Once you have a certain amount of assets, there's no need to realize any personal income. It becomes completely voluntary. If you have a billion in stock, you could leverage that to pay personal expenses. You could use an unrealized loss over there to balance out the cash you're taking in from a gain over there. You can use companies and foundations to execute any vision you have outside of your household. If you play that game long enough, your descendants will get a cost basis step up. Tax is essentially voluntary when you are that wealthy, where as it is completely mandatory for me. I see absolutely nothing disingenuous about questioning the biggest loophole of them all.
A more meaningful questions is: do you trust governments to provide services fairly and with accountability?
Framing the question in terms of politicians redistributing money sounds like an attempt to use base emotions to reach a foregone conclusion. I would like to think that framing the question in terms of governments providing services encourages people to examine how governments work and what they actually have to offer. In other words: you are welcome to debate the mechanisms of government in providing fair and accountable services. (Of course, it could just be that I am exhibiting a bias in the other direction.)
It's not a service if I can't opt out of paying for it. My money is being redistributed, through the implicit threat of force, to all kinds of things, whether they are good ideas or not. There are no competitors and I can't choose what my taxes are spent on. Politicians do not provide services, they redistribute money.
The only reason "your money" has any value at all is because it can be used to pay taxes. USD is not backed by anything other than the government's "threat of force" to collect taxes.
So in essence, taxes are a service to you, they make your money worth something to other people. Without that, we would be using soda pop bottles (or whatever) instead.
What is the alternative? It seems that now we are trusting the rich to pay their share, which--as a percentage of their wealth--is a rounding error in practice.
I think an alternative would be an economy where most people own some piece of the economic whole. For example through worker cooperatives as Richard Wolff advocates. Then everyone can share in the wealth of a healthy economy.
Why are we using wealth as the metric for what's a "fair share?" In terms of competing with everyone else for purchase of scarce goods and services, income is what matters.
I don’t trust politicians but as David Harvey has said, “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism”.
The ideal way is that wealth is more equitably distributed before it is created. Instead of a system where business owners represent a tiny minority, who then grow very wealthy and are taxed, we could have a system where everyone owns a little piece of the economy. At its simplest this could be realized by a growth of worker cooperatives, though other schemes exist. [1]
So no, we don’t have to trust politicians to redistribute the wealth and we shouldn’t. But we can build a society where billions simply do not accrue to a tiny minority of the population.
Quid pro quo. I have zero issues if individuals want to conduct transactions with their full [individual] legal and financial liability on the line. But if/when one wants the privilege of government recognized legal and financial limited liability in transactions then I have zero issues with those transactions being regulated and taxed.
Me either but I just don’t think a system where people get super wealthy and then politicians tax them is a system that will also be a functioning democracy. Instead the super wealthy game the system. So sure, taxing the rich is fine, but I think we can do better.
> Instead of a system where business owners represent a tiny minority, who then grow very wealthy and are taxed, we could have a system where everyone owns a little piece of the economy.
Like 401k/HSA/DB pension fund investments in index fund ETFs?
Eh, it’s a complex issue but generally that won’t do. When I talk about the workers “owning” a piece of the economy I’m including an important part of most ownership which is executive control. If a group of workers own their business they can also control how the business is used. This leads to more democratic outcomes. And actually “ownership” as shorthand isn’t exactly accurate as Richard Wolff argues that the important part is worker control, but they do not strictly need to own the business - they could sell shares of their business to investors who would get a cut of profits. What is actually important is worker control over the means of production, and sometimes I use “ownership” as a slightly incorrect shorthand.
If your vote is as powerful as you claim, then explain to me how the wealth disparity has increased over time, and that most politicians weren't complicit in that process. Your politician allies are not your allies. Do you think it is difficult to lie to constituents and double-deal, especially when all of your peers are doing the same?
You were asking how to make those spending your money accountable (be it by spending your taxes or saved money through deductions or lower or absent taxes). You were seeking control, and I explained to you how and where you have it.
You implied that democratic control over your taxes was not enough. I wanted to point out you have far less control over how people who don't pay tax and who you don't elect. I am glad you now agree that democratic control is an altogether preferable situation than letting billionaires spend their money undertaxed as they please.
It was literally written because the United States government did not have a standing army and there were no immediate intentions to create one. Every other reason is secondary to that one.
> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Get another loan. If you're rich your assets are growing and so refinancing an existing loan with a larger one gives you more cash to spend and to perform perfunctory maintenance on the loan until it's time for an even bigger loan.
Dying in debt to your trust fund just means the trust fund can write off a large loss before estate taxes.
