Do you also give all your information to a random caller that offers you a free cruise? I think you forgot that politicians are legally bribed to behave against the wishes and/or needs of the people.
You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?
I assume when you file your taxes, you refuse all deductions and tax credits that you're eligible for, because obviously the most moral thing is to give as much of your money to the government as possible, right?
Most of us don’t lobby the government to write laws that carve out near-zero tax burdens.
Which, with the growing wealth inequality, explains that why the tax burden on the middle income keeps stable or grows; while services and benefits keep shrinking.
For starters, how about paying at least the capital gains rate?
For large businesses, they’re finding ways to pay less than 20%.
But tabulate all of the
ongoing costs to build and maintain our national infrastructure, legal system (no business without the courts), law enforcement branches, etc.
Deduct the income taxes currently levied on wage earners.
Roughly, the rest of the money needs to come from corporate taxes and capital gains.
That’s not what’s happening though. Instead, it’s quite alright to double tax middle income earners.
If you recall, property tax deductions were capped and so overnight the Republican government found a way to increase the average earners’s budget. Mortgage interest deductions are next.
> For starters, how about paying at least the capital gains rate?
> For large businesses, they’re finding ways to pay less than 20%.
People do pay capital gains tax when they realize capital gains. What makes you think they don't?
Businesses pay corporate income tax which is a different thing altogether. They're already double-taxed (when the company turns a profit, and again when they distribute those profits to shareholders).
> But tabulate all of the ongoing costs to build and maintain our national infrastructure, legal system (no business without the courts), law enforcement branches, etc.
> Deduct the income taxes currently levied on wage earners.
> Roughly, the rest of the money needs to come from corporate taxes and capital gains.
Not true at all. There are excise taxes, import duties, sales and property taxes (these fund local and state governments, which handle a lot of the courts and law enforcement), payroll taxes (paid by the employer, not part of the income tax). There are other options that are not implemented in the US, like VAT, land-value taxes, financial transaction taxes. The government also has other sources of funding like fines, fees, bonds, inflation. There are many things besides capital gains and corporate income taxes.
> If you recall, property tax deductions were capped and so overnight the Republican government found a way to increase the average earners’s budget. Mortgage interest deductions are next.
The average earner doesn't itemize deductions because they won't exceed the standard deduction, which was raised at the same time that the state and local tax deductions were capped. Those deductions were mainly a way to subsidize states that charge high state taxes (which happen to have more high earners) at the expense of states which charge low income taxes (and happen to have lower earners).
Mortgage interest deductions are already capped and again mainly benefit higher earners who can afford large mortgages that would actually have enough interest to make it worthwhile to itemize.
Who are you in real life? You don't sound like someone who works in software programming for a living or understand what poverty is like. Are you an exec? A manager?
The utility of money decreases the more you have (outside of lifestyle inflation). When basic needs of society (like housing) aren't being met, there shouldn't be a cap on what the wealthy pay imo.
The "money" the very wealthy have is not cash sitting in a checking account but usually shares in some corporation. That absolutely has utility if you want to continue having a say in how your company is run. Besides, should the government come around and check for any property that it deems you're not sufficiently utilizing and confiscate it from you? It seems like that policy could be abused.
The government already controls a budget in the trillions of dollars - several orders of magnitude more than any private entity - and so far has not used it to meet basic needs like housing. What is the evidence that giving them additional money will solve the problem? It doesn't cost anything to relax zoning laws and let people build more housing.
> The "money" the very wealthy have is not cash sitting in a checking account but usually shares in some corporation. That absolutely has utility if you want to continue having a say in how your company is run.
So what? That’s the cost of of going public. That the wealthy found a way to abuse it (share classes) means they’ve made the stock market less useful for everyone else.
> Besides, should the government come around and check for any property that it deems you're not sufficiently utilizing and confiscate it from you? It seems like that policy could be abused.
You’re jumping the gun here but…
The government is already involved in property rights. There is no concept of ownership without a government supported legal framework.
A government is expected to be involved with limited resources, and discourage undesirable outcomes while encouraging good ones. My government does this through tax benefits and tax penalties.
I don’t see most people asking for more than this.
> A government is expected to be involved with limited resources, and discourage undesirable outcomes while encouraging good ones. My government does this through tax benefits and tax penalties.
You mean like offering a tax break to incentivize investment in certain areas?
I don't think someone being able to continue owning a portion of a company they created is a undesirable outcome, do you?
The wealthy and the government are generally rather intertwined wouldn't you agree? It's not a matter of budget but of sharing a scarce resource, something the wealthy and powerful, (and so by extension the government) are historically not so inclined to do. Taxation is a means of systematising the sharing of resources.
You're right that moralizing is beyond useless. Instead let's define the bounds of our morality by our tax code. What can go wrong?