Capital Gains Tax Rate Set at 25% in House Democrats’ Plan(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Capital Gains Tax Rate Set at 25% in House Democrats’ Plan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/house-democrats-pitch-capital-gains-tax-of-25-for-high-earners
43 comments
> People who make that much and more use more infrastructure
I doubt this is true for silicon valley engineers who earn more 500k.
I pay +100k in tax a year. I pay for my own healthcare on top of that. Yet public safety is rather low. Public school is bad. And etc. If anything, it doesn't feel I get much out of it.
Apart from that, any proposed tax plan almost always hurts the most the high-end salaried employees who already pay their fair share of tax (RSU is taxed immediately). Might as well just call it yet-another-silicon-valley-engineer tax.
Meanwhile the billionaires or hundred-millionaires will still be able to find a way to reduce their tax because they have enough capital to hire an army of tax accountants.
Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
I doubt this is true for silicon valley engineers who earn more 500k.
I pay +100k in tax a year. I pay for my own healthcare on top of that. Yet public safety is rather low. Public school is bad. And etc. If anything, it doesn't feel I get much out of it.
Apart from that, any proposed tax plan almost always hurts the most the high-end salaried employees who already pay their fair share of tax (RSU is taxed immediately). Might as well just call it yet-another-silicon-valley-engineer tax.
Meanwhile the billionaires or hundred-millionaires will still be able to find a way to reduce their tax because they have enough capital to hire an army of tax accountants.
Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
Do you live in a state with an income tax? Why not move to a state with lower tax obligations and lower how much you spend on taxes that way.
> If anything, it doesn't feel I get much out of it.
You got to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years!
> Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
Targeting lower brackets brings in more revenue for less costs.
You got to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years!
> Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
Targeting lower brackets brings in more revenue for less costs.
Dems shout while talking cash from the rich, look at the relationship Clinton had with Goldman Sachs.
It will keep working as long as Democrats voters are dumb enough to fall for their "we're for the working man!" schtick.
It will keep working as long as Democrats voters are dumb enough to fall for their "we're for the working man!" schtick.
I was really hoping it would target people with like ludicrous incomes, like 2m+ a year or something, going after 480k+ is grabbing high performing professionals as well, doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful small businesses, etc.
The overall median income for all full-time workers in the USA is $39.5k. For full-time with a doctorate it is $79k. I think that 5-10x the median income of any education group is an ok place to pay higher capital gains.
$480k puts you more than $100k into the top 1%...
$480k puts you more than $100k into the top 1%...
If you make 500-600k, you aren't going to feel this _that_ much..it's a tax bracket after all. So this does target 1-2m earners.
Thats the sweet spot of cash to lose without impoverishment or negative impact but not so much cash to fight it or evade it.
> they never make law that targets this particular group.
I have a (cynical) theory about that: once some means of getting ahead trickles down to the likes of you and I, it's too prevalent and has to be pushed up the ladder a bit.
I have a (cynical) theory about that: once some means of getting ahead trickles down to the likes of you and I, it's too prevalent and has to be pushed up the ladder a bit.
As an engineer living outside the States: Get a grip.
Its a marginal tax, so it won't even affect engineers making $500k, unless they cash in on a windfall.
What do you get for your taxes? You get to be living in the one place on earth where you CAN make that much money. Nothing is stopping you from moving elsewhere on this earth and renouncing your US citizenship. Then you can stop paying those taxes (and likely pay higher taxes).
You get access to a massive highway system funded by the feds, you get access to multiple international airports in the Bay Area, you get access to a collection of some of the smartest people in the world at some of the best institutions in the country that suck in an absurd amount of federal funding.
Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever, and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%, and income tax was even higher.
Its a marginal tax, so it won't even affect engineers making $500k, unless they cash in on a windfall.
What do you get for your taxes? You get to be living in the one place on earth where you CAN make that much money. Nothing is stopping you from moving elsewhere on this earth and renouncing your US citizenship. Then you can stop paying those taxes (and likely pay higher taxes).
You get access to a massive highway system funded by the feds, you get access to multiple international airports in the Bay Area, you get access to a collection of some of the smartest people in the world at some of the best institutions in the country that suck in an absurd amount of federal funding.
Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever, and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%, and income tax was even higher.
I’m not sure why this narrative continues to have purchase.
The federal government publishes its spending data[1], and that is simply not what the money is spent on.
Transportation in totality was 7% of discretionary spending, itself 24% of total spending in 2019 [1].
2020 was an unusual year with enhanced unemployment and the paycheck protection program, but depending on whether you want to count the interest on debt, 35% to 40% of federal spending was on Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare, the latter net of premiums (so gross spending was higher).
In 2018, a more normal year, these categories represented 55% of spending, interest being 8%.
In short, most federal tax dollars represent a redistribution of income from the young and working to the old, nonworking population. That’s what the plurality of the dollars do. Whether or not that’s a “good” thing is outside the scope of this comment, but we should at least be able to be honest about it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
The federal government publishes its spending data[1], and that is simply not what the money is spent on.
Transportation in totality was 7% of discretionary spending, itself 24% of total spending in 2019 [1].
2020 was an unusual year with enhanced unemployment and the paycheck protection program, but depending on whether you want to count the interest on debt, 35% to 40% of federal spending was on Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare, the latter net of premiums (so gross spending was higher).
In 2018, a more normal year, these categories represented 55% of spending, interest being 8%.
In short, most federal tax dollars represent a redistribution of income from the young and working to the old, nonworking population. That’s what the plurality of the dollars do. Whether or not that’s a “good” thing is outside the scope of this comment, but we should at least be able to be honest about it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
If you include federal spending on self funded programs (and are still self funding as they haven't gone insolvent yet), you'll have to include payroll taxes in your revenue computations as well just to be fair.
> In short, most federal tax dollars represent a redistribution of income from the young and working to the old, nonworking population.
People paid into social security and medicare to get it. If they get more than they paid in for (sans interest earned on what they put in), then you have a case for a "wealth transfer". Otherwise, it is just like a 401K, which is also save now and use later.
> In short, most federal tax dollars represent a redistribution of income from the young and working to the old, nonworking population.
People paid into social security and medicare to get it. If they get more than they paid in for (sans interest earned on what they put in), then you have a case for a "wealth transfer". Otherwise, it is just like a 401K, which is also save now and use later.
On your first point I absolutely agree.
But if you’re implying from it that benefits programs don’t matter because the payroll taxes pay for them, that’s not correct.
In 2020, the cost of the programs I mentioned above was approximately 2.3 trillion dollars. Payroll tax revenue was 1.3 trillion, income tax revenue was about 1.6, everything else is half a trillion.
So if you waved a magic wand and poofed these programs out of the budget, you could get rid of the payroll taxes and 2/3 of the receipts of the income tax without changing the deficit. Or, you could get rid of payroll taxes, all the other taxes, and still reduce the income tax receipts by about 1/3.
> People paid into social security and medicare to get it. If they get more than they paid in for (sans interest earned on what they put in), then you have a case for a "wealth transfer". Otherwise, it is just like a 401K, which is also save now and use later.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that people have gotten (and are promised to get) more out of these programs than they pay in.
The CBO provides projections for the solvency of the assets of these programs, which it calls trust funds [1]. The projections show the bulk insolvent by 2026. So clearly people are receiving more than their contributions are capable of sustaining.
[1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56541
But if you’re implying from it that benefits programs don’t matter because the payroll taxes pay for them, that’s not correct.
In 2020, the cost of the programs I mentioned above was approximately 2.3 trillion dollars. Payroll tax revenue was 1.3 trillion, income tax revenue was about 1.6, everything else is half a trillion.
So if you waved a magic wand and poofed these programs out of the budget, you could get rid of the payroll taxes and 2/3 of the receipts of the income tax without changing the deficit. Or, you could get rid of payroll taxes, all the other taxes, and still reduce the income tax receipts by about 1/3.
> People paid into social security and medicare to get it. If they get more than they paid in for (sans interest earned on what they put in), then you have a case for a "wealth transfer". Otherwise, it is just like a 401K, which is also save now and use later.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that people have gotten (and are promised to get) more out of these programs than they pay in.
The CBO provides projections for the solvency of the assets of these programs, which it calls trust funds [1]. The projections show the bulk insolvent by 2026. So clearly people are receiving more than their contributions are capable of sustaining.
[1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56541
> In 2020, the cost of the programs I mentioned above was approximately 2.3 trillion dollars. Payroll tax revenue was 1.3 trillion, income tax revenue was about 1.6, everything else is half a trillion.
Sure but the programs ran surpluses for many years, all of that money being lent to the government. You can’t double count paying that debt down as new debt if you counted it as debt when it was lent to the general fund (if debt was used to pay down debt, then it just remains). Likewise, interest payments on that debt also go back into the programs (since they were debtees), so if you get to only count that interest once even if it is being transferred inside what you are taking as the budget (so interest the government pays to SS shouldn’t be counted as additional debt either). The point where previous surpluses no longer cover current outlays (2035 for social security, 2026 for Medicare) is when we can start counting extra money put in as new debt.
Sure but the programs ran surpluses for many years, all of that money being lent to the government. You can’t double count paying that debt down as new debt if you counted it as debt when it was lent to the general fund (if debt was used to pay down debt, then it just remains). Likewise, interest payments on that debt also go back into the programs (since they were debtees), so if you get to only count that interest once even if it is being transferred inside what you are taking as the budget (so interest the government pays to SS shouldn’t be counted as additional debt either). The point where previous surpluses no longer cover current outlays (2035 for social security, 2026 for Medicare) is when we can start counting extra money put in as new debt.
>...Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever,
No it is not. The lowest capital gains rates were 12.5% and even 10 years ago it was 15%.
>...and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%
When was it ever 40%? 50 years ago, it was 35%, but that was the highest.
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-...
>....and income tax was even higher.
Talking about marginal rates without discussing effective rates (due to deductions that were available, etc.) is quite misleading. That high 70% rate in the 70's brought in a tiny amount of tax revenue:
>...Of the $517 billion the Treasury collected in 1980, only $3 billion to $5 billion came from the 70 percent bracket — less than 1 percent of total tax revenue.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-7...
(One reason that democrats suggested lowering the top rate in 1981.)
Those high marginal rates encouraged all kinds of unproductive investments to take advantage of loopholes built into the law. Where people couldn't get around the rates, there were deadweight losses from economic activity that didn't occur. Even if someone thinks it is morally ok to take that much of someone's income, those kinds of high rates simply hurt the economy.
No it is not. The lowest capital gains rates were 12.5% and even 10 years ago it was 15%.
>...and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%
When was it ever 40%? 50 years ago, it was 35%, but that was the highest.
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-...
>....and income tax was even higher.
Talking about marginal rates without discussing effective rates (due to deductions that were available, etc.) is quite misleading. That high 70% rate in the 70's brought in a tiny amount of tax revenue:
>...Of the $517 billion the Treasury collected in 1980, only $3 billion to $5 billion came from the 70 percent bracket — less than 1 percent of total tax revenue.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-7...
(One reason that democrats suggested lowering the top rate in 1981.)
Those high marginal rates encouraged all kinds of unproductive investments to take advantage of loopholes built into the law. Where people couldn't get around the rates, there were deadweight losses from economic activity that didn't occur. Even if someone thinks it is morally ok to take that much of someone's income, those kinds of high rates simply hurt the economy.
Amen. As another non US developer, there's nothing worse than seeing the pure outrage of some of the most highly paid and privileged workers on the planet.
A huge tax bill is a dream cause it means your take home pay is likely several multiples of that number. I wish I paid a million a year in tax personally.
A huge tax bill is a dream cause it means your take home pay is likely several multiples of that number. I wish I paid a million a year in tax personally.
>Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever
That's not the case here in the US. Historically we've had capital gains brackets that maxed out at 7%. Even looking at more recent rates, the top brackets were lower a decade ago.
That's not the case here in the US. Historically we've had capital gains brackets that maxed out at 7%. Even looking at more recent rates, the top brackets were lower a decade ago.
> Its a marginal tax, so it won't even affect engineers making $500k, unless they cash in on a windfall.
Arguing this point is apparently a lost cause. It's how taxes have always worked in the US, but despite that you still have clearly educated high earners flipping out when they see a bracket start at nearly $500k as if the new marginal rate is going to gut them.
People love their money and always want more of it. Just admit it, people. I like mine too!
Arguing this point is apparently a lost cause. It's how taxes have always worked in the US, but despite that you still have clearly educated high earners flipping out when they see a bracket start at nearly $500k as if the new marginal rate is going to gut them.
People love their money and always want more of it. Just admit it, people. I like mine too!
This convo also doesn't address fairness. It never addresses fairness.
It is simply "you won't die without less money. Therefore, you must pay more".
It is simply "you won't die without less money. Therefore, you must pay more".
I'm always really surprised how many people don't understand marginal taxation. Also, how tax rates are graduated tax could mean that someone could pay less in taxes in California than in Alabama (for low earners) is completely alien to them.
> Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever, and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%, and income tax was even higher.
Oh yeah. Gay right is also better than ever. Minority right is also better than ever.
Woman actually can get a degree from Harvard now.
Should we all just shut up?
---
You also ignore that salaried employees already pay fair share of tax.
Why don't we tax billionaires more like Dems advertise for years?
Oh yeah. Gay right is also better than ever. Minority right is also better than ever.
Woman actually can get a degree from Harvard now.
Should we all just shut up?
---
You also ignore that salaried employees already pay fair share of tax.
Why don't we tax billionaires more like Dems advertise for years?
What about if we taxed billionaires and millionaires an extra 10% on earnings related to their business assets that aren’t subject to regular income taxes? Would that be fair?
Public safety is mostly funded at local and state levels. Public school is half funded by local government and half funded by the state. TFA is about federal taxes.
There lies the problem in US.
The problem is just passed on "oh it's the state, oh it's the city"
As a taxpayer, I don't give a shit.
Federal and state and city should work together to come up with a holistic solution.
My city/state/country are all democrats. How come they can't work together??
The problem is just passed on "oh it's the state, oh it's the city"
As a taxpayer, I don't give a shit.
Federal and state and city should work together to come up with a holistic solution.
My city/state/country are all democrats. How come they can't work together??
I think you are either misunderstanding the US federalist system or are ignorant of how and why the system works the way it does.
> Meanwhile the billionaires or hundred-millionaires will still be able to find a way to reduce their tax because they have enough capital to hire an army of tax accountants.
> Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
That's an excellent point. The IRS is chronically underfunded and the added funding for it was removed in the latest bill. They can afford to sneak around the tax code because of hired help and loopholes (like taking out loans rather than paying from money you 'own').
I do think focus is much too powerful on 'moderately wealthy' people.
Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-treasury-irs/irs-chie...
I know audits are random, but I really think if you make over a million or something, you should be automatically audited. But then...that would require funding the IRS adequately.
Edit: typo
> Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?
That's an excellent point. The IRS is chronically underfunded and the added funding for it was removed in the latest bill. They can afford to sneak around the tax code because of hired help and loopholes (like taking out loans rather than paying from money you 'own').
I do think focus is much too powerful on 'moderately wealthy' people.
Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-treasury-irs/irs-chie...
I know audits are random, but I really think if you make over a million or something, you should be automatically audited. But then...that would require funding the IRS adequately.
Edit: typo
The IRS has invested a lot in low effort automated audits that catch non-rich people when they try to cheat on their taxes (they are usually not very smart about it), while the rich people who can afford accountants and lawyers make their cases too expensive in manual effort and time to pursue under a cut budget. They just can only audit so many millionaires+ every year, while they can audit almost everyone else with a push of a button.
> Yet public safety is rather low. Public school is bad.
Those sound like complaints for the local government. The federal government doesn’t generally have control over local schools or state/local law enforcement.
I also think you’re grossly over estimating the number of Silicon Valley engineers making >$500k/yr and that it’s a stretch to call it a SV engineer tax.
Those sound like complaints for the local government. The federal government doesn’t generally have control over local schools or state/local law enforcement.
I also think you’re grossly over estimating the number of Silicon Valley engineers making >$500k/yr and that it’s a stretch to call it a SV engineer tax.
> People who make that much and more use more infrastructure
I really don't know how you can say this without defense.
I assume that poor rural americans use the most tax-payer funded resources per capita. Building roads and infrastructure just to service a few people seems most infra usage per person. Those aren't rich working professionals.
Or maybe people in hurricane zones use the most infrastructure. All those dams/levies/bridges through swamp lands of Louisiana. Considering how often the get rebuilt (even if just once a decade).
Surely, over the next 100 years the americans in hot/low lying areas will use most infrastructure thanks to global warming and sea level rise.
I really don't know how you can say this without defense.
I assume that poor rural americans use the most tax-payer funded resources per capita. Building roads and infrastructure just to service a few people seems most infra usage per person. Those aren't rich working professionals.
Or maybe people in hurricane zones use the most infrastructure. All those dams/levies/bridges through swamp lands of Louisiana. Considering how often the get rebuilt (even if just once a decade).
Surely, over the next 100 years the americans in hot/low lying areas will use most infrastructure thanks to global warming and sea level rise.
[deleted]
First: we both know how to use search engines, so your assumption that poor rural Americans use the most...etc could also stand to be backed up with research. But fair point, here's some proof for you:
I don't have access to academic papers, but here's the one they're referencing: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 in this article: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/2118481...
1) The very rich use vastly more energy (much of it in travel, but also in the production of the stuff/properties/vehicles they buy) than the rest of us so that means they rely on the energy infrastructure more. Energy infrastructure uses all the logistics infrastructure (rails, roads, ocean, air, pipelines, etc).
2) Higher energy use means they have a much higher carbon footprint and are more responsible for detriments to poorer people because of climate change. Extremely rich people can afford to escape the effects of climate change and pollution, the poor cannot. So if they're responsible for more, they should be more responsible for cleaning up after themselves. This addresses your hurricane zones and sea level rise areas.
3) They travel more and a lot of public infrastructure goes into that (again: roads, air, FAA, airports...)
4) they buy more luxury goods which, again, get to them on public infrastructure (our ocean ports, roads, rail, planes, etc).
5) You'll notice in that paper mentioned in the vox article that healthcare is also used more by the top 10% than the bottom 10% (45% to 0.5%).
6) They rely more on the communications infrastructure (cell phone networks, the internet)
I could keep going, but I'll just end up repeating the paper.
I think you could argue the very wealthy don't rely much on public safety services because they can afford not to live in areas with higher crime rates and can hire their own private security. Possibly also schools.
I don't have access to academic papers, but here's the one they're referencing: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 in this article: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/2118481...
1) The very rich use vastly more energy (much of it in travel, but also in the production of the stuff/properties/vehicles they buy) than the rest of us so that means they rely on the energy infrastructure more. Energy infrastructure uses all the logistics infrastructure (rails, roads, ocean, air, pipelines, etc).
2) Higher energy use means they have a much higher carbon footprint and are more responsible for detriments to poorer people because of climate change. Extremely rich people can afford to escape the effects of climate change and pollution, the poor cannot. So if they're responsible for more, they should be more responsible for cleaning up after themselves. This addresses your hurricane zones and sea level rise areas.
3) They travel more and a lot of public infrastructure goes into that (again: roads, air, FAA, airports...)
4) they buy more luxury goods which, again, get to them on public infrastructure (our ocean ports, roads, rail, planes, etc).
5) You'll notice in that paper mentioned in the vox article that healthcare is also used more by the top 10% than the bottom 10% (45% to 0.5%).
6) They rely more on the communications infrastructure (cell phone networks, the internet)
I could keep going, but I'll just end up repeating the paper.
I think you could argue the very wealthy don't rely much on public safety services because they can afford not to live in areas with higher crime rates and can hire their own private security. Possibly also schools.
+500k doesn't fall on to the category you mentioned.
They likely don't have many cars.
Many can afford to live close to schools and offices, so they won't use road as much.
They also pay for their own healthcare.
We haven't factored in social cost of raising kids who cause problems to society
I doubt it is that clear cut to compare upper middle class with poor people to see who costs more to the country's infrastructure.
In any case, from everything you mentioned, it seems way way better to tax on luxurious goods.
Buying Mercedes Benz? Tax is 2000%. Good luck. Buying a yatch? Here is 100000% tax. A private jet? Here is 10000000000% tax. A second/vacation home? It's 100000000% tax. An island? Here is a trillion % in tax.
There problem solved. But for some reasons no politicians and thier supporters (Dems or republicans) never ever think of this solution.
They likely don't have many cars.
Many can afford to live close to schools and offices, so they won't use road as much.
They also pay for their own healthcare.
We haven't factored in social cost of raising kids who cause problems to society
I doubt it is that clear cut to compare upper middle class with poor people to see who costs more to the country's infrastructure.
In any case, from everything you mentioned, it seems way way better to tax on luxurious goods.
Buying Mercedes Benz? Tax is 2000%. Good luck. Buying a yatch? Here is 100000% tax. A private jet? Here is 10000000000% tax. A second/vacation home? It's 100000000% tax. An island? Here is a trillion % in tax.
There problem solved. But for some reasons no politicians and thier supporters (Dems or republicans) never ever think of this solution.
[deleted]
If you want to tax consumption, tax consumption not income. Don't go about it by indirect means.
The reality is that the ultra rich consume far less of a percentage of their wealth/income than the average person.
The other reality is that many people just want a means to redistribute wealth and are just concocting arguments to achieve their ulterior motive.
If you are for redistribution just say so. You could then argue about the most effective means of doing so from a greater position of trust.
The reality is that the ultra rich consume far less of a percentage of their wealth/income than the average person.
The other reality is that many people just want a means to redistribute wealth and are just concocting arguments to achieve their ulterior motive.
If you are for redistribution just say so. You could then argue about the most effective means of doing so from a greater position of trust.
It's the externalities of the consumption - the waste left for everyone else to deal with that should be taxed. That tax should occur where the decision to create the waste is made. The responsibility should be on the producer of the product, not at the point of sale.
Additionally, the accumulation of capital should be taxed since it creates leverage that is used to easily make more capital passively (that is redistribution of wealth, which if you are for that then just say so instead of concocting arguments to achieve this ulterior motive). Capital gains tax is one way of approaching that. Even after this increase, the tax is still lower than most peoples working income tax.
Additionally, the accumulation of capital should be taxed since it creates leverage that is used to easily make more capital passively (that is redistribution of wealth, which if you are for that then just say so instead of concocting arguments to achieve this ulterior motive). Capital gains tax is one way of approaching that. Even after this increase, the tax is still lower than most peoples working income tax.
I have no issue with a capital gains tax. Nor do most people. The bigger issue is with just taxing capital.
Also, this focus on capital is too narrow. It hides other forms of power that have captured our system: military, legal, media, etc... These forms of power obscure their power by redirecting attention to just capital.
Lastly, if you are concerned with external effects then tax the external effects directly instead of an indirect thing. So tax pollution rather than production in general.
Also, this focus on capital is too narrow. It hides other forms of power that have captured our system: military, legal, media, etc... These forms of power obscure their power by redirecting attention to just capital.
Lastly, if you are concerned with external effects then tax the external effects directly instead of an indirect thing. So tax pollution rather than production in general.
Thanks for the breakdown and sources.
It would be 28.8% including the NIT for Obamcare. Plus state taxes to 12.3% in California.
Would have been nice to have that in the title, because it seems more fear-mongering than necessary.
People who make that much and more use more infrastructure and benefit more from stock market gains, they should pay an accordingly fair amount of taxes.
See also: https://www.vox.com/22432338/joe-biden-tax-plan