How Tax Breaks Help The Rich

[TheCoinGrabber]

OK, so I don't live in the US but I came upon this on my subs and I really do found it a bit disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vE_LVBx4s

So, how do you justify this? I'm all for free market and letting people reap the rewards of their labor and risk taking but are these exemptions really justifiable?

[1714964568]

1714964568

[1714964568]

1714964568

[Imfinnabeon]

Cant say this surprises me as the people who are in power write the laws and you know they are going to write them to benefit themselves. They really shouldnt but this is what happens when too much power is given to a

small group of people. What is worse is that the average person will eat up whatever propaganda is being fed to them by politicians. I wish we had a true democracy instead of this faux pas one we have currently.

[aleksej996]

USA was always ruled by the rich. That it why they were such big enemies of communism, I mean communism is a stupid idea, but USA were leaders in hostility as their rich got afraid.

I think that most of the world has simple tax laws, I am not sure tho, but the simplest and safest way to tax the population is simply a fixed percentage on any income for everybody. Giving some tax breaks to the poor wouldn't be a bad idea, since they wouldn't contribute much anyway and need the money the most, but taxing them same as the rich is fair as well.

[Mike Christ]

I don't like the mindset of crabs in a bucket.  Taxation wastes money hardcore, and more taxation wastes more money; whatever you're trying to pull off through taxation can be solved much more cheaply and cleanly through the market.  It would be better to lower both taxes and governmental influence (can't have one without the other and expect fiscal health.)  That the rich get tax breaks doesn't change the fact that they pay the most taxes, and also further pay politicians the most bribes to work for the rich, to make the rich richer.  The state is basically a whore for the highest bidder and the highest bidder is typically the wealthiest around.  The state is essentially a big gun that can be pointed at anyone to try to get them to do something.  It was intended to be a big gun to point at our enemies but this was perverted into what it is now.  You are paying for the wealthy to control you.  The logical conclusion is a Soviet Russia or North Korea situation where the wealthy pretend to be the saviors of the proletariat (propaganda which they paid the state to feed to the kids so they'd grow up to accept it--we're seeing this manifest in our latest generation, esp. noticeable in college students who are just begging for it.)  Whatever the rich pay, how much or how little, is ultimately irrelevant; in fact you would want them to pay nothing, and make the poor have to pay for the extreme levels of governmental expense, so that they would get pissed off and dismantle the state apparatus sooner to remove the most unfair advantage the rich get in society.  In the opposite direction, if the rich wind up paying, say, 100% of taxes, then they wind up becoming the state (many already are; I first became aware of this watching the documentary Food Inc., which pointed out that many members of major corporations also serve as members of the federal government, the so-called "revolving door" phenomenon.)  So what's the difference?  Well, the state is the only organization in society with free reign to enforce law, and can do so while also breaking its own laws (simply by exempting itself)--especially problematic when the state has barred guns from society, which gives them no resistance at all.  In other words the rich can do whatever they want without any oversight whatsoever (certainly not God, which they always remove immediately during such "revolutions"--wouldn't want anyone practicing a culture that may go against the new rulers and their vision.)

In short, the state enables to rich to weaponize their wealth against the rest of society, rather than make them do something useful to get more wealth like reinvesting or issuing loans (although some will say loans are evil, but those same people will say they have no money to pursue their dreams--well what do you think loans are for?)  I could not care less about tax breaks for the rich, it's a red herring.

I will disagree with Imfinnabeon; I will argue that the pursuit of democracy is what got us into this position in the first place.  First, you say that the public eats up propaganda willingly (though I don't think politicians are the only party here feeding propaganda, I think the mainstream media is the primary source of propaganda which is in turn owned by the wealthy.)  In the very next sentence you want the public to be able to vote directly for what they want.  Well, what do you think they're going to vote for?--what they were propagandized to vote for.  They'll have some abstract notion of what they want--we all know what we want out of society--but what isn't clear is how those desires are manifested, and that's where the manipulation occurs.  For example, many people are under the impression that by growing the welfare program, people will have a better safety net in life and will be able to worry less about their finances, enabling them to get out of poverty more easily and to soften the blow of hardships.  In reality people wind up becoming addicted to welfare, and fail to develop skills and look for work since hey--they're already getting paid.  This means less money for the rest of society to spend on useful things like entrepreneurship, which would create the jobs that the welfare recipients aren't taking.  This is in a republic--in a more direct democracy, for example, people are inclined to vote for the easy life, without worrying about the fiscal end of the equation, because while everyone can show great concern over themselves, they typically don't express much concern (if any) over society as a whole.

The primary issue with democracy is that it pushes the average voter IQ to the national mean--that is to say, if your national IQ is 100, then your national leadership will be operating on an IQ of 100.  Your nation will act as a whole only as intelligently as the average person.  This is true also for a republic which has an egalitarian (i.e. democratic) voting system--no matter who smart, no matter how dumb, no matter how insane or evil, every single vote has the same exact value, and those people are going to opt for politicians who they like the most, whether or not those politicians are of good moral character or whether they are remotely intelligent.  Because the poor can easily be manipulated to support the rich even against their own benefit, it's obvious that you wouldn't want a democratic system to prevent the chaos involved with the shortcomings of Joe & Jane Schmoe.

You'd want some kind of system which gives greater voting power to the smartest of society (although that may not be enough to stop weaponization of the state against one's own society, but it would at least put some caps on it, like, for example, a real budget due to a lack of a central bank which would mean a lack of inflation.)  Democracy is antithetical to this: for the pursuit of equality in the value of man, we get mediocrity.  This occurs everywhere egalitarianism is pursued, but as pointed out before, the Soviet Union is a great example of where absolute egalitarianism takes you: absolute mediocrity.

With all this said, I don't think the rich are necessarily trying to enslave the poor by the virtue of their being rich--of course, if you get rich through manipulating the state, then you'll want to pursue that more.  Wealth is a great incentive to pushing people into work, and this is true both for the poor and the rich.  When it no longer becomes profitable for the rich to manipulate the state, they will stop.  Demanding the rich to stop without removing their incentive to do so is like demanding a river to stop without removing its source--it doesn't really matter what you want, it's going to happen.

[mrbnson]

Tax breaks were engineered by those in power to help their friends and partners who earn millions already in exchange for donations and such. The USA and other major countries are just as corrupt as other countries in that sense. It's not acceptable but there's nothing that really can be done about it

[merchantofzeny]

Their time will come. Populism is on the rise. Sure that in America is ruled by an oligarch himself but once you let the snake out of the basket, it would be hard to charm it back in. Anti-elitist sentiments are on the rise. If things turn out badly we could have another Reign of Terror.

[huntybunty]

The republicans have been trying to sell their nonsense Trickle Down Economics theory for decades. They have no new ideas in this area. At some point the poor/middle class conservative base will have to realize these policies only benefit the rich, not them.

[TheCoinGrabber]

The republicans have been trying to sell their nonsense Trickle Down Economics theory for decades. They have no new ideas in this area. At some point the poor/middle class conservative base will have to realize these policies only benefit the rich, not them.

It's  not like they allow "their" money to be easily taken.

What do you guys think about a flat tax? You think some of these problems can be solved by eliminating tax brackets?

[Zakhal]

The republicans have been trying to sell their nonsense Trickle Down Economics theory for decades. They have no new ideas in this area. At some point the poor/middle class conservative base will have to realize these policies only benefit the rich, not them.

Trickle down is not a theory even. Its originally a joke. Thats all it ever was and is. I cant understand why they keep bringing it up in politics.

The term trickle-down originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged elite, while being framed as good for the average citizen. In recent history, it has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:

[TheCoinGrabber]

The republicans have been trying to sell their nonsense Trickle Down Economics theory for decades. They have no new ideas in this area. At some point the poor/middle class conservative base will have to realize these policies only benefit the rich, not them.

Trickle down is not a theory even. Its originally a joke. Thats all it ever was and is. I cant understand why they keep bringing it up in politics.

The term trickle-down originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged elite, while being framed as good for the average citizen. In recent history, it has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:

Wow, didn't even have any idea the term was derisive. I actually thought it meant what it refers to, that the benefits of consumption from the top side would "trickle down" to the masses. 

[Sithara007]

Already the super-rich are bearing a disproportional load of taxes. You can't simply punish them for being rich. If someone works hard and becomes successful in his life, that doesn't mean that his life blood must be leached off by the tax authorities. At the same time, the lazy guys can life off the welfare and doesn't have to pay a single penny in tax money.

[Kavallo]

I guess the problem is not just that of the taxing of the rich, but the fact that the rich end up writing the rules which must be valid for all. This is the core problem. The rules of the game should NOT be written by a part of society only, or please stop calling it a democracy.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Already the super-rich are bearing a disproportional load of taxes. You can't simply punish them for being rich. If someone works hard and becomes successful in his life, that doesn't mean that his life blood must be leached off by the tax authorities. At the same time, the lazy guys can life off the welfare and doesn't have to pay a single penny in tax money.

I agree with both your points. People must be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and not live off welfare. Still, the gap on wealth distribution is staggering in many countries, including mine. When I saw this vid about America, I wasn't expecting it to be like that since they seem more engaged in their politics.

Eventually the advantages would accumulate for the descendants of the richer one and they could lobby to keep it that way.

[The_prodigy]

OK, so I don't live in the US but I came upon this on my subs and I really do found it a bit disappointing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vE_LVBx4s

So, how do you justify this? I'm all for free market and letting people reap the rewards of their labor and risk taking but are these exemptions really justifiable?

Tax breaks gelp the rich because one of the reasons taxes are made is because that as hhey are earning a lot they should be the one to get taxed highly rather than the poor who are getting by. THAT way there can be a compromise between the two. Woth tax breaks. The poor is being kept poor and the rich being able to attain their money

[TheCoinGrabber]

Already the super-rich are bearing a disproportional load of taxes. You can't simply punish them for being rich. If someone works hard and becomes successful in his life, that doesn't mean that his life blood must be leached off by the tax authorities. At the same time, the lazy guys can life off the welfare and doesn't have to pay a single penny in tax money.

I agree with both your points. People must be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and not live off welfare. Still, the gap on wealth distribution is staggering in many countries, including mine. When I saw this vid about America, I wasn't expecting it to be like that since they seem more engaged in their politics.

Eventually the advantages would accumulate for the descendants of the richer one and they could lobby to keep it that way.

The super-rich are paying less and less tax (both because most countries have been decreasing the tax-rate for the highest earnest and because it became easier for them to migrate their assets or even residence to different countries (making it easier for them to accumulate more wealth). Nowadays being super-rich less frequently is directly related to the fruits of your own labor, but more on capitalizing on other people's labor using your own capital（investing or speculation)  or network. I don't see this change quickly, given the rise of AI and automatisation.

Therefore they increasingly have the ability to hold many countries hostage (it's better to collect something from them than to see them emigrate), which is why many countries set out to shift the majority of the burden to the higher middle class (the ones actually carrying most of the real tax burden), or put taxes on consumption (these taxes are more difficult to evade).

I think the only sustainable solution is a more centralized approach, but given the current state of international politics...

The tax brackets kept multiplying, lobbied by those who can to reduce their tax rate. What's even more depressing is that it becomes harder for the lower class to get out of the rut since small businesses seem to be targeted with a lot of regulations.

As for consumption tax, yeah we have those in our country and it's unavoidable unless you live in the gray economy. Is there any country that don't have that? Our's are at 12% but food items and other basic goods are exempted from it.

[djangocoin]

It helps to think of the US more like a business than a country.. things start to make sense then: such as being run by a business man, charging loads for healthcare etc.

[xPPx]

Taxes help the rich and punish the lazy. Pick up a book and beat them at their own game. Problem solved...

[erichall]

I don't like the mindset of crabs in a bucket.  Taxation wastes money hardcore, and more taxation wastes more money; whatever you're trying to pull off through taxation can be solved much more cheaply and cleanly through the market.  It would be better to lower both taxes and governmental influence (can't have one without the other and expect fiscal health.)  That the rich get tax breaks doesn't change the fact that they pay the most taxes, and also further pay politicians the most bribes to work for the rich, to make the rich richer.  The state is basically a whore for the highest bidder and the highest bidder is typically the wealthiest around.  The state is essentially a big gun that can be pointed at anyone to try to get them to do something.  It was intended to be a big gun to point at our enemies but this was perverted into what it is now.  You are paying for the wealthy to control you.  The logical conclusion is a Soviet Russia or North Korea situation where the wealthy pretend to be the saviors of the proletariat (propaganda which they paid the state to feed to the kids so they'd grow up to accept it--we're seeing this manifest in our latest generation, esp. noticeable in college students who are just begging for it.)  Whatever the rich pay, how much or how little, is ultimately irrelevant; in fact you would want them to pay nothing, and make the poor have to pay for the extreme levels of governmental expense, so that they would get pissed off and dismantle the state apparatus sooner to remove the most unfair advantage the rich get in society.  In the opposite direction, if the rich wind up paying, say, 100% of taxes, then they wind up becoming the state (many already are; I first became aware of this watching the documentary Food Inc., which pointed out that many members of major corporations also serve as members of the federal government, the so-called "revolving door" phenomenon.)  So what's the difference?  Well, the state is the only organization in society with free reign to enforce law, and can do so while also breaking its own laws (simply by exempting itself)--especially problematic when the state has barred guns from society, which gives them no resistance at all.  In other words the rich can do whatever they want without any oversight whatsoever (certainly not God, which they always remove immediately during such "revolutions"--wouldn't want anyone practicing a culture that may go against the new rulers and their vision.)

In short, the state enables to rich to weaponize their wealth against the rest of society, rather than make them do something useful to get more wealth like reinvesting or issuing loans (although some will say loans are evil, but those same people will say they have no money to pursue their dreams--well what do you think loans are for?)  I could not care less about tax breaks for the rich, it's a red herring.

I will disagree with Imfinnabeon; I will argue that the pursuit of democracy is what got us into this position in the first place.  First, you say that the public eats up propaganda willingly (though I don't think politicians are the only party here feeding propaganda, I think the mainstream media is the primary source of propaganda which is in turn owned by the wealthy.)  In the very next sentence you want the public to be able to vote directly for what they want.  Well, what do you think they're going to vote for?--what they were propagandized to vote for.  They'll have some abstract notion of what they want--we all know what we want out of society--but what isn't clear is how those desires are manifested, and that's where the manipulation occurs.  For example, many people are under the impression that by growing the welfare program, people will have a better safety net in life and will be able to worry less about their finances, enabling them to get out of poverty more easily and to soften the blow of hardships.  In reality people wind up becoming addicted to welfare, and fail to develop skills and look for work since hey--they're already getting paid.  This means less money for the rest of society to spend on useful things like entrepreneurship, which would create the jobs that the welfare recipients aren't taking.  This is in a republic--in a more direct democracy, for example, people are inclined to vote for the easy life, without worrying about the fiscal end of the equation, because while everyone can show great concern over themselves, they typically don't express much concern (if any) over society as a whole.

The primary issue with democracy is that it pushes the average voter IQ to the national mean--that is to say, if your national IQ is 100, then your national leadership will be operating on an IQ of 100.  Your nation will act as a whole only as intelligently as the average person.  This is true also for a republic which has an egalitarian (i.e. democratic) voting system--no matter who smart, no matter how dumb, no matter how insane or evil, every single vote has the same exact value, and those people are going to opt for politicians who they like the most, whether or not those politicians are of good moral character or whether they are remotely intelligent.  Because the poor can easily be manipulated to support the rich even against their own benefit, it's obvious that you wouldn't want a democratic system to prevent the chaos involved with the shortcomings of Joe & Jane Schmoe.

You'd want some kind of system which gives greater voting power to the smartest of society (although that may not be enough to stop weaponization of the state against one's own society, but it would at least put some caps on it, like, for example, a real budget due to a lack of a central bank which would mean a lack of inflation.)  Democracy is antithetical to this: for the pursuit of equality in the value of man, we get mediocrity.  This occurs everywhere egalitarianism is pursued, but as pointed out before, the Soviet Union is a great example of where absolute egalitarianism takes you: absolute mediocrity.

With all this said, I don't think the rich are necessarily trying to enslave the poor by the virtue of their being rich--of course, if you get rich through manipulating the state, then you'll want to pursue that more.  Wealth is a great incentive to pushing people into work, and this is true both for the poor and the rich.  When it no longer becomes profitable for the rich to manipulate the state, they will stop.  Demanding the rich to stop without removing their incentive to do so is like demanding a river to stop without removing its source--it doesn't really matter what you want, it's going to happen.

Well, I was going to write something lengthy, although shorter, but this post pretty much sums it up anyways.

We, as a society, are asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking "is this tax break fair?" or "does this loophole only benefit the rich?" we should be asking "why exactly do we need so much useless and wasteful taxation to begin with? Can't we live in a less authoritarian society?"

[pao_de_lo]

Raising taxes on the rich and on profits is an economically destructive measure

Cultural Marxism: Saul Alinsky

thanks,
Brazil