take it.
Hell, I bet you even got all that stuff in the first place from a corporation that only exists due to governmental regulation, who has to follow a contract to pay you because if they don't, you'll sue them in government courts.
The government is the people. Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. For example, none of the infrastructure investments in the IRA, the Medicare block grants in the ACA, etc. Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I think it's pretty clear that most of those are predatory and enshittified. Are you arguing that corporations that are in no way beholden to us voters would be more responsive to our needs than a democratic government?
Maybe my tone is coming across as too incredulous, but most libertarians I get in front of tend to shut down when I challenge their ideology, so I'm earnestly curious here.
To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I think it's pretty clear that most of those are predatory and enshittified. Are you arguing that corporations that are in no way beholden to us voters would be more responsive to our needs than a democratic government?
Maybe my tone is coming across as too incredulous, but most libertarians I get in front of tend to shut down when I challenge their ideology, so I'm earnestly curious here.
[deleted]
> The government is the people
The government is the majority.
> Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals.
Uh, I have a simpler explanation. People vote for things that are good for themselves and come up with contrived arguments for why that's moral.
> To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes?
This is overly simplistic.
> Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
Have I advocated for this?
> Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services?
I have not made that argument once. I've made the argument that government spending is wasteful. Unsurprisingly the government choosing private corporations to execute government services is also wasteful.
It seems you think I'm a libertarian because I don't like giving my money away?
> complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
I'm glad you think society is complex, so do I. Can you give examples of large completely centralized successful societies?
The government is the majority.
> Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals.
Uh, I have a simpler explanation. People vote for things that are good for themselves and come up with contrived arguments for why that's moral.
> To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes?
This is overly simplistic.
> Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
Have I advocated for this?
> Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services?
I have not made that argument once. I've made the argument that government spending is wasteful. Unsurprisingly the government choosing private corporations to execute government services is also wasteful.
It seems you think I'm a libertarian because I don't like giving my money away?
> complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
I'm glad you think society is complex, so do I. Can you give examples of large completely centralized successful societies?
When you have to resort to refusing to engage in an actual debate and just throwing questions back to confuse the conversation you're no longer arguing in good faith - though it's not clear to me you ever were.
>> Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone?
>Have I advocated for this?
So, you are advocating for the collapse of society? You don't want a society that's functional without taxes but also don't want taxes?
>Have I advocated for this?
So, you are advocating for the collapse of society? You don't want a society that's functional without taxes but also don't want taxes?
Well, I'm a little disappointed but not surprised that your posts are more "taxes are immoral" arguments without any substance about how we're supposed to do things without them. Even this latest post is like small quibbles and straw men about completely centralized societies. Feel free to round out your position on how we're supposed to run a society without taxes or just how we can spend money more "competently", but I think this is just another paper libertarian argument here.
The Post Office and the DMV are always given as examples of how terrible the government is at providing services. Have these people not visited either one in the last 15 years? Maybe they used to be terrible, but I’m always in and out with whatever I needed done, and the people working there and friendly and competent.
Parks and libraries are pretty well managed, too.
Parks and libraries are pretty well managed, too.
The post office has never not been amazing, I don’t understand the people who rally against that. I hate FedEx and UPS far far more.
> The military is considered one of the competent parts of the US government and the amount of waste is staggering.
This is not universally agreed upon. Military spending has been a deeply controversial topic along political lines given its overall amount and lack of transparency.
As far as examples of competent spending goes, there are plenty but they tend not to get as much attention as the failures do. A big example that most aren’t aware of are the government backed small business loans granted by SBA. Clean energy subsidies are another (Tesla was originally capitalized by a government clean energy grant).
You might not have known that about Tesla, but you’re more likely to have heard about Solyndra, which was funded by the same initiative and tarred in the press as an example of wasteful spending. US gov stimulates a ton of business investment behind the scenes that often goes unnoticed.
This is not universally agreed upon. Military spending has been a deeply controversial topic along political lines given its overall amount and lack of transparency.
As far as examples of competent spending goes, there are plenty but they tend not to get as much attention as the failures do. A big example that most aren’t aware of are the government backed small business loans granted by SBA. Clean energy subsidies are another (Tesla was originally capitalized by a government clean energy grant).
You might not have known that about Tesla, but you’re more likely to have heard about Solyndra, which was funded by the same initiative and tarred in the press as an example of wasteful spending. US gov stimulates a ton of business investment behind the scenes that often goes unnoticed.
> tarred in the press as an example of wasteful spending
umm... they WERE wasteful spending, in that they went bankrupt. You can drive past that building on the 880 freeway.
umm... they WERE wasteful spending, in that they went bankrupt. You can drive past that building on the 880 freeway.
Right, but you only ever hear about the stories of waste, not the stories of success, because talking about the success of government business loans is one of the driest and most dull topics out there. Press doesn’t like to cover it because it’s so boring. I mean, a marginal percentage of people participate in local government meetings because of this reason. It’s so boring to listen to meetings about housing and infrastructure policy, even though they’re vital to the community.
If you want to read about government success stories, you have to seek them out.
If you want to read about government success stories, you have to seek them out.
So you've changed your topic now. First you said they were "tarred" as if that was false.
Soooo, yet more rich folks using government money to grow their own riches?
If you want to be overly reductionist about it, that’s up to you. The reality that there’s never been a time in human history where this hasn’t been true. Why make perfect the enemy of good?
Lots of rich people exploited PPP during the pandemic, does that mean the government shouldn’t ever hand out life-saving subsidies like that?
Lots of rich people exploited PPP during the pandemic, does that mean the government shouldn’t ever hand out life-saving subsidies like that?
[deleted]
NM state tax online services are outright phenomenal. Filing my state taxes (after the first year) takes me less than 8 minutes, and the refund shows up in my bank account about 3 days later. Everything about it is precisely as it should be.
Think about how important roads are to just about every facet of keeping the country running.
I also think the relevant question here is “compared to what?”. The built in assumption is that the public sector is extremely wasteful compared to private but large private companies are also extraordinarily wasteful. Think of the amount of money Meta pisses away every year on frivolous stuff that goes nowhere.
I also think the relevant question here is “compared to what?”. The built in assumption is that the public sector is extremely wasteful compared to private but large private companies are also extraordinarily wasteful. Think of the amount of money Meta pisses away every year on frivolous stuff that goes nowhere.
Our roads suck and they were created 100 years ago. Can we talk about effective use of government money from the past half century at least? And can we at least show a pattern of competency rather than a pattern of waste?
You’re obviously coming into this discussion with a pre-existing viewpoint and have no actual interest in hearing alternatives.
Why does it matter when roads were created? They require near constant maintenance, something public funds do. And “our roads suck” is just an absurd generalisation and is obviously not true. Of course parts of the road system suck but it’s an integral part of keeping the country running and by and large works fine.
Why does it matter when roads were created? They require near constant maintenance, something public funds do. And “our roads suck” is just an absurd generalisation and is obviously not true. Of course parts of the road system suck but it’s an integral part of keeping the country running and by and large works fine.
> Why does it matter when roads were created?
Because we are talking about how our money will be spent now.
> And “our roads suck” is just an absurd generalisation and is obviously not true.
I disagree and I believe that "terrible roads" is public sentiment. I've never heard anyone praise our roads.
> You’re obviously coming here with a perspective and you have no actual interest in hearing counterpoints
I have a very strong opinion obviously and am open to being proven wrong but I am not going to just accept terrible arguments. The political class of this country is just completely inept. Everyone thinks in terms of "taxing the rich" as if some billionaires are going to be fund all these public mega projects. The billionaires do not have enough cash, the people that will get hammered with taxes are the middle and upper middle class.
Because we are talking about how our money will be spent now.
> And “our roads suck” is just an absurd generalisation and is obviously not true.
I disagree and I believe that "terrible roads" is public sentiment. I've never heard anyone praise our roads.
> You’re obviously coming here with a perspective and you have no actual interest in hearing counterpoints
I have a very strong opinion obviously and am open to being proven wrong but I am not going to just accept terrible arguments. The political class of this country is just completely inept. Everyone thinks in terms of "taxing the rich" as if some billionaires are going to be fund all these public mega projects. The billionaires do not have enough cash, the people that will get hammered with taxes are the middle and upper middle class.
> Because we are talking about how our money will be spent now.
Again: how do you think maintenance happens?
> I’ve never heard anyone praise our roads
Which is a great example of why public sentiment isn’t really worth a whole lot of anything. People love to complain. If we stopped maintaining our highways people would very quickly learn to appreciate how it used to enable full grocery store shelves, receiving packages and so on.
Absurd generalisations are absurd. If I said “I worked at Google, they waste so much money, every private corporation is a total waste of money and should be gotten rid of” would you think my perspective was a sensible, measured one?
Again: how do you think maintenance happens?
> I’ve never heard anyone praise our roads
Which is a great example of why public sentiment isn’t really worth a whole lot of anything. People love to complain. If we stopped maintaining our highways people would very quickly learn to appreciate how it used to enable full grocery store shelves, receiving packages and so on.
Absurd generalisations are absurd. If I said “I worked at Google, they waste so much money, every private corporation is a total waste of money and should be gotten rid of” would you think my perspective was a sensible, measured one?
> Again: how do you think maintenance happens?
Good point, let's get rid of all public programs except social security and road maintenance and lower everyone's taxes 20%.
I'm not actually suggesting that but it's absurd to use road maintenance as the reason why the government needs more money.
Good point, let's get rid of all public programs except social security and road maintenance and lower everyone's taxes 20%.
I'm not actually suggesting that but it's absurd to use road maintenance as the reason why the government needs more money.
> it's absurd to use road maintenance as the reason why the government needs more money.
far from absurd, it's an extremely good example. The USA is filled with public infrastructure that we collectively decided to create but that we do not maintain adequately, because we choose not to spend money on it.
You say our roads suck, and to whatever extent that is true (not really interested in debating that specific point), it's because not enough is spent maintaining them.
Now of course, it's entirely possible that this situation does in fact represent the actual collective opinion of the population: yes we'll build stuff, no we will not pay (enough) to maintain it. But that has not been established.
far from absurd, it's an extremely good example. The USA is filled with public infrastructure that we collectively decided to create but that we do not maintain adequately, because we choose not to spend money on it.
You say our roads suck, and to whatever extent that is true (not really interested in debating that specific point), it's because not enough is spent maintaining them.
Now of course, it's entirely possible that this situation does in fact represent the actual collective opinion of the population: yes we'll build stuff, no we will not pay (enough) to maintain it. But that has not been established.
Was that your way of admitting that road maintenance is an example of competent public spending while avoiding actually saying those words?
I mean, your argument seems to be that since the government does some good we should give them complete access to our bank account
In what way is that my argument? You said:
> Can you actually give examples of competent public spending?
I gave you an example of competent public spending and you’ve somehow transformed that in your head into “we should give government unfettered access to our wallets”. Absurd generalisations are absurd.
You’re very obviously not coming to this discussion in good faith. Feel free to argue against straw men in your own time but I won’t be wasting my time joining you.
> Can you actually give examples of competent public spending?
I gave you an example of competent public spending and you’ve somehow transformed that in your head into “we should give government unfettered access to our wallets”. Absurd generalisations are absurd.
You’re very obviously not coming to this discussion in good faith. Feel free to argue against straw men in your own time but I won’t be wasting my time joining you.
Uhhhhh.... what? New roads are being constructed literally every single day. I think you'd have an impossibly difficult time finding a single road in NA that is actually 100 years old and hasn't received repeated expensive maintenance.
> Can you actually give examples of competent public spending?
You have to weigh that against the negative effects of profit maximisation of commercial entities for the consumer. To what extent is "Can I get away with making this product/service shittier and increase profit margins?" cause of a life getting more expensive and difficult for the average person? Take healthcare. It is getting more expensive with an aging population needing more care. But also large chunks of the healthcare supply chain become ever more commercial, with companies exploiting their cozy niche for every penny.
You have to weigh that against the negative effects of profit maximisation of commercial entities for the consumer. To what extent is "Can I get away with making this product/service shittier and increase profit margins?" cause of a life getting more expensive and difficult for the average person? Take healthcare. It is getting more expensive with an aging population needing more care. But also large chunks of the healthcare supply chain become ever more commercial, with companies exploiting their cozy niche for every penny.
> Can you actually give examples of competent public spending?
That question, without an agreed-upon definition of "competent," has built-in Schrödinger goalposts. Is it competent? Is it not? Is it the superposition of both?
That question, without an agreed-upon definition of "competent," has built-in Schrödinger goalposts. Is it competent? Is it not? Is it the superposition of both?
Libraries, roads, firefighters, police, utilities, national parks, local parks.
Taxes don't pay for utilities, I can't personally use libraries anymore because they've become defacto homeless shelters, the police suck.
So now we are left with firefighters, national parks and local parks which I guess are not good targets for power hungry and incompetent politicians.
So now we are left with firefighters, national parks and local parks which I guess are not good targets for power hungry and incompetent politicians.
> I can't personally use libraries anymore because they've become defacto homeless shelters
I’m sorry, I can’t take any of this seriously. I use my neighbourhood library regularly, take my kids there, it’s a wonderful place. I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences (have you? Or did you just read online that libraries are full of homeless people?) but don’t extrapolate your experience out to a universal one.
I’m sorry, I can’t take any of this seriously. I use my neighbourhood library regularly, take my kids there, it’s a wonderful place. I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences (have you? Or did you just read online that libraries are full of homeless people?) but don’t extrapolate your experience out to a universal one.
My library has fricken 3d printers. It's quite obvious that guys' politics. "All taxes are theft" isn't the mature political position he believes it is... He was never serious lol. "Get rid of all taxes except road maintence and reduce everyone's taxes by 20%"
For me libraries vary substantially. My local library in the burbs was nice, but they decided to close every Sunday and only open from 12-5 on Saturday. And oddly, 4 libraries about 10 miles apart from each other all closed after a storm due to rain damage. Even though they are different buildings build many years apart in different styles. It seems odd they wild all have water damage.
And while they are closed to the public, the employees are still working, they are just working from home. Every week. So their plan is to have remote workers doing library work on Sunday.
But when they are open, they are very nice places.
But drive 30 minutes into the major city and it’s not a nice place. There are many homeless inside so it is messy and not a very safe place, if you don’t want someone yelling at your kid.
I think it’s appropriate to use our own experiences with libraries to form judgements.
I’m glad you (and I) have good experiences, but should we extrapolate our experiences into universal ones? What makes you think all libraries are great like yours?
And while they are closed to the public, the employees are still working, they are just working from home. Every week. So their plan is to have remote workers doing library work on Sunday.
But when they are open, they are very nice places.
But drive 30 minutes into the major city and it’s not a nice place. There are many homeless inside so it is messy and not a very safe place, if you don’t want someone yelling at your kid.
I think it’s appropriate to use our own experiences with libraries to form judgements.
I’m glad you (and I) have good experiences, but should we extrapolate our experiences into universal ones? What makes you think all libraries are great like yours?
> should we extrapolate our experiences into universal ones? What makes you think all libraries are great like yours?
I’m specifically saying we should not do that!
The OP asked for examples of competent public spending. I consider my local library to be one such example. Someone else’s library being awful doesn’t make mine an invalid example of competent spending, they’re two separate things.
I’m specifically saying we should not do that!
The OP asked for examples of competent public spending. I consider my local library to be one such example. Someone else’s library being awful doesn’t make mine an invalid example of competent spending, they’re two separate things.
But then you shouldn’t extrapolate your local library spending well any more than you don’t want GP extrapolating that his local library spends poorly.
What makes you think all libraries are run as well as yours? It seems the question is “does government do well, in general, at managing money?” And having an example of your local library isn’t very helpful for predicting whether government is good or bad.
I don’t think the sentiment is “every single government in existence is horrible at managing money” and more so “in general, government is inefficient at management so is not a good investment for optimal social benefit.”
What makes you think all libraries are run as well as yours? It seems the question is “does government do well, in general, at managing money?” And having an example of your local library isn’t very helpful for predicting whether government is good or bad.
I don’t think the sentiment is “every single government in existence is horrible at managing money” and more so “in general, government is inefficient at management so is not a good investment for optimal social benefit.”
> What makes you think all libraries are run as well as yours?
I feel like I’m going crazy, I’ve said two times that I don’t think we should be talking in universalities.
Statement #1: my local library is great and is an effective use of public funds
Statement #2: my local library is awful and a waste of public money
Both of these statements can be true and neither contradicts the other. There is no need to come to some universal conclusion here.
The broader point is that you often see this approach taken when talking about public spending: one example of waste somehow invalidates the whole concept. Yet you never see someone say “invest in a private company? Did you not see what happened with Enron?!”
I feel like I’m going crazy, I’ve said two times that I don’t think we should be talking in universalities.
Statement #1: my local library is great and is an effective use of public funds
Statement #2: my local library is awful and a waste of public money
Both of these statements can be true and neither contradicts the other. There is no need to come to some universal conclusion here.
The broader point is that you often see this approach taken when talking about public spending: one example of waste somehow invalidates the whole concept. Yet you never see someone say “invest in a private company? Did you not see what happened with Enron?!”
Can you elaborate on what is competent spending?
The theory of privatization solving problems is predicated on the assumption that competition will exist. Competition in the private sector cannot be assumed to always exist.
The theory of privatization solving problems is predicated on the assumption that competition will exist. Competition in the private sector cannot be assumed to always exist.
I'm not advocating for privatization. I'm advocating for decreased government spending and lower taxes. Privatization means the government gives money to private entities to do supposedly necessary functions of the government.
> except for a lack of oversight on the latter.
It’s much easier for regulators to penalise a private sector actor than a public sector actor. Anything which makes the public sector actor look bad can be perceived as an attack on the incumbent politicians, who’re usually the people who hired the regulators.
It’s much easier for regulators to penalise a private sector actor than a public sector actor. Anything which makes the public sector actor look bad can be perceived as an attack on the incumbent politicians, who’re usually the people who hired the regulators.
This stigma, not by coincidence, is reinforced by economic elites. It’s part of their playbook, and they are pretty convincing for a lot of people.
I don't think it's a stigma. It's observable. Government agencies are created to fix problems. If they fix the problem they are downsized. As an extreme example, the Department of War got very big in WW2, fixed the problem of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and then shrunk. From 40% of GDP, to about 5%, and today a little over 2 or 3%
For most government agencies, it doesn't work this way. They get lots of funding, aren't able to fix the problem, and so the solution is to give them more and more funding. The result is that non or barely functional agencies are getting bigger and bigger, spawn out countless sub agencies and special task forces, and the problems they exist to solve remain. HUD funding for instance has grown multiples, inflation adjusted, since the 1980s, but no American will tell you the housing market or affordability is great right now. And HUD will get another huge increase for the next fiscal year, then again the next, ad infinitum.
This is fundamental problem. Until it's fixed, this fact, or what you term 'stigma' will continue to exist.
For most government agencies, it doesn't work this way. They get lots of funding, aren't able to fix the problem, and so the solution is to give them more and more funding. The result is that non or barely functional agencies are getting bigger and bigger, spawn out countless sub agencies and special task forces, and the problems they exist to solve remain. HUD funding for instance has grown multiples, inflation adjusted, since the 1980s, but no American will tell you the housing market or affordability is great right now. And HUD will get another huge increase for the next fiscal year, then again the next, ad infinitum.
This is fundamental problem. Until it's fixed, this fact, or what you term 'stigma' will continue to exist.
> Government agencies are created to fix problems. If they fix the problem they are downsized.
Typically, sizable problems that need solving do not stay fixed. Issues that have broad impact are likely either chronic or will morph into new problems.
Downsizing in the face of a chronic problem seems unwise. So does downsizing to ignore the the offshoot (or new variant) of the problem.
Typically, sizable problems that need solving do not stay fixed. Issues that have broad impact are likely either chronic or will morph into new problems.
Downsizing in the face of a chronic problem seems unwise. So does downsizing to ignore the the offshoot (or new variant) of the problem.
The “perceived incompetence” is propaganda-induced perception causes by the private sector and pro-business ideologists… (And when you defund public services it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy)
Well, fix government oversight of public bureaucracies and then we can have a discussion. As it is now, it's pretty clear that elected officials have little control and oversight into the bureaucracies that they nominally control and direct. Make bureaucrats firable. End Chevron deference. Bring back political appointments from the top to the bottom of the bureaucracy.
> Bring back political appointments from the top to the bottom of the bureaucracy.
Good heavens no.
Turn over the bureaucracy every few years, bringing in political sycophants to replace people who actually understand the system (and, by and large, follow the law instead of kowtowing to the current demagogue-in-charge)?
Good heavens no.
Turn over the bureaucracy every few years, bringing in political sycophants to replace people who actually understand the system (and, by and large, follow the law instead of kowtowing to the current demagogue-in-charge)?
this is exactly true in nearby large counties, US West
It should be noted we still “tax” them, as in the laws in place put income tax down, but they grow wealth by paying people full time to legally skirt taxation via schemes like this. However considering the current state of bloat governments are in, I’m not sure that extra money would actually mean anything. Except more to funnel into the military industrial complex and other black book projects.
> I’m not sure that extra money would actually mean anything
In an ideal democracy it would.
Its yet again misrepresented interests. And as an extend to my side note: The decades long shift of interest representation went from the public to the private sphere. The distrust in goverment may be justified, but its no counter argument, because the means of democratic participation is the only viable tool we have left.
FUD helps the parasites. Democracies cannot fail, only the people in it do.
In an ideal democracy it would.
Its yet again misrepresented interests. And as an extend to my side note: The decades long shift of interest representation went from the public to the private sphere. The distrust in goverment may be justified, but its no counter argument, because the means of democratic participation is the only viable tool we have left.
FUD helps the parasites. Democracies cannot fail, only the people in it do.
> Democracies cannot fail, only the people in it do.
I think this is false if only because the premise of Democracy is so poorly defined. What are we voting on? Why? Who is "we"?
Am I allowed to call a vote to strip you of your property? Am I allowed to call a vote to tell you what to eat? Am I allowed to call a vote to tell what to do or where to go?
Why or why not? We have laws today that do all of these things. What does "failure" mean?
I think this is false if only because the premise of Democracy is so poorly defined. What are we voting on? Why? Who is "we"?
Am I allowed to call a vote to strip you of your property? Am I allowed to call a vote to tell you what to eat? Am I allowed to call a vote to tell what to do or where to go?
Why or why not? We have laws today that do all of these things. What does "failure" mean?
I believe I read some article how in Switzerland, a particularly insufferable woman applied for citizenship and the people voted no.
I have no ax to grind in this story, I just thought it was pertinent given your questions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/sw...
I have no ax to grind in this story, I just thought it was pertinent given your questions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/sw...
Is it not bizarre how the word "Democracy" throws the mind into chaos?
I wonder if this is purely organic, because you see clearly delusional claims about it everywhere online nowadays.
I wonder if this is purely organic, because you see clearly delusional claims about it everywhere online nowadays.
willcipriano(1)
I'd be happy if we kept the amount of tax raised to the same £ (here in the UK) - but by actually properly taxing the rich, that could then move more people out of income taxation (they would still pay all the other taxes that we pay in here in the UK).
This would mean the poorest get to increase their take home pay, without increasing wages.
This would mean the poorest get to increase their take home pay, without increasing wages.
I was reminded recently of a funny segment by a comedian about how everyone on Hollywood virtue signals about socialism and taxes, yet all of them use LLCs to avoid taxes.
The recent strike showed this off with the trend of publishing residual checks, all of them are made out to shell LLCs.
The recent strike showed this off with the trend of publishing residual checks, all of them are made out to shell LLCs.
One of the primary reasons of how the rich get richer and how public services (our society) degrade is, that we stopped taxing them.
Taxes as a percentage of GDP are pretty steady over time. We aren't really taxing less.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Taxes as a percentage of GDP are pretty steady over time. We aren't really taxing less.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
I think tieing tax income to gdp is as deceptive as hiding your income to dodge taxes.
The ultra wealthy can shift their assets as they please, the poor cannot. Maybe thats the reason why the graph is steady.
The ultra wealthy can shift their assets as they please, the poor cannot. Maybe thats the reason why the graph is steady.
I mean most of the really rich are rich from investments.
Unless you're arguing that the banks and large companies are breaking the law by avoiding their reporting requirements to the IRS (to what benefit?) that makes no sense.
Unless you're arguing that the banks and large companies are breaking the law by avoiding their reporting requirements to the IRS (to what benefit?) that makes no sense.
The games played by the wealthy and well-advised are largely within the gray areas of tax code buried between legal avoidance and illegal evasion[1]...in other words, certain sophisticated behavior remains "legal" if the IRS never gets an opportunity to audit and pursue litigation against. Herein lies the moral hazard bullshit.
To tilt these game-theoretic bets overwhelmingly in favor of the wealthy, assert continuous political pressure to defund IRS activity tasked with holding these actors legally accountable while shilling it to the ignorant public with a bullshit title like "Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection" to bait popular support[2; § 251].
The CBO too is well-advised[3], but the wealthy very much dislike projected outcomes summarized[4] as:
> The proposal, by contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In addition, the Administration’s policies would focus additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w28542
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746
[3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56467
[4] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444
To tilt these game-theoretic bets overwhelmingly in favor of the wealthy, assert continuous political pressure to defund IRS activity tasked with holding these actors legally accountable while shilling it to the ignorant public with a bullshit title like "Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection" to bait popular support[2; § 251].
The CBO too is well-advised[3], but the wealthy very much dislike projected outcomes summarized[4] as:
> The proposal, by contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In addition, the Administration’s policies would focus additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w28542
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746
[3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56467
[4] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444
Right, but again, tax revenue hasn't change over time as a percentage of GDP. The government is taking in the same percentage as it was during WW2.
And if you look at the percentage of all taxes paid by the wealthy, it's actually grown over time (become more progressive).
Of course that doesn't mean that some rich end up paying less than expected, but overall, the data doesn't support the idea that the rich overall aren't paying a substantial amount of taxes.
And if you look at the percentage of all taxes paid by the wealthy, it's actually grown over time (become more progressive).
Of course that doesn't mean that some rich end up paying less than expected, but overall, the data doesn't support the idea that the rich overall aren't paying a substantial amount of taxes.
All this talk of "data" is quickly feeling unmotivated without an ounce of cite.
To be sure, use of the terms "progressive" and "substantial" in context here is quite misleading at face value, and every time you handwave this federal receipts as a percentage of GDP metric as if it somehow magically supports an argument that the wealthy are paying their equitable and sustainable share, it comes off even more as disingenuous.
We need only disaggregate this total metric and recognize a long declining trend in tax receipts on corporate income as a percentage of GDP[1] to see how such an argument falls flat on its face.
Furthermore, we can see from the CBO report previously cited[2] that at the individual income level, the largest gap in tax liabilities by a massive margin is from underreporting of business income, i.e. flow-through from partnerships, S corps, estates and trusts, rent and royalty, farm, and nonfarm proprietor income...and that doesn't even account for the sophisticated evasion that's happening right under our noses as previously mentioned.
So if total receipts remain flat (as you point out) while receipts attributable to corporate income are clearly on a declining trend, it begs the question: who/what has been shouldering the implied delta?
It should come as no surprise that corporate profits after tax is strongly correlated to public debt as a percentage of GDP[3], of course, with a grift catalyst that comes along every few decades that allows the cart to lead the horse for truly outsized profits before the inevitable reversion to the mean expensed by even more public debt.
It should also be unsurprising that when public debt to receipts ratio[4] is levered over 6x with interest rates as high as they are (never mind the $82+ billion and snowballing negative carry by the Fed[5]), negative sentiment brews as private wealth locks in exit liquidity while the rest of the public braces to "socialize losses" in the long run.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17rUd
[2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56467#_idTextAnchor018
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17s68
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17saE
[5] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RESPPLLOPNWW
To be sure, use of the terms "progressive" and "substantial" in context here is quite misleading at face value, and every time you handwave this federal receipts as a percentage of GDP metric as if it somehow magically supports an argument that the wealthy are paying their equitable and sustainable share, it comes off even more as disingenuous.
We need only disaggregate this total metric and recognize a long declining trend in tax receipts on corporate income as a percentage of GDP[1] to see how such an argument falls flat on its face.
Furthermore, we can see from the CBO report previously cited[2] that at the individual income level, the largest gap in tax liabilities by a massive margin is from underreporting of business income, i.e. flow-through from partnerships, S corps, estates and trusts, rent and royalty, farm, and nonfarm proprietor income...and that doesn't even account for the sophisticated evasion that's happening right under our noses as previously mentioned.
So if total receipts remain flat (as you point out) while receipts attributable to corporate income are clearly on a declining trend, it begs the question: who/what has been shouldering the implied delta?
It should come as no surprise that corporate profits after tax is strongly correlated to public debt as a percentage of GDP[3], of course, with a grift catalyst that comes along every few decades that allows the cart to lead the horse for truly outsized profits before the inevitable reversion to the mean expensed by even more public debt.
It should also be unsurprising that when public debt to receipts ratio[4] is levered over 6x with interest rates as high as they are (never mind the $82+ billion and snowballing negative carry by the Fed[5]), negative sentiment brews as private wealth locks in exit liquidity while the rest of the public braces to "socialize losses" in the long run.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17rUd
[2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56467#_idTextAnchor018
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17s68
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=17saE
[5] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RESPPLLOPNWW
We need only disaggregate this total metric and recognize a long declining trend in tax receipts on corporate income as a percentage of GDP[1] to see how such an argument falls flat on its face.
Speaking of handwaving, showing that corporate receipt are down a percentage doesn't negate the argument whatsoever because: 1) corporations aren't people, 2) corporate taxes make up a small part (6%) of total tax burden.
Take a look at personal income taxes which are 42% of government revenues.
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...
The percentage of all income taxes paid by the top 1% has increase from ~20% in 1990 to 35% in 2011.
The tax burden has gotten more progressive over time, not less.
Speaking of handwaving, showing that corporate receipt are down a percentage doesn't negate the argument whatsoever because: 1) corporations aren't people, 2) corporate taxes make up a small part (6%) of total tax burden.
Take a look at personal income taxes which are 42% of government revenues.
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...
The percentage of all income taxes paid by the top 1% has increase from ~20% in 1990 to 35% in 2011.
The tax burden has gotten more progressive over time, not less.
The story is pretty different if you include state and local taxes.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Fe...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Fe...
As in we’re taxing way more!
Especially if you consider GDP (adjusted for inflation) has grown over time as we..
If you compare to a benchmark like the 1940s, tax% of GDP has more than doubled, and GDP has increased ~4x. This means someone today is paying about 10X the taxes (controlling for for inflation!)
If you compare to a benchmark like the 1940s, tax% of GDP has more than doubled, and GDP has increased ~4x. This means someone today is paying about 10X the taxes (controlling for for inflation!)
You can both be right if you assume a shift away from taxing wealth to taxing income (or unearned to earned income).
Most of us here know, but note that the slights of hand are just too good.
They can also hire people to shill in every major forum, so there’s a huge uphill battle just to avoid getting drowned out.
They can also hire people to shill in every major forum, so there’s a huge uphill battle just to avoid getting drowned out.
I mean... People say this, as if no one knows where the money is, and we've tried everything. When in fact, everyone knows where the money is, and we've tried very little in the ways of actually taxing rich people.
I have no doubt that if we actually raised taxation rates (Corporate Stock Grants is an easy one that everyone on here will pretend is impossible), corporations, and rich folks would start paying more in taxes. Maybe they would still dodge, but until we actually start doing something saying "nothing will work" is like saying "there's no way to hammer a nail all the way into a board" when you haven't actually hit the nail with the hammer.
Edit: Of course it's un uphill battle if you've done nothing. Everything is an uphill battle when you're not doing anything about it.
I have no doubt that if we actually raised taxation rates (Corporate Stock Grants is an easy one that everyone on here will pretend is impossible), corporations, and rich folks would start paying more in taxes. Maybe they would still dodge, but until we actually start doing something saying "nothing will work" is like saying "there's no way to hammer a nail all the way into a board" when you haven't actually hit the nail with the hammer.
Edit: Of course it's un uphill battle if you've done nothing. Everything is an uphill battle when you're not doing anything about it.
There’s power in organization, yet the middle class is disorganized.
This outcome isn’t by accident and it’s a huge undertaking to just get past the tribal bullshit just to have a sane conversation.
This outcome isn’t by accident and it’s a huge undertaking to just get past the tribal bullshit just to have a sane conversation.
Yeah, but that's no excuse to give up without trying...
I get it's hard, but it's not impossible. And it's probably just necessary if we want to survive as a species...
I get it's hard, but it's not impossible. And it's probably just necessary if we want to survive as a species...
False, we never stopped taxing the rich.
We reduced top marginal income tax rates though, so they moved more money into income and stopped hiding as much in shell companies and inventory.
The top 1% earn 20% of national income, but their taxes comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue.
US Gini coefficient (inequality measure) decreases by a third after accounting for taxes and transfers.
We reduced top marginal income tax rates though, so they moved more money into income and stopped hiding as much in shell companies and inventory.
The top 1% earn 20% of national income, but their taxes comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue.
US Gini coefficient (inequality measure) decreases by a third after accounting for taxes and transfers.
You start by saying that wealthy people can pretty freely manipulate the amount of income they show for tax purposes.
The follow-up is that based on the manipulated income data, wealthy people pay disproportionately more taxes?
The follow-up is that based on the manipulated income data, wealthy people pay disproportionately more taxes?
Right. The current low rates provide much stronger incentives to accurately report income vs. less efficient tax shelters and in-lieu-of-cash benefits. So we expect taxable income statistics to more accurately capture real earnings than under earlier tax regimes (particularly pre-1986).
Assets should be taxed progressively.
Capitalism results in the power coming from capital. Therefore capital taxes should be the primary taxation mechanism.
There are issues with it such as cashflow problems and more, but all systems have issues and they can be overcome.
Capitalism results in the power coming from capital. Therefore capital taxes should be the primary taxation mechanism.
There are issues with it such as cashflow problems and more, but all systems have issues and they can be overcome.
Exactly, taxing assets instead of income is a no-brainer. All income that is not used for consumption becomes an asset itself and if people cant consume all their income then that should be taxed. The reason it isnt done is that any country that introduces wealth / assets taxes experiences immediate wealth flight (see Norway for a recent example). A wealth tax can only be done at a global level for example through the OECD.
Yes - the root problem is lack of international tax treaties. There’s no simple solution, but acknowledging that this is the root cause is a vital step 0 in making any progress.
We’re fortunately at an inflection point where there are some (though not many) governments large enough to challenge mega international companies. Sadly they are somewhat captured by the largest international companies — so it’s hard to see any solution.
Simple example — Australia was trying to participate in the construction of international tax laws. The only companies capable of understanding the existing Byzantine laws were hired as consultants and immediately turned around and marketed their insider knowledge on the topic to their rich clients.
There was nothing remarkable about the story - ie its occurrence was not remarkable. The fact that the media ignored it as a story for 18 months was not remarkable. The slightly remarkable thing is that for a few weeks a small slice of the media reported on it at all.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/pwc-scandal...
We’re fortunately at an inflection point where there are some (though not many) governments large enough to challenge mega international companies. Sadly they are somewhat captured by the largest international companies — so it’s hard to see any solution.
Simple example — Australia was trying to participate in the construction of international tax laws. The only companies capable of understanding the existing Byzantine laws were hired as consultants and immediately turned around and marketed their insider knowledge on the topic to their rich clients.
There was nothing remarkable about the story - ie its occurrence was not remarkable. The fact that the media ignored it as a story for 18 months was not remarkable. The slightly remarkable thing is that for a few weeks a small slice of the media reported on it at all.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/pwc-scandal...
We stopped taxing them and started to borrow from them instead.
In the US people have been brainwashed to think reasonable taxation is 'socialism' - something they need to have a religious objection to even if they don't know what it is.
There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept. It’s no better than saying “the rich are not paying their fair share”.
Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough to be his fair share?
Is it reasonable for society, through taxes, to take more than half of what you earn? (e.g., in CA the top brackets out you at 37% federal + 12.3% State = 49.3% tax rate. And that’s before sales tax!)
Say you’re settling the tab for big dinner at a restaurant, if your rich friend pays for the steak he ordered, is that his fair share? If there’s 100 of you and he pays for 1/100 of the check, is that his fair share? What if he pays for half the tab, is that enough to be his fair share?
Is it reasonable for society, through taxes, to take more than half of what you earn? (e.g., in CA the top brackets out you at 37% federal + 12.3% State = 49.3% tax rate. And that’s before sales tax!)
(I wrote this comment as a _reaction_ to yours -- it turned out not to be a _response_ to it, so I apologise if I seem to put words in your mouth.)
I have this idea rummaging about that I have never quite seen articulated in these discussions.
The earnings of "rich friends" are often seen as a singular, isolated achievement, and fairness is then discussed as relative to that: "they earned it, so is it fair to take X%?"
It seems to me that society at large facilitates those earnings. The roads that their workers drive on, the water facility that supplies the school that their employees send their children to. The unemployment safety net that lets employees take risks and take the job of the industrialist... The list is endless.
All this is the net sum of what was _also_ given to (taken by?) the person that makes a billion dollars. In this context I think the "fairness" argument against taxation becomes weaker.
I have this idea rummaging about that I have never quite seen articulated in these discussions.
The earnings of "rich friends" are often seen as a singular, isolated achievement, and fairness is then discussed as relative to that: "they earned it, so is it fair to take X%?"
It seems to me that society at large facilitates those earnings. The roads that their workers drive on, the water facility that supplies the school that their employees send their children to. The unemployment safety net that lets employees take risks and take the job of the industrialist... The list is endless.
All this is the net sum of what was _also_ given to (taken by?) the person that makes a billion dollars. In this context I think the "fairness" argument against taxation becomes weaker.
It doesn’t become weaker unless you can cogently express a limiting principle to your argument:
- Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income?
- Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.
- Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income?
- Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.
Another good one: Why is it fair to take X% of earnings made over 2 years, but Y>X % if earned over 1 year, for the same total earnings?
Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.
Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.
Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.
Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.
> Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.
Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants.
The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.
Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants.
The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.
It didn’t go well for Obama when he made that argument publicly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
Thanks for the link, the core idea of Warren presented there is exactly my sentiment. I am not at all surprised by the timeline of events on that page, though!
I liked this one:
> ... a humor website later commented on the fact that the stadium where the GOP hosted the "We Built It" theme at the convention was constructed using 62% taxpayer financing.
I liked this one:
> ... a humor website later commented on the fact that the stadium where the GOP hosted the "We Built It" theme at the convention was constructed using 62% taxpayer financing.
[deleted]
For a single person, you'll hit that tax bracket after more than $500,000 in income. This is an absolutely enormous amount of money - roughly 10x the median income. I have absolutely zero problem with income beyond this amount being taxed at 50%.
I make around $600,000. My effective federal tax rate is in the low-mid 20s. I'd have to make way way way more money for my effective federal + state rates to approach 50%.
I make around $600,000. My effective federal tax rate is in the low-mid 20s. I'd have to make way way way more money for my effective federal + state rates to approach 50%.
What about sales tax, VAT, fuel levies, consumption taxes, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Your state or country may not have all of the above. But they are all there to tax you to ridiculous amounts but not at the "start". Same goes for withholding or "Pay as you earn" taxes which serve to not let you see how much taxes you are paying.
No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then. We can talk feel good and helping the community and needy all you want, but once you cross that threshold it will be very obvious to a lot of people that they have no choice in the matter and that it's a few steps away from slavery.
No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then. We can talk feel good and helping the community and needy all you want, but once you cross that threshold it will be very obvious to a lot of people that they have no choice in the matter and that it's a few steps away from slavery.
> What about sales tax, VAT, fuel levies, consumption taxes, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Your state or country may not have all of the above.
Sales tax adds less than 1% to my overall effective tax rate. Sales taxes are disproportionately low for high earners because high earners save larger portions of their income rather than spending it.
Gift and inheritance taxes don't start until eight figures. Not exactly something I'm especially worried about.
> Same goes for withholding or "Pay as you earn" taxes which serve to not let you see how much taxes you are paying.
???
You can adjust your W4. The very wealthy also have considerably more flexibility with withholding since less of their income is W2 income from an employer.
> No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then.
If I made the 7+ figures annually or whatever I needed to approach 50% effective taxation I'd be pretty damn happy. If my taxes were raised considerably without a change in my income it wouldn't really change my life either. I'd just retire early a little bit later.
> it's a few steps away from slavery
Extremely high earners who have very high effective tax rates have some options available to them. They can change careers or work less to reduce their income. They'd just earn an income that was more comparable to the typical worker. Or they could stop working entirely - extremely high earners have plenty of opportunity to save enough money that they could live off a typical budget indefinitely using their savings. Or they can advocate politically for policies they prefer - even by spending their money to influence elections via nearly unlimited and unbounded political contributions.
Slaves can be arrested, tortured, and murdered for fleeing their captors. Heck, they can be tortured and murdered pretty much for no reason whatsoever. They can be raped and forced to bear their children of their captors. Their children (whether conceived through consent or through rape) can be permanently taken from them and also forced into slavery. They can have literacy denied to them. They can be worked to the bone in extreme conditions. And all this for a fat zero dollars in income over their entire lives.
So I'd say that there are more than "a few steps" between these things.
Sales tax adds less than 1% to my overall effective tax rate. Sales taxes are disproportionately low for high earners because high earners save larger portions of their income rather than spending it.
Gift and inheritance taxes don't start until eight figures. Not exactly something I'm especially worried about.
> Same goes for withholding or "Pay as you earn" taxes which serve to not let you see how much taxes you are paying.
???
You can adjust your W4. The very wealthy also have considerably more flexibility with withholding since less of their income is W2 income from an employer.
> No one will be happy if more than half their labour is taken from then.
If I made the 7+ figures annually or whatever I needed to approach 50% effective taxation I'd be pretty damn happy. If my taxes were raised considerably without a change in my income it wouldn't really change my life either. I'd just retire early a little bit later.
> it's a few steps away from slavery
Extremely high earners who have very high effective tax rates have some options available to them. They can change careers or work less to reduce their income. They'd just earn an income that was more comparable to the typical worker. Or they could stop working entirely - extremely high earners have plenty of opportunity to save enough money that they could live off a typical budget indefinitely using their savings. Or they can advocate politically for policies they prefer - even by spending their money to influence elections via nearly unlimited and unbounded political contributions.
Slaves can be arrested, tortured, and murdered for fleeing their captors. Heck, they can be tortured and murdered pretty much for no reason whatsoever. They can be raped and forced to bear their children of their captors. Their children (whether conceived through consent or through rape) can be permanently taken from them and also forced into slavery. They can have literacy denied to them. They can be worked to the bone in extreme conditions. And all this for a fat zero dollars in income over their entire lives.
So I'd say that there are more than "a few steps" between these things.
Good one. People making half a million dollars every year are just a few steps away from slavery because they're paying 50% in taxes.
In my context, I live in a different country. Here the real middle-class is taxed way more strictly than in America, due to the high level of inequality skewing the stats.
I'm no where near "well off" or "wealthy", but comfortable middle-class here, and I'm already at the 41% bracket on income only. Effective tax-rate I'm sitting somewhere around 35%, probably higher. And that extra 15% to get us to 50% is easy to arrive to if I take in to account all the various VAT, import taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, etc that are extracted from me by government. E.g. 2% of all my income goes to tax on my modest home, poof.
And that's not even taking in to account all the "public" services I should be getting according to that "social contract" but instead paying the private sector for because they don't exist. Lovely things like fire, health, road maintenance, security, schooling, ambulance services, unemployment, social security for retirement, and who knows what else at this point.
But sure, discard my overall point by making it seem like I said rich people are slaves.
I'm no where near "well off" or "wealthy", but comfortable middle-class here, and I'm already at the 41% bracket on income only. Effective tax-rate I'm sitting somewhere around 35%, probably higher. And that extra 15% to get us to 50% is easy to arrive to if I take in to account all the various VAT, import taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, etc that are extracted from me by government. E.g. 2% of all my income goes to tax on my modest home, poof.
And that's not even taking in to account all the "public" services I should be getting according to that "social contract" but instead paying the private sector for because they don't exist. Lovely things like fire, health, road maintenance, security, schooling, ambulance services, unemployment, social security for retirement, and who knows what else at this point.
But sure, discard my overall point by making it seem like I said rich people are slaves.
Your analogy is too simplistic, so it misrepesents today’s situation
A better analogy of today’s would be so: - Your rich friend and his 19 employees order 20 steaks
- Somehow and out of sight the rich friend takes 19 of the steaks, takes 9/10th of each steak for himself, and then replaces them with 19 derived kiddie meals containing 1/10th the steak.
- Your rich friend then points out that he and his employees only should pay for 2.9 steaks.
- The bill and cost remains the same (100 steaks), so the remaining 80 people foot the bill for 97.1 steaks.
A better analogy of today’s would be so: - Your rich friend and his 19 employees order 20 steaks
- Somehow and out of sight the rich friend takes 19 of the steaks, takes 9/10th of each steak for himself, and then replaces them with 19 derived kiddie meals containing 1/10th the steak.
- Your rich friend then points out that he and his employees only should pay for 2.9 steaks.
- The bill and cost remains the same (100 steaks), so the remaining 80 people foot the bill for 97.1 steaks.
After I had my morning beverage, I realized “steak appetizer” would’ve been better than “kiddie meal”.
> Is it reasonable for society, through taxes, to take more than half of what you earn?
So long as you have more than enough to live on, absolutely. If you make a billion dollars, then the govt taking 501 million is the absolute minimum that should be expected. Better they take 999 million and leave you the million dollars, as you don't need more than that to survive.
Further, the only reason you made a billion was from not paying the workers a living wage. The government's job is to redistribute the money so that everyone gets a fair share.
So long as you have more than enough to live on, absolutely. If you make a billion dollars, then the govt taking 501 million is the absolute minimum that should be expected. Better they take 999 million and leave you the million dollars, as you don't need more than that to survive.
Further, the only reason you made a billion was from not paying the workers a living wage. The government's job is to redistribute the money so that everyone gets a fair share.
The point of people being wealthy is that they get to take risks based on their judgement and we hope that benefits everyone. Without a reward nobody will take risks. Governments don't take political risks so you cannot expect them to be the sole chance takers in the economy.
What we obviously don't want is people who find a way to dump risk on everyone else so that they cannot fail. Not paying a living wage is a way to do that for example.
What we obviously don't want is people who find a way to dump risk on everyone else so that they cannot fail. Not paying a living wage is a way to do that for example.
Yup. $1M/yr (the example I provided above) is a massive reward, so taxation in this way (leaving the risk taker huge rewards) is a great way to encourage entrepreneurship while ensuring a better society by using the extra money (taxed) to give him better streets, lower crime, and a better educated workforce/neighbours.
That prevents a person from taking their next bigger risk e.g. building a factory and hoping that the products it makes will sell. If we only had better streets we'd be a bit like the Romans - bogged down trying to satisfy everyone with centuries old technology.
[deleted]
Sure as long as the society spends it on things that it deems important. Why is money made from money not taxed the same money made from labor? On the other hand, if money is considered free speech in the US, how can we even allow taxation at all? Isn’t taxation a form of censorship?
> There’s no such thing as “reasonable taxation” because it’s a subjective concept.
I disagree. There are models of economics that can project taxation rates that will have better outcomes for society. It's far from being primarily subjective.
I disagree. There are models of economics that can project taxation rates that will have better outcomes for society. It's far from being primarily subjective.
That’s just you defining reasonable though. Others (few) would say any taxation at all is unreasonable. Still others (plenty more) would say taxes should apply at the same rate to all people to be reasonable. You’re saying “taxes should have a good societal outcome to be reasonable”.
Yours is the best in my opinion but it’s still subjective.
Yours is the best in my opinion but it’s still subjective.
> That’s just you defining reasonable though.
I would say it is reasonable, period, per the dictionary definition. People can redefine words as they like, it doesn't mean anything.
It's not subjective when we are using objective standards and theory to produce a result with the goal of objectively leading to better quality of life for everyone.
If the only subjectivity that comes in is because people can define reasonable I don't think that makes it subjective at all.
I would say it is reasonable, period, per the dictionary definition. People can redefine words as they like, it doesn't mean anything.
It's not subjective when we are using objective standards and theory to produce a result with the goal of objectively leading to better quality of life for everyone.
If the only subjectivity that comes in is because people can define reasonable I don't think that makes it subjective at all.
> Others (few) would say any taxation at all is unreasonable.
Some people in society (possibly because of unfortunate mental health issues) like to stand in the streets and fling shit at others. We do not argue over the subjective reasonableness of shit-flinging, because as a civil society we are far past that point.
Some people in society (possibly because of unfortunate mental health issues) like to stand in the streets and fling shit at others. We do not argue over the subjective reasonableness of shit-flinging, because as a civil society we are far past that point.
Rich friends used to settle the whole tab, no questions asked. Generosity was a value.
A rich friend arguing over the details of a tab is just an asshole.
A rich friend arguing over the details of a tab is just an asshole.
There are many assholes.
Also, many are generous to their peers and social circles but malicious anyone they consider beneath them and on the “outside”.
I saw this firsthand in my workplace (after hours)—a company that heavily promotes diversity, etc.—and it left me distraught for a few weeks.
These assholes are the hardest to spot.
Also, many are generous to their peers and social circles but malicious anyone they consider beneath them and on the “outside”.
I saw this firsthand in my workplace (after hours)—a company that heavily promotes diversity, etc.—and it left me distraught for a few weeks.
These assholes are the hardest to spot.
Not just rich friends, some cultures have a big thing for paying for your friends as a celebratory act. You take turns though after many years which averages out anyways though. It helps those in temporary bad times, too.
Further, my rich friend just made enough on his/her investments to cover the entire meal before we were even seated at the table, ha ha.
I get that 50% is a nice round number, but what's the moral or reasonable significance of that?
Meanwhile, you're looking at top marginal rates. That's not the total rate. A single person making $500k a year has a total tax rate (federal plus state) of 41%. It gots up to 46% at $1,000,000/yr.
And the rate goes down if they marry, have kids, etc.
Meanwhile, you're looking at top marginal rates. That's not the total rate. A single person making $500k a year has a total tax rate (federal plus state) of 41%. It gots up to 46% at $1,000,000/yr.
And the rate goes down if they marry, have kids, etc.
> It’s no better than saying “the rich are not paying their fair share”.
We (the people) want certain services of the government we elect — services that cost money.
If you tax the rich less, the poor and working class will therefore have to carry a larger burden. That seems pretty straightforward.
We (the people) want certain services of the government we elect — services that cost money.
If you tax the rich less, the poor and working class will therefore have to carry a larger burden. That seems pretty straightforward.
I think the people making the most money have benefited enormously from government largesse. Tax me more, please!
In the US, taxes are more that 40% of the entire country's GDP.
What do you think a reasonable level would be?
What do you think a reasonable level would be?
I don't know. Any answer I give would be worthless and based on feeling. It's a question for economists to answer. And there are good answers and things worth following, or at least trying, instead of letting tax rates be set by feeling which they largely are now.
What would an economist be trying to optimize?
My point is simply like a lot of other things, government financial policy should be set based on science and understanding, not by politicians in power who feel they know best.
at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question.
Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.
Science and understanding cant decide what you want and how much of it, it can only help you decide how to get what you want.
> at the end of the day, it is ultimately a subjective question.
Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensuring rights be equally enforced for each person, that they be respected as they should be - just starting from that is a pretty solid base that would result in real changes and is already consistent with societies desires.
Disagree. It's the realm of philosophy at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean it is subjective. We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights, which is something already agreed upon by society; as is the goal of ensuring rights be equally enforced for each person, that they be respected as they should be - just starting from that is a pretty solid base that would result in real changes and is already consistent with societies desires.
That is a very big if. We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements. There's broad disagreement in society about what people are entitled to, what their rights are, and what to do about rights when they come into conflict with each other.
If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
> We don't have commonly agreed upon rights and entitlements
You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms.
> If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.
You keep moving the goal posts. We have enough of a starting point with the UN charter of rights and freedoms.
> If we had the universal alignment you would talk about, sure we could just put the mathematicians and being counters on the job, but that's not the case.
It's the case that for a lot of things we know the best policies for many things. More competent government would go by what they suggest, will of the people be damned.
I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation.
To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.
>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society
The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.
To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.
>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society
The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.
> I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. You absolutely seem to be moving the goalposts. You say your introducing points but each response is "what about the next issue down the line" i.e. moving the goalposts.
> To be honest, I don't really understand your position.
That there are best practices for every field of government, and they should be followed instead of politicians going by what they feel.
You're focusing on semantics and being for example "well define best", and I just don't see that as being a particularly productive avenue of conservation.
You want to try and make the point that everything is subjective, I guess, but it isn't. Again, there are best practices. Best as in the dictionary definition of the word. Context would be, as said, ensuring the UN charter of rights and freedoms is being implemented correctly (should I expect a request to define "correctly"?) It wouldn't be tyranny for a government to rule according to expert advice and suggestion, it would be competence.
If you really want to take the discussion into arguing about different people's definitions for best (or 'reasonable', or whichever word quote me saying), then we don't have anything further to discuss. It's not a discussion I find value in or have an interest in having.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. You absolutely seem to be moving the goalposts. You say your introducing points but each response is "what about the next issue down the line" i.e. moving the goalposts.
> To be honest, I don't really understand your position.
That there are best practices for every field of government, and they should be followed instead of politicians going by what they feel.
You're focusing on semantics and being for example "well define best", and I just don't see that as being a particularly productive avenue of conservation.
You want to try and make the point that everything is subjective, I guess, but it isn't. Again, there are best practices. Best as in the dictionary definition of the word. Context would be, as said, ensuring the UN charter of rights and freedoms is being implemented correctly (should I expect a request to define "correctly"?) It wouldn't be tyranny for a government to rule according to expert advice and suggestion, it would be competence.
If you really want to take the discussion into arguing about different people's definitions for best (or 'reasonable', or whichever word quote me saying), then we don't have anything further to discuss. It's not a discussion I find value in or have an interest in having.
Nope, they've been brainwashed to think it's "reasonable taxation" and the solution is always more taxation despite massive waste, fraud and corruption.
I mean, the grand poster is literally citing marxism.
People also don't seem to learn from successful examples in history. Islam requires a 2.5% almsgiving/charitable contribution that is calculated on certain categories of wealth, but it seems that no western country is interested in implementing something that is proven to work, and much cheaper for everyone.
People also don't seem to learn from successful examples in history. Islam requires a 2.5% almsgiving/charitable contribution that is calculated on certain categories of wealth, but it seems that no western country is interested in implementing something that is proven to work, and much cheaper for everyone.
All true. I wouldn't expect ProPublica to expose the "other" nonprofits, which provide steady employment at high wages to politically favored people. Like the Clinton Global Initiative pre 2016. Or the NGOs who've turned homelessness into a reliable source of government grants.
If you go to Charity Navigator, you can find the percentage of the charity's income that goes to "administrative expenses." I seem to recall that CGI had about a 90% figure, but this:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311580204
shows more reasonable numbers: 18.3%. They're based on the 2019 IRS form 990, so it's pretty far out of date.
Re this "once a week guided tour" stuff: I'd be totally in favor of regulations outlawing that. If the taxpayers gave you an exemption for it, then the taxpayers get to see it.
Edit: since the usual HN reply is "do you have a citation for that?" here they are:
https://sfstandard.com/2022/04/27/the-standard-top-25-san-fr...
The largest is Episcopal Community Services:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951945256
which shows five people making $100K or close to it.
The second largest is the Tenderloin Housing Clinic:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/942681706
with five people making well over $100K.
If you go to Charity Navigator, you can find the percentage of the charity's income that goes to "administrative expenses." I seem to recall that CGI had about a 90% figure, but this:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311580204
shows more reasonable numbers: 18.3%. They're based on the 2019 IRS form 990, so it's pretty far out of date.
Re this "once a week guided tour" stuff: I'd be totally in favor of regulations outlawing that. If the taxpayers gave you an exemption for it, then the taxpayers get to see it.
Edit: since the usual HN reply is "do you have a citation for that?" here they are:
https://sfstandard.com/2022/04/27/the-standard-top-25-san-fr...
The largest is Episcopal Community Services:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/951945256
which shows five people making $100K or close to it.
The second largest is the Tenderloin Housing Clinic:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/942681706
with five people making well over $100K.
Do you expect qualified people to work for these charities for free? 100k is not a lot in SF, and it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.
1) how do you know they're "qualified"? Which leads to...
2) the Civil Service has rigorous rules on fair, non-discriminatory hiring. Do these orgs?
3) I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations." For all we know, they're people who've never had a private sector job in their lives.
4) Why can't the SF civil service do these functions?
5) What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?
2) the Civil Service has rigorous rules on fair, non-discriminatory hiring. Do these orgs?
3) I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations." For all we know, they're people who've never had a private sector job in their lives.
4) Why can't the SF civil service do these functions?
5) What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?
> What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?
This is true of government as well. After all there’s some middle management pencil pusher tasked with whatever job, and if it’s a problem getting worse they can get more resources, hire more people, move up the ranks, no? That might be easier and a better way of growing their career than solving the problem!
This is true of government as well. After all there’s some middle management pencil pusher tasked with whatever job, and if it’s a problem getting worse they can get more resources, hire more people, move up the ranks, no? That might be easier and a better way of growing their career than solving the problem!
Couple points I thought of:
“how do you know they're "qualified"?”
Interviews? Resumes? References? Same as any job in the market today?
“I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.”
They’re providing free legal services to the homeless. I’m assuming they’ve hired lawyers.
Looks like average total pay for a lawyer is 150k in SF?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-attorney-sa...
“ What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?”
You could ask this of any charity. What incentive does St. Jude have to cure childhood cancer? At some level, you just have to trust that the people involved in these organizations have altruistic motivations as a guiding principle. If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money.
“how do you know they're "qualified"?”
Interviews? Resumes? References? Same as any job in the market today?
“I don't know how you could know "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations.”
They’re providing free legal services to the homeless. I’m assuming they’ve hired lawyers.
Looks like average total pay for a lawyer is 150k in SF?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-attorney-sa...
“ What incentive do these orgs have to actually solve the problem, when their very existence depends on it continuing?”
You could ask this of any charity. What incentive does St. Jude have to cure childhood cancer? At some level, you just have to trust that the people involved in these organizations have altruistic motivations as a guiding principle. If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money.
I've done my research here. Now it's your turn. These people's names are all on the Charity Navigator pages I referenced. Try them on LinkedIn & other online sites.
Tell us what their qualifications are, what other jobs they've held, and where they live.
For bonus points: what political causes do they contribute to? Civil Service laws prohibit forcing employees to make political contributions, but those laws don't apply to employees of these orgs, AFAIK.
> If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money
I don't, but the City still does.
Tell us what their qualifications are, what other jobs they've held, and where they live.
For bonus points: what political causes do they contribute to? Civil Service laws prohibit forcing employees to make political contributions, but those laws don't apply to employees of these orgs, AFAIK.
> If you don’t trust them, you don’t have to give them your money
I don't, but the City still does.
Of those 5 for Tenderloin, I see two attorneys, a general director and founder who created the clinic in the 80’s, a director of finance with 10 years of experience as an auditor prior to holding the position for 20 years.
I don’t live anywhere near San Francisco, and those salaries seem entirely reasonable for being at the top of an organization that’s responsible for 1900 housing units, in tax year 2022.
I don’t live anywhere near San Francisco, and those salaries seem entirely reasonable for being at the top of an organization that’s responsible for 1900 housing units, in tax year 2022.
Not much research there.
So: one person who might have private sector experience. And you didn't look at the biggest nonprofit. Or the potential for kickbacks from their salaries in the form of campaign contributions.
Recall that the claim was that they could make multiples of those salaries in the private sector. You're not showing much evidence for that.
And of course, the overall question is, is the City getting any value for that money?
So: one person who might have private sector experience. And you didn't look at the biggest nonprofit. Or the potential for kickbacks from their salaries in the form of campaign contributions.
Recall that the claim was that they could make multiples of those salaries in the private sector. You're not showing much evidence for that.
And of course, the overall question is, is the City getting any value for that money?
> Recall that the claim was that they could make multiples of those salaries in the private secto
That claim was meant for professionals working for non-profits more broadly, not your hyper-specific example of 5 people.
That claim was meant for professionals working for non-profits more broadly, not your hyper-specific example of 5 people.
OK, I think we've settled that your "it's very likely the people in those roles could make multiples more at private organizations" has no data behind it at all. Just a supposition, right?
By the way, I picked ten people, not five, just by taking the top two non-profits.
By the way, I picked ten people, not five, just by taking the top two non-profits.
Is "hyper specific" supposed to be a bad thing? These are the ones publicly disclosed. Do you know of some others?
If you live in the US and like to donate to charity you can have your own private foundation and you don’t have to be a jerk about it! It can be a convenient way for you to do good in the world.
It’s called a Donor Advised Fund and you can donate large sums to it and then direct the money in pieces to charities you support over time. In between the money gets to grow if you choose to invest it, and you get the tax write off at the time of donation not distribution because you can never get the money back.
Why would you do this? Well maybe you had a windfall profit one year (sold your company?) and you want to donate a lot of it before the tax year ends but you’re not sure where yet.
Or maybe you want to donate something besides cash to a charity without the systems to accept it. Like appreciated shares in your company, or cryptocurrency.
If you do this for the right reasons it’s not sinister at all. It’s just a safe and tax efficient way to manage your charitable ambitious.
You can even set one up on your phone, in like 10 minutes: https://www.daffy.org/
(Note: there’s a lot to argue about when it comes to what counts as a charity in the US and the nearly unlimited nature of the income deductions you can get from donating. But in the end I think as long as the tax code stays the way it is it makes sense for people who can afford it to give some money to a cause they support)
It’s called a Donor Advised Fund and you can donate large sums to it and then direct the money in pieces to charities you support over time. In between the money gets to grow if you choose to invest it, and you get the tax write off at the time of donation not distribution because you can never get the money back.
Why would you do this? Well maybe you had a windfall profit one year (sold your company?) and you want to donate a lot of it before the tax year ends but you’re not sure where yet.
Or maybe you want to donate something besides cash to a charity without the systems to accept it. Like appreciated shares in your company, or cryptocurrency.
If you do this for the right reasons it’s not sinister at all. It’s just a safe and tax efficient way to manage your charitable ambitious.
You can even set one up on your phone, in like 10 minutes: https://www.daffy.org/
(Note: there’s a lot to argue about when it comes to what counts as a charity in the US and the nearly unlimited nature of the income deductions you can get from donating. But in the end I think as long as the tax code stays the way it is it makes sense for people who can afford it to give some money to a cause they support)
True. Don’t know about Daffy but I’ve looked at Fidelity Charitable which does something very similar. “Donate” now, save taxes now, distribute the money when you want but let it grow (however you want) until then.
Fidelity and Vanguard charitable are two of the biggest DAF providers. Daffy is not nearly as well established but I like the UX. Honestly I just use it because donating to most charities via bank transfer is a massive pain and Daffy makes it simple.
I visited a park/reserve that definitely walked the line on this stuff.
On the one hand it was open to the public 5 days/week, most of the year, provided you purchased!! generally-available tickets in advance.
On the other hand after a few visits I learned that the giant mansion at the center of the park was still occupied by the textile baron owner who set up the foundation. This foundation was setup almost as soon as the mansion was built, and he subsequently lived out his days for 30 years there.
They also charged to use the estate for weddings/catered events.
And they also had the gall to ask people to donate to the foundation. Incredibly, some well heeled locals have given 6 figure donations.
It seemed to me an amazing structure to live out your days on a beautiful estate with the upkeep of the incredible garden/art collection partially subsidized by both the government (tax deduction) and public (ticket sales / events / donations).
He eventually passed away and the foundation leadership devolved into a circular firing squad but that's a separate issue.
On the other hand after a few visits I learned that the giant mansion at the center of the park was still occupied by the textile baron owner who set up the foundation. This foundation was setup almost as soon as the mansion was built, and he subsequently lived out his days for 30 years there.
They also charged to use the estate for weddings/catered events.
And they also had the gall to ask people to donate to the foundation. Incredibly, some well heeled locals have given 6 figure donations.
It seemed to me an amazing structure to live out your days on a beautiful estate with the upkeep of the incredible garden/art collection partially subsidized by both the government (tax deduction) and public (ticket sales / events / donations).
He eventually passed away and the foundation leadership devolved into a circular firing squad but that's a separate issue.
How is this comparable? It seems like they are offering excellent public access. It looks like a very expensive garden to maintain, free for high school and college students, veterans, and children under 12, and just $2 for anyone with SNAP/EBT card (Museums for All pass). That seems very reasonable.
It looks like they also put on lots of paid (and free!) performances. This takes a lot of real live human hours to coordinate.
https://longhouse.org/collections/tickets
It looks like they also put on lots of paid (and free!) performances. This takes a lot of real live human hours to coordinate.
https://longhouse.org/collections/tickets
Well it's open 3-4.5 hours/day, 5 days/week in season.
Fewer days off season.
So we're not talking public park levels of access.
The bigger question is how much of a tax benefit did he get to live with that arrangement, and what % of the garden was covered by his contribution to the foundation vs other revenue.
The bigger question is how much of a tax benefit did he get to live with that arrangement, and what % of the garden was covered by his contribution to the foundation vs other revenue.
Are you by chance talking about the Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge Island?
Nope
Longhouse reserve
Glad to hear this is a common scam lol
Glad to hear this is a common scam lol
There's also the loophole of running a church and designating your home as a "parsonage". Laws vary by state, but there's several that don't mind fully exempting sprawling estates if you represent it as such.
I know someone who looked into this and since the facility was a business 5 days a week & a church on Sunday they gave him a 1/7 tax credit. OTOH it made sense, as all he had to do was find a congregation that wanted to meet there.
That seems like a reasonable, legal example. The Houston Chronical found ones that are unfortunately legal, but not reasonable...like: https://archive.is/SPY8K
It’s a ridiculous statute in my opinion, but this is also silly:
> That means Copeland’s church gets a pass on what would otherwise be an annual property tax bill exceeding $150,000 — money that other local taxpayers must backfill to cover the cost of schools, police and firefighters.
How on earth does this make sense? It’s not like there’s some divine requirement that an exact number of dollars must be paid and now everyone else is on the hook. Taxing rich people more is convenient and mostly accepted but come on, it’s 1 person, they aren’t using more schools/police/whatever.
> That means Copeland’s church gets a pass on what would otherwise be an annual property tax bill exceeding $150,000 — money that other local taxpayers must backfill to cover the cost of schools, police and firefighters.
How on earth does this make sense? It’s not like there’s some divine requirement that an exact number of dollars must be paid and now everyone else is on the hook. Taxing rich people more is convenient and mostly accepted but come on, it’s 1 person, they aren’t using more schools/police/whatever.
Most commenters here seem to have a false impression of the distribution of taxation. "The rich pay little taxes" is disinfo. The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes."
The US has had progressive taxation since 1913. Today, taxes on the top 1% of earners comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue, top 5% comprise 60%, while the bottom 50% comprise 2% (however note income taxes are only half of federal revenue). Per CBO, the US gini coefficient falls by 0.17 (a third) when you account for taxes and transfers.
Our legislators have created tons of complexity in our tax codes which people use to reduce their tax burdens. I mainly blame congress and the electorate. Donors are only culpable for funding congressional campaigns' appeals to voters.
The US has had progressive taxation since 1913. Today, taxes on the top 1% of earners comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue, top 5% comprise 60%, while the bottom 50% comprise 2% (however note income taxes are only half of federal revenue). Per CBO, the US gini coefficient falls by 0.17 (a third) when you account for taxes and transfers.
Our legislators have created tons of complexity in our tax codes which people use to reduce their tax burdens. I mainly blame congress and the electorate. Donors are only culpable for funding congressional campaigns' appeals to voters.
> The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes."
By itself, this doesn't really mean much; it certainly doesn't address "fairness". For example, even in an inverted regressive tax system, the rich could still pay the most in taxes. This is simply because they earn the most money. And the larger the ratio between rich and poor, the easier it is for the rich to pay the most in taxes, yet still not be affected as substantially by taxation.
Take an extreme example to illustrate: there are 9 earners making $100 per year and 1 earner making $10,000 per year. If the tax rate were 90% for the low-earners and 10% for the high-earner, the high-earner would still pay the most in taxes (more than 50% of total revenue), but few would call this system "fair".
By itself, this doesn't really mean much; it certainly doesn't address "fairness". For example, even in an inverted regressive tax system, the rich could still pay the most in taxes. This is simply because they earn the most money. And the larger the ratio between rich and poor, the easier it is for the rich to pay the most in taxes, yet still not be affected as substantially by taxation.
Take an extreme example to illustrate: there are 9 earners making $100 per year and 1 earner making $10,000 per year. If the tax rate were 90% for the low-earners and 10% for the high-earner, the high-earner would still pay the most in taxes (more than 50% of total revenue), but few would call this system "fair".
I think “top income earners” might be misleading? For the people in the article who donate say 40mil to their foundation and write off that 40mil from their income… if they earned 30mil that year, would they still be counted as a top 1% earner for the year in your metrics?
I think you’re right overall about top 50% and top 1%, but I think as you consider ultra wealthy people it might not be as simple (or at least i wonder about more edge cases; maybe I’m wrong)
I think you’re right overall about top 50% and top 1%, but I think as you consider ultra wealthy people it might not be as simple (or at least i wonder about more edge cases; maybe I’m wrong)
"the rich" and "top income earners" are not at all the same group. Many of the richest people make their money through untaxed capital gains.
This style and format is not for everyone to say the least but this deep dive from Some More News just dropped a few days ago
https://youtu.be/69AtkAHkKEc
https://youtu.be/69AtkAHkKEc
“He said that tours are limited because the foundation has only a few volunteer docents who are knowledgeable about the home…”
Perhaps they could use some of the $35M in tax breaks to hire some docents?
Perhaps they could use some of the $35M in tax breaks to hire some docents?
The Hated One also did a rather informative video covering this topic: https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=OH4uh8cHuto
Video title "Billionaire Foundation - The Most Immoral Charity In The World "
(inv.tux.pizza is failing to work for me)
(inv.tux.pizza is failing to work for me)
There is a house—excuse me, “museum”, in my neighborhood for some guy’s hunting trophy collection. Private tours available on request, of course.
What a sham!
What a sham!
Why is there even the concept of a "nonprofit", with tax deductible donations? This has never made any sense to me.
Honestly, why isn't there a general indignation against the concept of tax breaks for any charitable contribution?
I'm generally not aligned with the libertarians, but let's just lower taxes and simply let people give wherever they want.
The only real benefits that non-profit structures like a 501(c) should be that their donations aren't taxed as income, and that's it.
I'm generally not aligned with the libertarians, but let's just lower taxes and simply let people give wherever they want.
The only real benefits that non-profit structures like a 501(c) should be that their donations aren't taxed as income, and that's it.
In America, there is broad implicit approval for the idea that the tax code should be used to encourage (discourage) desirable (undesirable) behavior. We may quibble about the definition of desirability, but most Americans do seem to support this.
I think the idea is “the government should take money from projects for the greater good” … this is a concept that is 100s of years old
I hate all of this
It has been my observation that it is not that only people of unscrupulous character become wealthy, but wealth tends to make you progressively more unscrupulous, i.e. not care about anything but yourself and your family unless you are legally compelled to do so.
In my mind, I've come to call this relative wealth toxicity. We all know of power toxicity (power corrupts). I think wealth has a similar effect on human psychology. The "relative" part is because a modern-day middle class person is, in absolute terms, is wealthier than a medieval lord, but do not behave like one. It is the relative power and the rarified social status that wealth brings, that results in the toxicity.
In my mind, I've come to call this relative wealth toxicity. We all know of power toxicity (power corrupts). I think wealth has a similar effect on human psychology. The "relative" part is because a modern-day middle class person is, in absolute terms, is wealthier than a medieval lord, but do not behave like one. It is the relative power and the rarified social status that wealth brings, that results in the toxicity.
I've observed the opposite. The wealthy people I know are philanthropic. Similarly the upper middle class is more altruistic than the lower middle class, and so on down the hierarchy of needs.
Private foundations are really a massive scam on the public purse so whenever you hear about the Gates Foundation and the like, remember it's just a tax dodge, nothing more.
The way the rules work, a private foundation has to spend 5% of its capital on its intended purpose. Thing is, that 5% can include "administration" costs like paying salaries and benefits for the family. They really need to raise this to 10%, minimum.
Art is a massive tax scam. You should only get a tax deduction on the purchase price (not "appraised value") and only to a public museum and there should be strict requirements as to what a "museum" is.
But it's really quite disgusting what lengths billionaires go to to avoid paying for the society that makes their wealth possible.
The way the rules work, a private foundation has to spend 5% of its capital on its intended purpose. Thing is, that 5% can include "administration" costs like paying salaries and benefits for the family. They really need to raise this to 10%, minimum.
Art is a massive tax scam. You should only get a tax deduction on the purchase price (not "appraised value") and only to a public museum and there should be strict requirements as to what a "museum" is.
But it's really quite disgusting what lengths billionaires go to to avoid paying for the society that makes their wealth possible.
The Gates foundation example makes no sense and frankly reeks of ignorance. The foundation has given out over $70 billion in grants since inception [1]…money that came primarily out of Gates’s pockets.
In what way does losing $70 billion imply a tax dodge because he avoided paying $10B to $20B in taxes had he kept that money for himself? You know, he could have simply paid the taxes and kept the remaining $50 billion in in his pockets.
In what way does losing $70 billion imply a tax dodge because he avoided paying $10B to $20B in taxes had he kept that money for himself? You know, he could have simply paid the taxes and kept the remaining $50 billion in in his pockets.
I had a brief look at Gates Foundation spending and it does not look like tax dodge to me: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/financials/annual-repo...
It spent about 10% of its endowment for charity last year.
It spent about 10% of its endowment for charity last year.
Yeah because the Gates Foundation is going to come right out on their website and say that they are a tax dodge...
These are annual financial reports, a very good first step for an investigation. At some point, if someone claims it is a tax dodge, they need some modicum of evidence. None was provided.
Mind furnishing some evidence of their alleged wrongdoing then?
I don't think it's actually a "tax dodge" because having the money donated to a nonprofit does limit what the money can be for and to the extent salaries are paid back to family members that's getting taxed anyway (theoretically they could be shifting it to lower tax brackets but when you look at current US tax rates it's not going to make much difference anyway).
I think there's a real question of whether rich people should be able to get tax exemptions for donating massive amounts of money to nonprofits of their choice with no limit, but it's not a "scam" because Bill Gates is doing exactly the thing that the current tax code is intended to incentivize; he's not using some sort of complicated loophole to use the money for personal purposes while getting a tax exemption, he's just using it for charitable purposes that he chooses, exactly as intended.
That said, personally I don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that someone should be able to e.g. choose to donate a billion dollars of income to an art museum and not get taxed when the tax revenue from that income if it were not made deductible (even if less than a billion dollars) could be used for potentially more important uses once you factor in marginal utility, etc.
Framing it as a "scam" or "loophole" is somewhat misleading imo because it implies that rich people are somehow cheating the system, whereas in reality they are just using the system as intended, but it might actually be a bad system.
I think there's a real question of whether rich people should be able to get tax exemptions for donating massive amounts of money to nonprofits of their choice with no limit, but it's not a "scam" because Bill Gates is doing exactly the thing that the current tax code is intended to incentivize; he's not using some sort of complicated loophole to use the money for personal purposes while getting a tax exemption, he's just using it for charitable purposes that he chooses, exactly as intended.
That said, personally I don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that someone should be able to e.g. choose to donate a billion dollars of income to an art museum and not get taxed when the tax revenue from that income if it were not made deductible (even if less than a billion dollars) could be used for potentially more important uses once you factor in marginal utility, etc.
Framing it as a "scam" or "loophole" is somewhat misleading imo because it implies that rich people are somehow cheating the system, whereas in reality they are just using the system as intended, but it might actually be a bad system.
The Gates foundation likely gets more altruistic bang for its buck than any government on the planet, and plausibly more than any other organization of any sort.
You can't donate money to dodge taxes.
You need to donate a good and have it be overvalued or maintain control over it.
Gates mostly donated shares who have a fair value (market value). Gates similarly has control over direction but isn't using the majority of the funds for self enrichment.
You need to donate a good and have it be overvalued or maintain control over it.
Gates mostly donated shares who have a fair value (market value). Gates similarly has control over direction but isn't using the majority of the funds for self enrichment.
Can someone explain how that charity foundation thing is a loophole? Who/what is avoiding taxes?
What do you want to do as a rich person?
* Own and enjoy fantastic properties:
- You own so many properties that you'll spend maybe a few weeks per year in each one
- So donate these properties to your own charitable foundation, give tours while you aren't there.
* Have lavish parties
- Call it a charity ball, hold an auction at some point, now you look great and the canapés are tax-free.
* Fly private
- Book a meeting for your charitable purpose wherever you are going. Now you can deduct at least part of the gas for the private jet.
* Enrich your friends and family members
- Give them sweet jobs in your foundation. Pay them competitive salaries without going through a competitive candidate search. Continue this even after you die, essentially a tax-free annuity.
* Lobby for your own business and ideological interests
- Your private foundation can advocate for all sorts of things. Fund self-serving studies. Give full-ride scholarships to top thinkers that think like you. Host tours, vacations, parties and events that benefit your position.
* Improve your social standing
- Give some money to PBS. Open a wing at a school or museum with your name on it.
* Own and enjoy fantastic properties:
- You own so many properties that you'll spend maybe a few weeks per year in each one
- So donate these properties to your own charitable foundation, give tours while you aren't there.
* Have lavish parties
- Call it a charity ball, hold an auction at some point, now you look great and the canapés are tax-free.
* Fly private
- Book a meeting for your charitable purpose wherever you are going. Now you can deduct at least part of the gas for the private jet.
* Enrich your friends and family members
- Give them sweet jobs in your foundation. Pay them competitive salaries without going through a competitive candidate search. Continue this even after you die, essentially a tax-free annuity.
* Lobby for your own business and ideological interests
- Your private foundation can advocate for all sorts of things. Fund self-serving studies. Give full-ride scholarships to top thinkers that think like you. Host tours, vacations, parties and events that benefit your position.
* Improve your social standing
- Give some money to PBS. Open a wing at a school or museum with your name on it.
>- Give them sweet jobs in your foundation. Pay them competitive salaries without going through a competitive candidate search. Continue this even after you die, essentially a tax-free annuity.
It's not "tax free" when those salaries are taxed just like any other salary.
It's not "tax free" when those salaries are taxed just like any other salary.
Because you donated huge sums to your nonprofit, it reduced your tax burden by a significantly high amount, and that is probably a higher amount than what your friends and relatives will pay in taxes on their paychecks in your foundation, so you were able to keep more dollars from going to Uncle Sam and among your circle of loved ones instead.
>Because you donated huge sums to your nonprofit, it reduced your tax burden by a significantly high amount
You know what also reduces your tax burden by a significant amount? Not taking the money out of your business and putting your friends/relatives on the payroll. That it also doesn't get taxed because it's a business expense. I'm not sure what the point of going through the charity is.
You know what also reduces your tax burden by a significant amount? Not taking the money out of your business and putting your friends/relatives on the payroll. That it also doesn't get taxed because it's a business expense. I'm not sure what the point of going through the charity is.
Let's say you have an investment account with millions of dollars in it. Let's say for the purpose of the example you are earning 30% a year[0]. You're accustomed to use that account to fund your travel. You convert some securities to cash to buy plane tickets to travel all over the world.
You're going to pay capital gains taxes, or just income taxes, on those conversions to liquid capital.
If instead you donate those securities to a "Charity", then the earned interest is not taxed, and you receive a tax benefit for moving the property to the charity entity. If the charity is happy for you to travel all over the world, then you're done. Same benefit accrues, tax burden becomes negligible.
What's left to determine (from our electronic armchairs) is: Does the charity do good for the nation, for the world, to an extent that it's worth forgoing the tax income? I expect that the answer is "Yes" for several of the charities we consider household names. I expect that the answer is "No" for the overwhelming majority of charities, by count or by endowment. We could start by taxing Harvard. :)
[0] Not that anything is dependable year on year, but that's the rate that university endowments made in 2021.
You're going to pay capital gains taxes, or just income taxes, on those conversions to liquid capital.
If instead you donate those securities to a "Charity", then the earned interest is not taxed, and you receive a tax benefit for moving the property to the charity entity. If the charity is happy for you to travel all over the world, then you're done. Same benefit accrues, tax burden becomes negligible.
What's left to determine (from our electronic armchairs) is: Does the charity do good for the nation, for the world, to an extent that it's worth forgoing the tax income? I expect that the answer is "Yes" for several of the charities we consider household names. I expect that the answer is "No" for the overwhelming majority of charities, by count or by endowment. We could start by taxing Harvard. :)
[0] Not that anything is dependable year on year, but that's the rate that university endowments made in 2021.
What the OP described is that as a rich person you can set up a "charity foundation", donate a bunch of money to it (reducing your tax burden), then have the foundation hold on to most of the money and when it spends it, spend it on "administration", which could be hiring your friends and family to do fake administrative work
In the case of the Gates Foundation it's more likely to be real administrative work, but even the "good" ones are sitting on a ton of money that could potentially be put to more profitable (for society) uses
In the case of the Gates Foundation it's more likely to be real administrative work, but even the "good" ones are sitting on a ton of money that could potentially be put to more profitable (for society) uses
Characterizing the Gates Foundation as "just a tax dodge" is a pretty hot take.
Wealth is transfer from one part of the economic system to another, and extreme wealth is basically hoarding; why is it so difficult to reach a point of diminishing returns of wealth and then give it back in some way that is more impactful than arbitrary philanthropy? One cannot simply say government is inefficient because it is pretty clear that this current system is inefficient in distributing wealth and raising the living standards and reducing the suffering of others (because it has specifically been degraded and played by the wealthy so that they retain as much wealth as possible). The game of wealth accruing that everyone is playing is simply based on an economic system right now that depends upon money, and is a closed system facilitated by the government. Where else does _money_ come from? There is no other source. (Crypto is a joke, because is basically now valued in terms of fiat, so let's not add that to this discussion. It is also a small part of the bigger economic system, which again is founded upon fiat.)
So, this game of an economy founded upon money, what's the point? We no longer act as groups gathering resources from the natural environment; we are now individual actors forced to gather an intermediate resources (money), a reality and an abstraction for resource transfer. I am genuinely curious how the economy can truly be used to reduce suffering of others and create more stable societies.
(please note these are armchair philosophy, economics, sociology points, which would benefit from research.)
So, this game of an economy founded upon money, what's the point? We no longer act as groups gathering resources from the natural environment; we are now individual actors forced to gather an intermediate resources (money), a reality and an abstraction for resource transfer. I am genuinely curious how the economy can truly be used to reduce suffering of others and create more stable societies.
(please note these are armchair philosophy, economics, sociology points, which would benefit from research.)
>Wealth is transfer from one part of the economic system to another
So no wealth is created? The vast amount of medical technology and technology in general would immediately show that this statement is completely false.
So no wealth is created? The vast amount of medical technology and technology in general would immediately show that this statement is completely false.
What is wealth?
Philanthropy is a lot less arbitrary than the vast machinery of misaligned incentives we name government.
Like it or not, your tax dollars fund Guantanamo Bay, Trump's family separation/kids in cages, and every other odious federal program. (My state deploys my taxes to terrorize immigrants. Lovely.)
Your philanthropic dollars only fund projects you actually endorse.
Like it or not, your tax dollars fund Guantanamo Bay, Trump's family separation/kids in cages, and every other odious federal program. (My state deploys my taxes to terrorize immigrants. Lovely.)
Your philanthropic dollars only fund projects you actually endorse.
Yes, and tax dollars are also used for beneficial things. Please list those too. Philanthropy can be used to fund suffering-inducing things, so indeed, this is multi-faceted. The point is not that philanthropy can or cannot be useful, the point is that money hoarded is extremely inefficient and wasteful of the usefulness and utility of money (because there are certainly diminishing returns to its utility) -- in a system afforded by the government itself. Life is fleeting, thus so is your experience of your wealth.
> Two days after I emailed Finwall in April inquiring about the Xie Foundation’s purchase of the house, the foundation filed records with the California attorney general’s office, stating that it had “discovered a self-dealing event” and including a federal tax return with the word “amended” handwritten at the top. In his email to ProPublica, Finwall said that, after amending its returns, the foundation “paid some excise taxes related to Mr. Xie’s stay at the property.”
Maybe we can give 1% of the recovered tax to forensic accountant bounty hunters willing to vet the appropriate nonprofit filings. As is, the IRS seems under-resourced for this kind of work, and there's no real incentive for anybody else to do it unless they're a journalist -- and you can only write this kind of story so many times. Maybe each submitted case costs $100 or some other fee sufficient to deter spammers. I strongly suspect there's a class of feisty semi-retired accountants who'd be happy to spend some of their golden years on this kind of thing. If we're worried about small nonprofits, we can set a minimum claimed deduction that's subject to a bounty.