Elizabeth Warren billionaire tax calculator broken?

[jackstar7]

Our brains are just simply wired to be competitive. It doesn't matter if it's having the most money, getting first place on a spelling bee, first place on a competitive sport, or highest score on a videogame.

There is little you can do in that regard.

Therapy.

 

[blackangst1]

I've seen the ads, but I don't trust them. I just signed up 3 months ago for a Kaiser Permanente Advantage plan and I pay 54 dollars a month, which is their lower tier plan. I still have co pays and over 5k that I might still have to pay out of my pocket. Regular doctor visits are free.

I work for one of largest health insurers in the country, and I can tell you what the ads say are true. Remember there are always caveats. Piucking a health plan is complicated, and you really have to know what kind of coverage you need. Medicare Advantage even moreso. I helped my mom gets this year and what a mess.

 

[blackangst1]

Do you really need Scrooge McDuck or Mr. Krabbs examples.
Some thing we all just know are true.

Thats what I thought.

 

[mect]

First, I never claimed all these people were billionaires. Second, see my comment on post 163.

Then your response was unrelated to the topic at hand. You have proven that people living abroad will renounce their citizenship to make their lives more convenient as a result of tax policy. This is hardly applicable to billionaires living in America uprooting, moving, and then renouncing their citizenship.

 

[blackangst1]

There is little you can do to curb human competitiveness. However, you can prevent runaway winners, which is what Warren is proposing we do. The way our economy is set up, the more money you make, the easier it becomes to make money. If we just let it happen, this leads to what we are seeing right now with severe wealth inequality.

Are you advocating that the phrase it takes money to make money is dangerous across the board?

 

[mect]

Are you advocating that the phrase it takes money to make money is dangerous across the board?

Not at all. I'm simply observing first of all that the meritocracy that many picture in America is largely an illusion, and also that we can improve both the meritocracy and income inequality by taxing extreme wealth and income and using these funds to provide resources to society at large. This allows people to continue to enjoy the competition, but prevents some of the dangerous outcomes we are currently courting.

 

[blackangst1]

Not at all. I'm simply observing first of all that the meritocracy that many picture in America is largely an illusion, and also that we can improve both the meritocracy and income inequality by taxing extreme wealth and income and using these funds to provide resources to society at large. This allows people to continue to enjoy the competition, but prevents some of the dangerous outcomes we are currently courting.

Oh OK. We can agree to disagree. I much prefer meritocracy as opposed to equality of outcome.

 

[blackangst1]

Then your response was unrelated to the topic at hand. You have proven that people living abroad will renounce their citizenship to make their lives more convenient as a result of tax policy. This is hardly applicable to billionaires living in America uprooting, moving, and then renouncing their citizenship.

The wealthy move from state to state all the time for tax advantages. What makes you think the ultra wealthy wouldnt move out of country and renounce?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh OK. We can agree to disagree. I much prefer meritocracy as opposed to equality of outcome.

He's not saying he doesn't like meritocracy, he's saying we don't have one. I think there's a fairly decent argument that he's right.

 

[hal2kilo]

The wealthy move from state to state all the time for tax advantages. What makes you think the ultra wealthy wouldnt move out of country and renounce?

I'd say don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[mect]

Charity is tax evasion.

I wouldn't necessarily say tax evasion, but more tax diversion. The wealth use charity to try to sell the idea that its better to let the wealthy have discretion over how they use their power to make society better. People look at the huge numbers and think the wealthy are being extremely charitable, but as was pointed out earlier, people in general really don't understand big numbers. If looked at as a percentage, most of the wealthy are really giving a very small percentage to charity. Additionally, charity is often also used as a means of exerting power and influence.

The NYT had a great opinion article written on this, and linked is a video of an interview with the author also discussing the problem.

 

[mect]

The wealthy move from state to state all the time for tax advantages. What makes you think the ultra wealthy wouldnt move out of country and renounce?

Do you really think its at all similar to move to a different state as opposed to a different country?

 

[blackangst1]

I wouldn't necessarily say tax evasion, but more tax diversion. The wealth use charity to try to sell the idea that its better to let the wealthy have discretion over how they use their power to make society better. People look at the huge numbers and think the wealthy are being extremely charitable, but as was pointed out earlier, people in general really don't understand big numbers. If looked at as a percentage, most of the wealthy are really giving a very small percentage to charity. Additionally, charity is often also used as a means of exerting power and influence.

The NYT had a great opinion article written on this, and linked is a video of an interview with the author also discussing the problem.

You do know many middle class income earners who have enough deductions to file long form also use charity as a tax deduction, right?

 

[mect]

Oh OK. We can agree to disagree. I much prefer meritocracy as opposed to equality of outcome.

I also prefer meritocracy. When the greatest predictor of your financial success is the level of resources you have access to, you probably aren't living in a meritocracy. Here's a great video on the subject, the part starting at 7:42 is particularly relevant.

 

[mect]

You do know many middle class income earners who have enough deductions to file long form also use charity as a tax deduction, right?

You do know those aren't the people I'm talking about, right?

 

[fskimospy]

The wealthy move from state to state all the time for tax advantages. What makes you think the ultra wealthy wouldnt move out of country and renounce?

While mect is right that changing countries and citizenship is VASTLY more difficult than moving states, generally speaking research has found that taxes targeting the wealthy have led to relatively little displacement between states. So sure, taxes cause some people to move, but not that many.

Do Taxes Really Cause the Rich to Move?

A new study finds that the wealthiest Americans are less mobile than lower income workers, but those who do relocate are looking for a tax cut.

www.citylab.com

A lot of it makes sense too - if you're some big finance guy you very likely have to live in and around New York. You can't move to another city easily because there aren't any equivalent financial capitals in the US. For this reason many times the rich are less mobile than the not-so-rich. After all you can be a receptionist anywhere.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's not saying he doesn't like meritocracy, he's saying we don't have one. I think there's a fairly decent argument that he's right.

Witness our President.

 

[blackangst1]

Do you really think its at all similar to move to a different state as opposed to a different country?

If the motivation is the same, sure.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I honestly can't tell where you're going with on this topic but my original point still stands - Medicare has never - and will never be free. You pay for it in every paycheck. The government pays the private insurance, based on the taxes. The fact that there is a man-in-the-middle that collects the tax doesn't take away the fact that YOU paid for it. Not the government. YOU.

It isn't free. It isn't $0 premium. Your inability to see indirect capital flow is just mind-boggling.

The fact is that you have a MONETARY STAKE in these programs. Once you have a monetary stake - the concept that it can be compared to outside private insurance is null and void... because...wait for it..... You have a stake in the government program.

Medicare tax rate is 2.9% split between employer and employee. With median family income of $63,179 assuming steady income for 40 years (for calculation simplicity) this number equates to $63,179 * 0.029 * 40 = $73,287,64 in lifetime contributions. Average life expectancy post retirement is about 15 years which equates to $4,885 in yearly premiums for two seniors post retirement. Even if you include Medicare premiums that retirees pay for Medicare the total still comes down to around $10,000 per year for family of two. Good luck finding private insurance willing to cover two seniors in their 70's for $10,000 a year.

 

[blackangst1]

While mect is right that changing countries and citizenship is VASTLY more difficult than moving states, generally speaking research has found that taxes targeting the wealthy have led to relatively little displacement between states. So sure, taxes cause some people to move, but not that many.

Of course its vastly different. But for those with the means, you have people to do the hard work for you. I know Warren's plan for example is no where near as extreme as what France did (where they lost dozens of thousands of millionaires per yer year for a few years before redacting it) but since we like to use EU as examples for many things (like healthcare) why not use their example of wealth taxes? Most have dropped theirs. Its just not a good idea.

 

[blackangst1]

Medicare tax rate is 2.9% split between employer and employee. With median family income of $63,179 assuming steady income for 40 years (for calculation simplicity) this number equates to $63,179 * 0.029 * 40 = $73,287,64 in lifetime contributions. Average life expectancy post retirement is about 15 years which equates to $4,885 in yearly premiums for two seniors post retirement. Even if you include Medicare premiums that retirees pay for Medicare the total still comes down to around $10,000 per year for family of two. Good luck finding private insurance willing to cover two seniors in their 70's for $10,000 a year.

Just FYI Medicare part B premiums for 2019 are $1600/year

edit: based on income: https://www.medicare.gov/pubs/pdf/11579-medicare-costs.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

Of course its vastly different. But for those with the means, you have people to do the hard work for you.

I didn't say different, I said more difficult. In many cases it's not a question of 'putting in the work', it's that you can't get your wealth out in a short period of time without incurring significant losses. For example if you're the Waltons I suspect a lot of your wealth is in Wal-Mart stock. You can't just liquidate it, you'd flood the market and tank its value.

I know Warren's plan for example is no where near as extreme as what France did (where they lost dozens of thousands of millionaires per yer year for a few years before redacting it) but since we like to use EU as examples for many things (like healthcare) why not use their example of wealth taxes? Most have dropped theirs. Its just not a good idea.

I think this argument would have more merit if her plan was to implement a France style wealth tax but it's not, and it's specifically designed to address the deficiencies in ones like it.When France lost millionaires it lost them to other EU nations, and of course the free flow of capital across borders is one of the signature purposes of the EU. There is no such free movement of capital between the US and other countries. It's more akin to if New York implemented a wealth tax you could avoid by moving to New Jersey.

I'm not sold on a wealth tax as being the answer but I'm also not willing to discount it. Alternatively we could just ramp up capital gains for those making over $X per year, jack inheritance taxes way up, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

I think this twitter thread is a good argument for a wealth tax or something to that effect. Essentially a huge proportion of global capital is in the hands of a very small group of people and when decision making gets that centralized it turns out billionaires are just as stupid as big bureaucratic governments. Spread out the wealth and we get smarter investing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1194340730921205760

 

[fleshconsumed]

I wouldn't necessarily say tax evasion, but more tax diversion. The wealth use charity to try to sell the idea that its better to let the wealthy have discretion over how they use their power to make society better. People look at the huge numbers and think the wealthy are being extremely charitable, but as was pointed out earlier, people in general really don't understand big numbers. If looked at as a percentage, most of the wealthy are really giving a very small percentage to charity. Additionally, charity is often also used as a means of exerting power and influence.

The NYT had a great opinion article written on this, and linked is a video of an interview with the author also discussing the problem.

He was also on Daily Show, worth watching as well:

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Therapy.

Yeah no, this is something we are inherently wired to do whether you realize it or not.

Like I said, everyone has their competition. Some are video game competitions, some are Facebook/Instagram like counts on their posts, and some do it by counting their wealth, and some do it by counting their yearly income.