We're doing the tax thing again....

[stroopwafel]

It would take several pages of rambling to unpack all of the nonsense in here, so I'm just gonna pick a couple. I'm not defending any practices here. Stocks getting more valuable isn't a "practice". It's not a thing people are doing. It is a consequence way down stream. Sometimes it's a consequence of what the business is doing. Sometimes it's a consequence of thing completely outside of anyone's control. A literal tornado can upend a person's wealth at any moment. That's not practices, that's consequences. You're not upset at the practices of billionaires, you're upset at the circumstances of them.

I don't care about billionaires but I don't understand how anyone could defend unfair taxation. Why should a working stiff pay a 30 times higher tax rate on his income from work than a billionaire on his fortune in equity? Why should a company be allowed to take on massive loans just to lower it's tax bill? Why do Bezos get to report a mere 9 billion increase on his equity when it's actually 100 billion? Is dodging tax through astronomical loans ''outside of anyone's control'' to you?

Also, "write of domestic profit in countries with the lowest capital gains" is possibly the dumbest phrase I've ever seen in my life. What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

A corporation can set set up a finance company in a tax haven. That company then borrows money to another company owned by the same corporation. The company receiving the loan pays interest to the tax haven company. Profit is moved to the country with lowest tax. Why do you think Ireland is the only country that proposed against a minimum corporate global tax rate at the G7?

Similarly a corporation can dodge tax through leveraged buyouts or financial asset stripping. Similar mechanism of taking on huge amounts of debt with the sole intent of avoiding taxation.

 

[Trunkage]

Ah, yes. The piece that explicitly describes owning things that got more valuable as "tax avoidance" is clearly an honest, educational piece that only seeks to show flaws in the system. They certainly made no effort to demonize anyone.

You've pretty much been saying this whole thread that owning things IS more valuable than tax avoidance

 

[tstorm823]

You've pretty much been saying this whole thread that owning things IS more valuable than tax avoidance

Let me rephrase, I think we got lost in translation: the article refers to people's net worth increasing based on the stock they own gaining value as "tax avoidance". Because Warren Buffet had the smallest amount of income tax paid relative to his increase in net worth, they describe that with (direct quote) "No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett". They aren't basing that claim on him stashing his money on offshore accounts or offsetting taxes with questionable write-offs. That is based entirely on income tax paid divided by increase in assets. You're right, I would say that owning things is worth more than basically any amount of taxes within the current system that are legitimately being avoided. But they're referring to owning things that gained value as tax avoidance, as though the reason these people don't sell off their assets is just to not pay tax on them.

 

[Trunkage]

Let me rephrase, I think we got lost in translation: the article refers to people's net worth increasing based on the stock they own gaining value as "tax avoidance". Because Warren Buffet had the smallest amount of income tax paid relative to his increase in net worth, they describe that with (direct quote) "No one among the 25 wealthiest avoided as much tax as Buffett". They aren't basing that claim on him stashing his money on offshore accounts or offsetting taxes with questionable write-offs. That is based entirely on income tax paid divided by increase in assets. You're right, I would say that owning things is worth more than basically any amount of taxes within the current system that are legitimately being avoided. But they're referring to owning things that gained value as tax avoidance, as though the reason these people don't sell off their assets is just to not pay tax on them.

I agree. I would say that how the rules are set up…. You know, the ones that are set up to make this the most profitable course of action. I.e. set up by the rich for the rich.

Personally, I don’t know if ‘taxing stocks’ or whatever is going to be a viable solution. As much as I say it’s set up by the rich, in this case it might be something that the rich stumbled on and are now exploiting. If you cut the exploit down, they will just find another exploit. Eg. If you do a global corporate tax, they are just going to find a loophole that they can exploit. I.e.More salary sacrificing options that offset the corporate rate or government funding to encourage them to construct in a country. It’s just how capitalism works

 

[stroopwafel]

I agree. I would say that how the rules are set up…. You know, the ones that are set up to make this the most profitable course of action. I.e. set up by the rich for the rich.

Personally, I don’t know if ‘taxing stocks’ or whatever is going to be a viable solution. As much as I say it’s set up by the rich, in this case it might be something that the rich stumbled on and are now exploiting. If you cut the exploit down, they will just find another exploit. Eg. If you do a global corporate tax, they are just going to find a loophole that they can exploit. I.e.More salary sacrificing options that offset the corporate rate or government funding to encourage them to construct in a country. It’s just how capitalism works

I don't think there is reason for such a defeatist attitude. Take for example the fossile fuel industry and how they are investing in renewable energies as climate change turned public opinion against them. I think there is a similar momentum for big corporations dodging taxes. There is a reason why most industrialized countries don't want to be associated anymore as being a tax haven for the rich. The neoliberal ideology of ''shareholder value above everything else'' that began with Reagan, Milton Friedman and the Chicago school is losing popularity as only a select few profit from economic growth at the expense of everyone else including the environment. The socio-economic divide is undermining cohesion and threatening stability in industrialized countries.

The suggested corporate global tax rate is still very low at just 15% but no G7 country would have suggested this even a decade ago. There is definitely a momentum for change.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The fact that a human being can become a billionaire at all, that an individual can reach the point of owning that much wealth in a world where many people, even in developed countries, struggle to afford food, is proof of the absolute moral worthlessness of those people. Anyone whose moral processing was not entirely rotted by capitalism would have long since hit the point of realising that they had enough, and that the ability for them and their descendants to live in unimaginable luxury for generations was sufficient, and that their impossible wealth could be put to better use. There are people who do that, we don't hear about them because they're not billionaires.

The fact that billionaires not only crossed that line, but work tirelessly to protect and preserve the ability of people like them to do so, is proof of an absolute moral failure that we as a society all continue to share every moment we allow billionaires to exist. Owning that much wealth, however you managed it or whatever the reasons, is still a crime against humanity. All it really says is that you lack the most basic hint of human decency that would otherwise compel you to give it away.

 

[Gergar12]

A reminder that US capitalism was forged in the US in the plantations of the South.

American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation. (Published 2019)

Slavery helped turn America into a financial colossus. And our economy is still shaped by management practices invented by enslavers and overseers.

www.nytimes.com

 

[tstorm823]

A reminder that US capitalism was forged in the US in the plantations of the South.

American Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation. (Published 2019)

Slavery helped turn America into a financial colossus. And our economy is still shaped by management practices invented by enslavers and overseers.

www.nytimes.com

Reminding people of propaganda is pretty dumb.

 

[Cheetodust]

Reminding people of propaganda is pretty dumb.

Everything you say is wrong to an almost impressive degree.

 

[Enakeja]

Well, that's the world we live in! It was always like that, and the rich people got their wealth using the poor and the stupid ones. That's something normal, but it's not ok how our government treats us. I mean, why should I pay the same taxes as that damn billionaire? They are the wealthiest people on this damn planet, and they have to be the ones taxed, not a single mom with two kids who don't even know how to live her life! That's why I recommend everyone to make fake check stubs and stop providing factual information to their tax forms. They won't jail us all.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

History doesn't exist until the capitalist system begins apparently.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, that's the world we live in! It was always like that, and the rich people got their wealth using the poor and the stupid ones. That's something normal, but it's not ok how our government treats us.

Not "always", no. The majority of humans have lived in some form of unequal, exploitative, broadly hierarchical social structure for quite a few thousand years. But this is a species that has been around (depending on where you draw the lines between species) for over 2 million years.

 

[Gergar12]

Taxes are interesting to me. Biden knows he can't raise them, but is increasing the budget of the IRS which I do find an interesting move in the bureaucracy on Biden's part. Sadly that means that when Republicans get in office, they will decrease the IRS's funding. And it isn't popular since many Americans who vote like the middle class; hate the IRS, and the upper class without good lawyers ie those that make 200 to 1 million hate them even more since that's the IRS''s target demographic.

If you make 200K to 1 million, I wouldn't be surprised if you vote for the republicans out of spite.

 

[CM156]

Taxes are interesting to me. Biden knows he can't raise them, but is increasing the budget of the IRS which I do find an interesting move in the bureaucracy on Biden's part. Sadly that means that when Republicans get in office, they will decrease the IRS's funding. And it isn't popular since many Americans who vote like the middle class; hate the IRS, and the upper class without good lawyers ie those that make 200 to 1 million hate them even more since that's the IRS''s target demographic.

If you make 200K to 1 million, I wouldn't be surprised if you vote for the republicans out of spite.

If that's true (I haven't been following the news on this topic) then I approve of that.
I know how much people don't like the taxman. But they do an important job that is necessary if a bit ugly.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not "always", no. The majority of humans have lived in some form of unequal, exploitative, broadly hierarchical social structure for quite a few thousand years. But this is a species that has been around (depending on where you draw the lines between species) for over 2 million years.

Living anywhere other than Africa is deeply unnatural.

 

[Agema]

If that's true (I haven't been following the news on this topic) then I approve of that.
I know how much people don't like the taxman. But they do an important job that is necessary if a bit ugly.

In practice, what matters with tax is not what the headline rates are but the amount that is actually taxed. If the tax authorities are defunded so that taxes are not effectively collected, then it amounts to a tax cut. Except perhaps a somewhat shittily arbitrary tax cut based on entities' willingness and ability to cheat the tax system.

 

[Silvanus]

In practice, what matters with tax is not what the headline rates are but the amount that is actually taxed. If the tax authorities are defunded so that taxes are not effectively collected, then it amounts to a tax cut. Except perhaps a somewhat shittily arbitrary tax cut based on entities' willingness and ability to cheat the tax system.

It amounts to a tax cut with plausible deniability, though, which one suspects is half the point. It would piss off the public if the government announced a tax cut for wealthy party donors and connected businessmen. So instead, they merely look the other way as tax authorities do a shoddy job of pursuing high-stakes offshore tax avoidance schemes.