The only individual "loophole" that I've seen that gets me a bit is carried interest, particularly as used by the hedge fund guys. They make an absolute killing and pay very, very little. It's the only one that truly seems unfair on its face.Always easy to give away someone else's money. Whether its taxes or payroll or whatever. If a loophole exists, it exists.
My belief is that there will always be people like this. We cannot allow a small fraction of individuals define how we progress as a civilization.His income is zero so he qualifies for public housing, food stamps, subsidized electric and oil programs, state health program, Obama phone program etc... I know numerous people like him that are taking advantage of the system. I think the more you offer, the more people will game the system.What % of people do we actually expect to abuse the system like that? I don’t think it would be that significant of a number.
I honestly don’t know anyone like your brother. How is he getting all of that for free?
That door has swung the other way, as well. Obama abrogated bondholder's rights in favor of union pensions during the financial crisis (mostly with automakers). Right now we've decided to abrogate landlord's contractual rights and privatize losses for the benefit of the government.We need to stop socializing losses but then privatizing profits.
Thanks for the work. I did read after posting that one estimate had it 3.9t which is close to your figures. Regarding social security, people receive more that 12k per year so would people on ss get less? Think you would phase out UBI for high income households/individuals.This isn't an easy or straightforward question to answer, in part because there is no single UBI proposal. That is, my "proposed UBI plan" is different than fatguy's proposed UBI plan or IvanK's proposed UBI plan or thousands of others.
That said, I don't have all the numbers, but some quick research shows me:
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html
- Social Security is estimated to be $1.15T in fiscal year 2021.
- Other federal welfare programs (not including SS or Medicare) appear to come to $375B, and incude SNAP, TANF, Child Tax Credit, EITC, Housing Assistance, and federal unemployment payments, as well as a few other programs.
- I believe that unemployment and welfare are mainly state-level programs, which makes them harder to track. The second link below shows a figure of $2070 per capita spent on "public welfare" for the entire US in 2017, which would work out to $660B for 330M people.
- That same link also shows a figure of $2619 per capita spent on "all other", some of which might fall under the UBI replacement bucket, but hard to say.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita
Figure the above comes to about $2.2T, give or take. If we do some very rough assumptions on what UBI might cost:
There are some other savings hidden in the tax code that would likely go away with most UBI proposals, likely in the hundreds of billions, but these are harder to calculate quickly.
- Say $1000 per month per adult, at 255M adults = ~$3T
- Say $500 per month per child, at 75M children = ~$450B
- Figure a total of about $3.5T annually
- $3.5T - $2.2B currently spent on "programs that would be replaced" equals about $1.3T in additional funding needed
Again, as noted above, there is no single UBI proposal, so those numbers ($1000/month/adult, $500/month/child) are just some that I've seen thrown around in the past. Obviously, at 330M citizens, changing the numbers can change the total pretty quickly. For example, my numbers above come to about $3.5T, yet switching from $12K per year per adult to $10K or $15K would change the total to ~$3T or $4.25T, respectively.
I’ve come to grips with my brother a long time ago. I’m just presenting a real life example of people’s attitudes and life decisions when presented with either work or not. My concern is this group will grow if given money without strings and we can/should expect a large increase in migration.My belief is that there will always be people like this. We cannot allow a small fraction of individuals define how we progress as a civilization.
My advice? Unless you want to swap places with him because you envy his life, let it go.
Doesn’t every country have it except maybe communist countries?Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality? I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?
I'll check it out.It's a superb blog, BTW - he has great posts on how to pay zero fed taxes on 100k-ish a year (legally). Totally worth reading.
I think we have agreed on that. The problem is the Golden Rule applies.Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality? I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?
You can say FW feels that way instead of some, I don’t mind.I'll check it out.
But, there's an example of what I mean by "loophole". I know it's written as code, it's legal, and I don't begrudge anyone taking advantage of it.
But it shouldn't exist.
And, as an example to what I was getting at before. Assume individual A was able to acquire wealth and now has it setup where this is literally his only income and can make $100K and owe zero taxes. He does no other work and assume no other income. It's perfectly legal.
Some find that "morally" better than a low/no income individual who receives assistance, doesn't work, and doesn't pay taxes because it's legal. I do not.
But do we want to fix it? Now?Doesn’t every country have it except maybe communist countries?Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality? I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?
I honestly wasn't pointing that at you. You are certainly not alone in that opinion. And I'm not saying it's wrong either. It's a valid mindset. I just disagree with it.You can say FW feels that way instead of some, I don’t mind.
The idea of "straightening out" corporate offshoring of profits is something that sounds great on its face, but is wildly difficult to implement.The only individual "loophole" that I've seen that gets me a bit is carried interest, particularly as used by the hedge fund guys. They make an absolute killing and pay very, very little. It's the only one that truly seems unfair on its face.
On the corporate side the practice of hiding income in Ireland is something that needs a bit of straightening out, as well.
Oh, I agree. No doubt it's hiding from the taxman, though.The idea of "straightening out" corporate offshoring of profits is something that sounds great on its face, but is wildly difficult to implement.
On the first this is setup this way generally to allow for a low tax load on retirees. Whether that's good or not is up to the individual.And, as an example to what I was getting at before. Assume individual A was able to acquire wealth and now has it setup where this is literally his only income and can make $100K and owe zero taxes. He does no other work and assume no other income. It's perfectly legal.
Some find that "morally" better than a low/no income individual who receives assistance, doesn't work, and doesn't pay taxes because it's legal. I do not.
I'm a independent distributor. I deal with people of all walks of life, the richer people are some of the most miserable people around. They are usually the hardest to get paid from also. The way the system is, they "earned" that right not to work for their money, it works for them. Nothing you or I can do will faze them. Now the other side - the overwhelming majority who are able to work do not want to be poor, pride does kick in - but I have seen a seismic shift in attitudes that the government owes them since the rise of Bernie. This has increased even more since the feds kicked in the extra unemployment money last year, and extended it this year. Almost every account I have is looking for help, yet people will just sit it out now and wait for the additional unemployment. If you are caught in the middle of the system (probably 99% of the board is) the view will never change, but we are losing more and more by the day.I honestly wasn't pointing that at you. You are certainly not alone in that opinion. And I'm not saying it's wrong either. It's a valid mindset. I just disagree with it.
Plus, we are probably closer in thinking on this than opposite. Just as I hope you aren't confusing my position with being ok with citizens just not working and receiving assistance, I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but still, that you would likely prefer that kind of "loophole" not exist in the first place that allows an individual to make that kind of income tax-free.
It's just on a spectrum of HOW we feel about both of those that moves us further apart even though we likely both have the same position in whether they should are purely wrong or right.
Yeah my brother in law who won't return to work because he's making more off the expanded unemployment is also sure that Covid is a hoax and these people are really dying of something else. I wish I were making this up, I'm not.How about now? Numbers are going down, yet the jobs are are going unfilled.
I have a friend who says he wont go back until the virus is gone. He is big on the shared income stuff as no one skill should be valued higher than another.Yeah my brother in law who won't return to work because he's making more off the expanded unemployment is also sure that Covid is a hoax and these people are really dying of something else. I wish I were making this up, I'm not.
If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?I have a friend who says he wont go back until the virus is gone. He is big on the shared income stuff as no one skill should be valued higher than another.
It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well. You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich. Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).ETA -- And I apologize for even bringing up the Trump example as it wasn't a good one and potentially could have sent this sideways. Thanks to those who didn't go that way with it. It truly wasn't meant as a dig on him or any of his supporters.
No, but you can see his wife here from time to time. Her uncle is HoR Fred Upton and does come back home whenever possible.If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?
It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well. You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich. Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).
Yoga pants thread is back?No, but you can see his wife here from time to time. Her uncle is HoR Fred Upton and does come back home whenever possible.
Do you....not want to be communist?Doesn’t every country have it except maybe communist countries?
This is something that should be understood by everyone before they are allowed to post in the Trump tax thread.....it would save from a lot of misguided posting and ranting.If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?
It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well. You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich. Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).
In general? No. To the extent that it exists in the US now? Yes.Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality? I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?
Generally people shouldn't be criticized for taking legal deductions. However, when you are passing questionable tax policies that help yourself, you should be open to criticism.If I contribute 3mph to a 100mph fastball can I get 3% of Verlander's contract?
It brought up some good discussion of why real estate investing can work so well. You can show lots of paper losses, but still end up rich. Most folks misunderstand that part of DJT's business and the conclusions from all those losses (some are on purpose to lower tax liability - all legal, BTW).
We can just print moreThat ship has sailed a long time ago. Can we afford it?
At some point and maybe not in our lifetime, our deficit will cripple this country.We can just print more
Based on?At some point and maybe not in our lifetime, our deficit will cripple this country.
Based on either inflation or other countries not taking anymore us debt or requesting payment.Based on?
Thanks. Should be pointed out, we don't live under the rules of the gold standard anymore. We are confidence based like it or not. I don't think any of this matters anymore. Or at least doesn't have the influence it once did. If confidence gets shaken, we're done. It's a house of cards....has been for 20+ years.Based on either inflation or other countries not taking anymore us debt or requesting payment.
If inflation shoots up we can absolutely effect ourselves substantially. And inflation, as measured by the 10 year, has started to rise at a pretty good clip.Thanks. Should be pointed out, we don't live under the rules of the gold standard anymore. We are confidence based like it or not. I don't think any of this matters anymore. Or at least doesn't have the influence it once did. If confidence gets shaken, we're done. It's a house of cards....has been for 20+ years.
You mean it's "up" to where it's been off and on over the last 5ish years, yes? With all the QE ( ) and money printing we'll be fine...if not, we'll print more money.If inflation shoots up we can absolutely effect ourselves substantially. And inflation, as measured by the 10 year, has started to rise at a pretty good clip.
Rates skyrocketing today. Nervous yet?You mean it's "up" to where it's been off and on over the last 5ish years, yes? With all the QE ( ) and money printing we'll be fine...if not, we'll print more money.
not at all....we are blindly confident. We'll be fine.Rates skyrocketing today. Nervous yet?
Good post.In general? No. To the extent that it exists in the US now? Yes.
It's not wrong in principle to have people making so much more than others, but what we have in our country now has gone way too far in the other direction. GM's post about the top .1% having the wealth of the bottom 90% is nuts. I am not going to pretend to have the answers to how to fix it, but my first instinct is that we have have to look at the way people accumulate the wealth - so looking harder at capital gains, inheritance, home/property ownership, etc..
Sure - look at the very top of the list. They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.In general? No. To the extent that it exists in the US now? Yes.
It's not wrong in principle to have people making so much more than others, but what we have in our country now has gone way too far in the other direction. GM's post about the top .1% having the wealth of the bottom 90% is nuts. I am not going to pretend to have the answers to how to fix it, but my first instinct is that we have have to look at the way people accumulate the wealth - so looking harder at capital gains, inheritance, home/property ownership, etc..
father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right. I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.That door has swung the other way, as well. Obama abrogated bondholder's rights in favor of union pensions during the financial crisis (mostly with automakers). Right now we've decided to abrogate landlord's contractual rights and privatize losses for the benefit of the government.
Can I agree with this and at the same time think marginal rates on some number, call it $10M/yr or $50M/yr can go up say from 37% to 45%. Also, not sure how much the problem is more the exemptions / tax havens vs rates.Sure - look at the very top of the list. They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.
Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.
Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.
Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.
Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts. While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there. (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)
If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for. You may not get the desired result.
It is and it was blatantly illegal. But it went that way anyway. I'd have been incredibly steamed, as well.father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right. I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.
I don't think taxing income any more is going to do much. Rich people can legally hide income. Capital gains taxes are where the money is and should be graded a bit more on the high end. I don't agree with boosting them to 45%, but if we graded them up to 30% at the top end that may be ok.Can I agree with this and at the same time think marginal rates on some number, call it $10M/yr or $50M/yr can go up say from 37% to 45%. Also, not sure how much the problem is more the exemptions / tax havens vs rates.
Not sure how much that solves but I think there is more balancing there that can be done.
Ford never took the money, and they could have.father in law lost over a 100 grand on GM preferred stock when Obama gave 1st dibs to the union on the bailout, which if not mistaken the first takers of the bailout should have been the preferred stockholders, but you know the deal, beholden to the union so screw what is right. I may be wrong but that is how it went according to my FIL.
He is still fuming as it was union contracts that put GM in the hole although I will say that management gave them the benefits that doomed GM. so everyone was complicate. Will never buy a GM product. You notice Ford didn't go belly up.
Not really sure what that has to do with my post. I get that those companies employ a ton of people, and I am not sure how you got the bolded from my post either.Sure - look at the very top of the list. They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.
Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.
Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.
Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.
Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts. While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there. (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)
If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for. You may not get the desired result.
You wondered how rich people accumulated wealth. I answered and then expounded.Not really sure what that has to do with my post. I get that those companies employ a ton of people, and I am not sure how you got the bolded from my post either.
I guess I don't subscribe to the "tax them a little more, and they won't bother to start any companies" idea either.
I didn't wonder how they did. I said to address the problem, we needed to look at they ways they do accumulate wealth, and right after the bolded listed a couple things.You wondered how rich people accumulated wealth. I answered and then expounded.
I have zero problem with it. They get rich off the backs of all of us. Squeeze them enough and you'll eventually get the result you want (or at least the result I want).Sure - look at the very top of the list. They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.
Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.
Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.
Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.
Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts. While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there. (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)
If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for. You may not get the desired result.
It's interesting that at least 2 of your 3 examples (I'm not sure of Bezos's politics) openly advocate for much higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.Sure - look at the very top of the list. They are the ones that really skew the numbers up.
Bezos - Amazon employs 575,000 people.
Gates - Microsoft employs 165,000 people.
Buffett - Berkshire employs 400,000 people.
Personally I wish we had 10 Microsofts. While we'd have to endure 10 mega rich people we'd have another couple million really good paying jobs out there. (I also have a problem with taxing the snot out of the fruits of their intellectual endeavors - if you squeeze these guys you're essentially confiscating their business creation from them.)
If you want to squeeze the rich, be careful what you ask for. You may not get the desired result.
This becomes a semantics debate. I dont think wealth inequality is a problem. I think lots of things that can lead to wealth inequality can be a problem. But ultimately the income floor is the real problem. If the bottom 90% of earners all received 500% raises tomorrow, but the top 10% got 1000% that would be inequality, but it would be awesome for everybody.Can we all first admit there is a problem with wealth inequality? I mean, is there anyone who believes this isn't a problem to solve?
Are they arguing for a meaningful tax on their existing wealth?It's interesting that at least 2 of your 3 examples (I'm not sure of Bezos's politics) openly advocate for much higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy.