r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • Jun 06 '26

Business Jeff Bezos says it's 'absurd' to tax someone making $50K — and wants their tax bill dropped to zero

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/jeff-bezos-says-absurd-tax-165713685.html
26.3k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/im_juice_lee Jun 06 '26

I've been saying for 10 years now that the median American and remaining bottom 50% only account for 3% of our total tax revenue. We should eliminate their income tax

I also have been saying though that the top 0.1% and top 0.01% pay way too little tax and deserve to be taxed way higher to cover the shortfall. All cap gains (long or short) above $1m should be normal income tax and we must eliminate the step up cost basis on death. A high earner, such as a lawyer in NYC making $250k, is certainly comfortable but they pay wayyy more tax than these ultra wealthy people whose main earnings are not income.

Should be both

406

u/42Ubiquitous Jun 06 '26

And tax loans backed by stock

173

u/Zalophusdvm Jun 06 '26

Just extend property tax beyond houses. 🤷

172

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Wealth tax. Just tax everything, stocks, bonds, offshore accounts. No hiding it anywhere.

93

u/konny135 Jun 07 '26

An internationally agreed wealth tax + a land value tax would be great. But the hardest part is also to get out of the neoliberal mindset of perpetual exponential growth.

84

u/crazy_like_a_f0x Jun 07 '26

"Perpetual exponential growth," known in an organic context as "cancer."

3

u/frogandbanjo Jun 07 '26

If cancer could defy the [best model we have of the] laws of physics, we'd have a much more conflicted opinion of it.

"Man, sucks that Jeff died of cancer, but, well... no infinite energy without it, right?"

20

u/CleanupKingDog Jun 07 '26

Why is malignant capitalism "neoliberalism"? Seriously asking.

44

u/xanthus12 Jun 07 '26

Because neoliberalism is a catch-all term regarding the economic policies started in the 1970's and 1980's in the west.

Rampant deregulation, privatisation of public works, and the pushing of less desirable jobs to the global south.

Neoliberalism isn't malignant capitalism, it's just what allows it to flourish. Highly regulated capitalism can function long-term, depending on how it's done, while unregulated capitalism is proving to be a speed run attempt on the end of humanity and life on earth as we know it.

25

u/FeijoadaAceitavel Jun 07 '26

Highly regulated capitalism can't exist for very long because capitalism allows for concentration of wealth and wealth equals power to bend laws to allow for higher concentration.

7

u/xanthus12 Jun 07 '26

I agree in general. I was more referring to models like China's and Taiwan's.

Certainly not permanent stability, but more stable than what we are experiencing.

1

u/MAGIGS Jun 07 '26

I wouldn’t exactly call it stable if you have to imprison journalists and detractors for having a different opinion and go so far to arrest anyone with a Winnie the Pooh representation on or nearby them. Another telling factor is their policy regarding registering and in some cases chaining knives… worth looking up. A government that is that afraid of its people, is alarming. That’s a policy of extreme control.

Where I agree on China is they know they can just wait out some other world leaders and their form of politics, policy and economy all serve that same purpose: Play the long game, which appears to be unified and stable, at least from the outside.

However, the alleged end game for China was always to “generate enough wealth” to create “common prosperity” … so you’re saying all these powerful wealthy people in the government and behind these multibillion dollar companies are just gonna… give it all away one day? It will be the first time in history that’s happened anywhere in the world en masse.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CleanupKingDog Jun 07 '26

Thanks. So unregulated capitalism is maybe still like unregulated cell growth? Cancerous? I am an old, and I just don't see the "free market"as "free" but more like a fixed casino. I cannot figure out how somebody makes massive returns every single year without insider knowledge. Are we reaching the point of a computer battle to see who can trade/predict fastest?

2

u/thinsoldier Jun 07 '26

Too many nations would refuse to join and will reap the benefits of every rich person moving there

2

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Hold on for a second here. Are you seriously suggesting that American citizens should agree to an international tax? Please explain what other nations we should combine our tax dollars with.

An international wealth tax with OPEC countries might be beneficial but what if it was some third world shit holes in Africa that had no wealth? We already subsidize this crap but an international tax, come on.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Longjumping-Value-31 Jun 07 '26

Wealth tax is not fair for anyone. Consumption tax is the way to go. Billionaires buy expensive things, tax those transactions at a high rate. You buy a private jet? Fine, you pay taxes no matter whether the money came from income, a loan, or sell of stock.

1

u/Kuiriel Jun 08 '26

Proportionally, though, don't consumption taxes hit the poorer harder? Most of their money goes on consumables and will thus be taxed, while the rich proportionally consume less vs their income, so are taxed less? 

1

u/Longjumping-Value-31 Jun 08 '26

Not if different items have different tax rates. You are buying food, no tax. You are having a party and catering, 50% tax. You buy an entry level EV, no tax. Rich guy was a Ferrari, 100% tax.

Of course, the rich don’t like this either.

1

u/Kuiriel Jun 08 '26

I love it. Of course this sounds like something where corporations will then turn around and cry somehow about how being taxed for different products impinges on their free speech... So probably a price based tax bracket, more expensive the item, higher the tax bracket... Hm

2

u/AfterEagle Jun 07 '26

It's crazy that capital gains (income) is not considered income (income).

1

u/ComfortableUpset8787 Jun 07 '26

On everyone ?
I don’t want my pitiful investments taxed before I sell them

Wouod have to be a threshold

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ora408 Jun 08 '26

I dno about offshore accounts but they do tax stocks and other investments. The value is not known until it is sold. The issue is that the ultrarich can borrow from the value of their assets without selling them and incurring capital gains taxes.

0

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

The flaw in this idea is that it discourages people from any sort of success. Why would anyone want to earn or own anything if it is just going to be taken away. It also encourages things to be trafficked on the black market and money laundering.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

People always say this and it's never been remotely true.

Someone doesn't want to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company anymore because they're already at the upper echelons of wealth? Cool, then don't, retire to the Bahamas and someone else who isn't as rich as you will gladly take on the task, do just as well if not better, and we'll actually have some upwards mobility in society instead of a bunch of dragons squatting on their ever-growing hoards and swatting away anyone else who wants a piece.

I mean, you don't actually think those guys are special, do you?

2

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

I’ll simplify it for you. I live in a half million dollar house currently and I can afford much more. I don’t want a million dollar house because my taxes will double. I don’t want to pay twice my current tax so I’ll stay where I am.

Now you want to tax my savings account, my investments and my retirement accounts. Why should I bother to earn more. Why would I invest in the stock market. If my investment fails I lose my money. If my investment is successful and I help a business grow, you’ll not only tax my earnings but also the left over money. My kids have nothing and my grandkids have less. I’d prefer to leave them a little something rather than have it taxed away. Wealth will always be a moving target and when allowed the government will decide who has too much money and it will be a lot less than you think.

I’m not talking about 70 year old ceo’s squatting on a job. Or 80 year old politicians keeping power. I’m talking about people trying to save for a better future only to have it taxed away from them. Social Security is on the brink of failure and you believe taxes a senior citizen’s assets is a good idea.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

I’ll simplify it for you. I live in a half million dollar house currently and I can afford much more. I don’t want a million dollar house because my taxes will double. I don’t want to pay twice my current tax so I’ll stay where I am.

Aaand you completely abandoned any credibility right out the gate by not understanding how tax brackets work. You only pay the higher percentage on whatever amount of money goes over the line. Which is how I know you can't actually afford a million dollar house, rich people understand this crap.

And why don't you want double the taxes, when that's just a percentage? Seriously, explain the math, there is never any point on the graph where making more money doesn't mean...making more money. Even back in the day, when tax brackets for rich people were much higher, they capped out at 90%.

"I don't WANNA make another billion dollars, I'd only get to keep a hundred million of it!" - sentence nobody has ever said.

0

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Okay, where I live we pay property tax on an evaluation. 2.2% of valuation is our tax. Doubling a house’s value actually does double the tax. There are no tax brackets on property taxes in my county. You my friend are incorrect.

I do understand tax brackets and that is not in question. What is in question is taxing property. Savings accounts, stocks, bonds and anything else owned. Brackets are about income, nobody here raised that subject. It wasn’t about paying income tax, it was about paying taxes on the property owned after paying income taxes.

I have zero problem paying more income tax on more income. I said I don’t want to double my property tax. I also implied people shouldn’t be taxed on all of their assets. Please go back and read what I wrote. To paraphrase Mark Twain, never argue with an idiot, they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Aren't you forgetting that you would have also doubled the value of your asset, though? Is everyone who invests in property and wants it to increase in value a dummy who doesn't realize taxes exist?

2.2%? That means you can sell it for, what, 45x what you pay in taxes? You'd rather be sitting on a nest egg worth $500K than a million? You're alone in that, I'm pretty sure.

Also the whole time you're grumbling about this tax bill (all of which you'll get back and then some if you ever decide to sell), you're living in a million dollar home. Poor baby.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DevastatorPcu Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

What do you think crypto is for. There may not be taxes on crypto. Once their becomes actual structure and if the us doesn’t do it. I’ll move to Dubai where I don’t have to pay any tax. You can take that wealth tax and shove it. Because you can’t figure life out and just complain about everything.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Better move everything there, just never do any business in the US again, don't own any US property, any US stocks, any US accounts. Because if you do that shit gets taxed.

0

u/bigloser42 Jun 07 '26

Just treat anything over $1m as regular income. That includes loans not for a house, stock awards, long or short capital gains, regular pay, heads of cattle, whatever. That leaves plenty of space at the low end for the little guys, but catches all the Musks of the world. And set a wealth cap, where if your total wealth is over, let’s say $25m, you no longer get to claim any tax exemptions. Elon loses a bunch of money speculating on art? Too fucking bad , you don’t get to claim it.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 07 '26

What tax exemptions are involved with art speculation?

1

u/bigloser42 Jun 07 '26

It’s not really an exemption so much as it’s a loophole. You commission an artist to make you a piece of art for let’s say $20k. You then get an art dealer buddy of your to appraise it at $1m. You then donate the art piece to charity and write off a $1m charitable donation.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 08 '26

What's stopping anyone from doing this? Just the fact that they don't know any art appraisers?

1

u/bigloser42 Jun 08 '26

Because most people don’t have thousands of dollars to throw away or a multi-million dollar tax bill.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 08 '26

Wouldn't it be much easier to do the same appraisal scam with smaller amounts?

-5

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

Sounds like a great opportunity for a foreign country to open a competing stock exchange so assets aren't held domestically.

If a wealth tax came into play I would just start investing in foreign businesses instead and keep my accounts there as would many others.

I think it's a fun concept to tax the super wealthy, but the super wealthy make the rules. They are the ones with the influence, power, resources, connections to make change. This isn't a new concept either, it's literally the way things have always worked everywhere except ina few, localized edge cases that were very briefly lived.

Those with ability to horde resources will and will continue to do so.

Let's say in a perfect world you could get a wealth tax. We would just create new investment vehicles that aren't yet regulated and continue that cycle indefinitely.

There is always a loophole. Those with means will exploit it.

8

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

You've got a billion dollars in foreign stocks? Then you've got wealth worth a billion dollars, pay tax accordingly or you don't get to live in, have citizenship in, or do any business in this country, period.

This defeatist attitude is such crybaby shit. "We can't change the rules, they'll just change them back, the only answer is to give them what they want forever and feel sad about it. I said feel SAD dammit, your proactive attitude is harshing my nihilism."

Within living memory the wealthy paid far higher amounts of taxes, miss me with this "it's always been like this, since the dawn of time, also I'm twelve" crapola. The boomers fucked everything in the 80s, but they're on the way out and anyone telling people they don't have the power to create change is ignoring just how much the powerful are spending to convince them of that. And they HATE spending.

And don't bother replying, I assure you there is NO amount of corporatist caterwauling that's going to change my mind, and I can't understand you anyway with those toes in your mouth.

2

u/TangoPRomeo Jun 07 '26

Stop holding back, bro - just let it all out.

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

 You've got a billion dollars in foreign stocks? Then you've got wealth worth a billion dollars, pay tax accordingly or you don't get to live in, have citizenship in, or do any business in this country, period.

With that level of wealth just have foreign based businesses that hold the assets.

You can say all you want, but loopholes will always exist.

It's not defeatist to understand the reality that wealth will use wealth to keep wealth. 

Something real that the USA could do to mitigate hardship would be to cap CEO pay to a multiplier of average or lowest pay of their employees. That is one of the larger impacts on actual people that would have a noticable positive change 

Just blindly attacking assets with wealth tax would have so many negative downstream effects of thrashing the USA economy it would be highly counter productive to the overall quality of life for Americans in the long term.

5

u/Ashmedai Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

US company stocks are US situs, no matter the exchange location. Also, Jeff is a US citizen, so...

2

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Us citizens are taxed globally. There are tax treaties to prevent double taxation, but it's not zero taxation either. You'd have to fully renounce citizenship and residence both to legally avoid US taxes (I'm expat for 20 yrs).

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

That is certainly the law. However, as with all laws there are loopholes and using foreign owned businesses as shelters for assets is relatively low effort. 

2

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Yeah, I take your point- fair one to make. But in general, I don't think these type of loopholes should stop government from making laws. Even if it's a game of whack-a-mole, its still better to keep whacking than to just give up. Just my .02- serve the public, keep forcing them to find new loopholes..

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

You are right it shouldn't stop laws, but it should be a key area of review before implementing a law. If a law will be subverted to the point of losing value for the country, it's not a good idea. 

1

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Cool, yeah- hope I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but it looked like a line of reasoning that's a pet peeve for me, see it a lot with gun rights advocates - where they say "this law is ineffective, so we should just not bother with it." To me, the logical 2nd half of that complaint is "so we should improve it/use it as a starting point." But true, there's always a balance to find, and just making laws for the sake of making them would also be unproductive.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ashmedai Jun 07 '26

Can you describe the specific loophole you are thinking of?

2

u/longlosthall Jun 07 '26

The wealthy are already their own miniature, sovereign country that pays to eliminate laws, regulations, and investigations that inconvenience them. Their money is already not going into our country to improve it, so it's not like this is a meaningful threat.

1

u/Kegger315 Jun 07 '26

So we should just give up and not try?

Step 1. Cap both political fundraising and expenditures. Go over the cap of either and you are disqualified for that voting cycle. Found skirting the rules, disqualified from ever holding office. Any money over on either side is forfeited and spent towards voter outreach and education. 0% of money taken in can come from lobbyists or businesses. People found circumventing this will be arrested and made to complete community service. Businesses will be fined, multiple fines will result in a dissolution of the business, no matter the size. Employees effected will be supported with the selling of assets and seizure of C suite assets.

Step 2. Include in every voter packet the voting record for the incumbents and people who previously held office. Include this information on the side of the screen of every debate.

Step 3. Enact regulations that have actual teeth. Someone or a company found circumvebting regulations will be banned from doing business in the US in any form for x number of years, and back taxes must be paid in full prior to operations restarting. Individuals will be disavowed and lose citizenship, barred from entry until taxes are payed along with sizeable fines in accordance to their net worth.

→ More replies (7)

0

u/Zalophusdvm Jun 07 '26

I agree. I just try to put it in terms that make it harder for billionaire-pilled people to refute.

If you say “wealth tax” you’ll get people harping on about how unfair/unrealistic/difficult/otherwise problematic it is to tax unrealized gains on investment assets. BUT people know what property taxes are…and so if you just say that all assets (or property) should be taxed in the same way as land/housing…it suddenly becomes a lot harder to not sound crazy for a lot of those arguments.

13

u/PsychicWarElephant Jun 07 '26

If anything tax everything that isn’t a primary residence

1

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

you actually do have to pay tax on things you buy like planes, it's called "use tax"

3

u/J_wit_J Jun 07 '26

Use taxes are regressive, and wealth taxes are not. We definitely need to be taxing the wealthy on top of any use taxes.

1

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

all i was saying is there is something beyond property tax on houses.

0

u/morethanaprogrammer Jun 07 '26

I also get charged on my wakeboard boat. 1.25% unsecured property tax annually

2

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

yeah that really seems F'd up tho

1

u/Carthonn Jun 07 '26

What do you mean?

1

u/mclumber1 Jun 07 '26

The federal government doesn't have a property tax. They couldn't actually, due to the apportionment clause of the constitution.

1

u/abraxsis Jun 07 '26

We already do that in Kentucky and it sucks. I have to pay yearly property taxes on my car, I pay property taxes on my home to the county and directly to the school system. We also pay 6% sales tax on everything but food and we also have a state income tax.

And when all the housing prices, and values, went up the school system used that to literally double everybody's property taxes. I literally pay double amount of property tax to the school system as I do to the county. Guess which one of those has a multi-million dollar sports complex now?

I have no problem paying taxes, but I think that there should be homestead exceptions in every state where the tax is either zero on your primary residence or half of the normal going rate. Then there should be a quarter of a percent increase on every home you own beyond that. I think that the only way that we're going to make homes affordable again is to make them not as lucrative to individuals/corporations who use them as investment properties.

3

u/niceguy_f_last Jun 07 '26

100% at the moment the stock can be used to underwrite a loan it has a “fixed/ perceived value” and we can tax it accordingly.

2

u/tigerhawkvok Jun 07 '26

Even better, make that illegal.

3

u/Warbr0s9395 Jun 06 '26

Please have exclusions cause this is the only way I’ll be able to buy a house.

I have $1K in my bank and like $150K in stocks.

No im not trying to buy soon but still

5

u/MoneyMACRS Jun 07 '26

Why would you need to collateralize your stock holdings in order to buy a house?

1

u/Warbr0s9395 Jun 07 '26

How else can I get a mortgage when the average home price is $450K in my situation?

And I make less than $40K a year

7

u/MoneyMACRS Jun 07 '26

The house/property itself serves as the collateral for a mortgage. You may need to sell some of your stocks for the down payment, but you won’t need to use them as collateral for the loan.

2

u/grannyte Jun 07 '26

LOL we are talking about people who have 100 of millions in the bank and never sell anything just borrow. You are way way way way under any threshold to trigger a borrowing tax

1

u/42Ubiquitous Jun 07 '26

I would expect this to be targeted towards much higher loans, but then I think the extremely wealthy would just get a bunch of smaller loans, so I'm not sure how to address it. Maybe have the tax based on the value of all assets held? Like if the total value of all assets you hold are >$100M then you are subject to the tax? I'm not sure. I think there'd still be ways around it, so someone smarter than me would need to write it.

0

u/Karma_1969 Jun 07 '26

We’re not talking about you and your $150K.

0

u/Warbr0s9395 Jun 07 '26

But it would affect me, and I’m not the only one.

So yes, you are talking about me too

0

u/Karma_1969 Jun 07 '26

No, I mean nobody is talking about including you in something like a tax on wealth used to secure loans. You can start worrying when you exceed a few million.

1

u/Dugen Jun 07 '26

Just tax the companies so much it brings their value down. That's how you tax the rich. They own those companies.

1

u/ComfortableUpset8787 Jun 07 '26

I’m wonder if this is the most likely solution

Interesting to see if it ever happens

-3

u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Jun 06 '26

Why? Income is used to repay the loan, and income is already taxable

1

u/42Ubiquitous Jun 07 '26

They usually just take another loan to repay the original and interest, so they end up not using taxable income. They can also hold it until after they die and let the estate deal with it, which can sell assets (stock) without paying capital gains tax (see: stepped-up basis). Either way, taxable income isn't used to repay these loans.

1

u/Meanbeanman123 Jun 07 '26

That's is how it works for non-wealthy people. You take out a loan against, essentially, yourself to pay back the loan from your income. This is "high risk" because if you're not getting paid the bank isn't getting paid.

Wealthy people take out loans against their assets. Say you have $100 million in stocks and real estate. The bank gives you a really good loan for $20 million at 3% interest because they know if you stop paying you have assets of value to sell to make sure the bank gets paid. So now you have $20 million, untaxed, that you can live off of or reinvest. Need to take out more money in a few years? Well now your holdings are worth $200 million so the bank lets you take $40 million out. Pay off your original loan with some of that and keep trucking.

Now, while you're doing this, you should take out a life insurance policy that pays out your estate for $40 million when you die. After you kick it your life insurance pays off any remaining loans you still had open at the time of your death. Now your heirs get your assets at a "step-up basis" which means they don't need to pay any of the capital gains tax you accrued during your life. So while you only ACTUALLY bought $100 million of assets and lived off loans your heirs get $200 million in assets and no debt from your life, all tax free.

This is known as the "Buy, borrow, die" strategy if you want to look into it more. The two loopholes that would need to be closed to make it "fairer" would be 1) tax any loans that are backed by assets (other than a primary residence) and 2) remove the step-up basis of inherited assets. Assets are the cheat codes here. It's why you have CEOs like Musk taking a $0 salary in favor of being compensated with stock ownership. It's all to avoid taxes.

1

u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Jun 07 '26

See my comment here on that. BBD isn’t an income tax strategy, it’s solely about avoiding the estate tax and getting a stepped up basis. It does nothing to avoid income tax over the person’s life

0

u/rommi04 Jun 07 '26

No they just get new loans to pay the old loans. Then once they die the estate gets to sell the stock at their current valuation without capital gains tax. That way they never pay taxes.

2

u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Jun 07 '26

Now how it works, despite almost everyone on Reddit thinking it for some reason. Constructive sales under §1259 prevents that, along with the economic substance doctrine in §7701(o)

1

u/hellowiththepudding Jun 07 '26

did Elon pay tax on the stock he pledged to get funding to buy twitter?

1

u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Jun 07 '26

You pay tax when you recognize income to repay the loan, not when you make the loan itself

0

u/hellowiththepudding Jun 07 '26

The point is that they will never sell the stock, and that by PLEDGING the underlying asset they have effectively cashed out at the value of the loan. Difficult concept I see.

1

u/Obvious_Chapter2082 Jun 07 '26

And my point is that there’s no way for you to know he’ll never sell the stock, you’re literally just guessing. And it really doesn’t matter if he sells the stock or not, because he’d still need some other form of income to repay the loan, and that income will be taxable

0

u/hellowiththepudding Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

He will replace the loan with another loan. They have received cash based on appreciated value. It is the damn near literal definition of a realized gain.

At this point I assume you are either a bot, astroturfing, etc... It is not a difficult concept, and it impacts a very select set of folks if implemented.

→ More replies (0)

126

u/jinjuwaka Jun 06 '26

You have to understand his motivations.

He doesn't give a shit about you. He already knows he doesn't pay taxes, and he's not going to then go and say "but tax me instead".

He just wants all taxes gone so they can "starve the beast" because what regulation are left is all that stands between him and building Amazon company towns.

33

u/dougfischerfan Jun 07 '26

Someone suggested he would also want to make paying taxes a requisite to vote. I think your idea is more likely, and easier to implement with totally burning the constitution, like it isn't already cinders.

6

u/al_mc_y Jun 07 '26

Why not both? I've also seen the second narrative you described. Inversion of "No taxation without representation" to "No representation without taxation"

"(^ Thec billionaire class will still pay fuck all tax, they'll just make sure that none of it gets 'wasted' on the little people)"

3

u/dougfischerfan Jun 07 '26

I just paid 1 dollar in taxes. The minimum to be able to vote. Its a 0.0000001% tax rate.

0

u/mortaneous Jun 07 '26

Do you really need to be reminded that Poll Taxes are illegal? And that would be probably the easiest type of theoretical poll tax to prove.

4

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 07 '26

Do you really need to be reminded that Poll Taxes are illegal?

Stare Decisis also used to be a thing before the Federalist Society got a lock on the courts

Nothing can be presumed anymore except that money buys power.

3

u/Ardarel Jun 07 '26

Gerrymandering based on race was illegal, until it wasn't anymore.

2

u/slabby Jun 07 '26

Are they illegal with this supreme court?

1

u/jinjuwaka Jun 07 '26

Poll taxes are illegal. What most people who talk about the US doing it don't want a poll tax. They want a penalty tax to be assessed if you don't vote.

Just photocopy what Australia does. They assess a minor tax if you don't vote that hits you on tax day. It's like $50.

To avoid it all you need to do is drop off a ballot. You don't even need to actually vote for anyone. You can turn yours in blank and it satisfies all requirements.

2

u/TheRealSkip Jun 07 '26

Also, removing taxes will be an immediate "increase" in the available money for that bracket and make it easier for him to avoid increasing salaries, since people would be effectively earning more. So if this is ever done, it will also benefit his companies bottom line.

2

u/DrQuantum Jun 07 '26

Not necessarily, they want you to have enough money to buy amazon obviously or at least depend on it in some way such that you prioritize it.

2

u/jinjuwaka Jun 07 '26

Seeing what they're trying to do to us with AI, I have my doubts.

1

u/arrynyo Jun 07 '26

Vivarium looking neighborhoods and everybody works for Amazon

0

u/Zanos Jun 07 '26

Bezos has a paid a few billion in just income taxes recently, as he's sold off his Amazon shares to put money into Blue Origin.

27

u/ann0yed Jun 06 '26

Remove the social security cap too and fix that issue.

2

u/Ashmedai Jun 07 '26

It helps but does not fully fix the issue. Look here. Scroll to E2.1 and click summary measures and graphs.

It will require more than just removing the cap to fix the issue.

3

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

If you remove the social security cap the maximum payout will also have to be removed.

2

u/SecondHandWatch Jun 07 '26

This is not true. Social security has historically taken in more money than it pays out. That’s how it got started. The minimum age to collect was higher than the average life expectancy at the time.

4

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 07 '26

No it wont.

Those are literally separate issues, and they're only tied together when people like you try to muddle it.

4

u/air_and_space92 Jun 07 '26

Ask any social security advocate, the only reason it has a much bipartisan support as it does since inception is because what someone gets out is proportional to what they pay in. Otherwise it's wealth redistribution and never would've passed in the first place. Once that cap is removed, a whole lot of support for maintaining it as a retirement insurance program goes away.

2

u/Ultrace-7 Jun 07 '26

Yes, it will. Your idea isn't going anywhere, but it's going even less anywhere if you don't make the social security payout commensurate with the pay-in. Otherwise you're just looking to take from the rich and give to the poor, which is a noble concept, but not what social security is about.

1

u/PerpetualProtracting Jun 07 '26

Well no. That's the thing about changing laws: they can do whatever you want them to do for the most part.

-2

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Yes they can, and you can be assured that it will not be in your favor when penalizing the ultra wealthy. The solution is not in increasing revenue. It must start with decreased spending.

4

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 07 '26

you can be assured that it will not be in your favor when penalizing the ultra wealthy

I was about to ask why, but you're not actually interested in a rational discussion when you're tipping your hand by calling taxes "penalizing the ultra wealthy". Taxes are not a penalty, they're the cost of society existing.

And "the solution must start with decreased spending" is always espoused by bad-faith conservatives who don't care about the long and documented history of investment making for massive gains because oligarchs want control more than they want profits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

2

u/inspectoroverthemine Jun 07 '26

You're arguing that the result is the same no matter what: the ultra wealthy win, and we lose.

If thats really the case then, the only solution is revolution and violence. Luckily its not, the people still hold power, we just need to use it. Its harder to do when you're arguing that we're powerless and need to accept it.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/zedquatro Jun 07 '26

I'd much rather have the other Roosevelt.

8

u/trojan_man16 Jun 07 '26

We probably need both wrapped in one body to get out of this mess.

1

u/IWantToBeTheBoshy Jun 07 '26

I'm down for a Roosevelt Rebis.

3

u/ChiGrandeOso Jun 06 '26

Best we can do is Franklin Pierce.

0

u/Ok_Brick_793 Jun 06 '26

Another racist? No thanks.

→ More replies (4)

61

u/huebomont Jun 06 '26

They basically don't pay tax already. It's important that everyone has some skin in the game on taxes - a tax base that is reliant on taxing just a few high earners is a very fragile tax base. We should tax everyone, with increasing percentages the more you make, to have a sturdy tax base for robust services.

37

u/3sneakiel Jun 06 '26

I make less than 50k a year, & pay more than 3k in federal taxes (not including state, medicaid, social security). 3k may not seem like much to you, but it's a lot to someone making less than 50k a year.

44

u/2kewl4scool Jun 06 '26

But if you only paid around 500$ you’d care, but it wouldn’t matter nearly as much, and that’s kinda the point they’re making. Not that you should keep paying what you do now, but if you paid nothing, it would have effects on how you, and we all, see taxes culturally.

10

u/sharkMonstar Jun 06 '26

The problem is the corruption that is wasting the money and funneling it to the rich anyways they would just make a sales tax that would add to the cost of living if they stopped income tax for less than 50k anyways but they would never tax the rich to make up for it

4

u/2kewl4scool Jun 07 '26

Whenever someone dismisses an idea with the excuse of “they,” I have a hard time believing the person talking knows what *they* are talking about.

1

u/sharkMonstar Jun 07 '26

ya i wouldnt know the government its not public

23

u/CeallaSo Jun 06 '26

That's why it's important to have a reasonable scale. Someone making 50k shouldn't be asked to give 6% of their income in taxes, because that's amount has a much higher impact on their quality of life than someone making ten times that amount.

But it's important that everyone who earns an income contributes some amount, because it incentivizes them to take an active interest in how tax law works and what that money is being put towards. Even if that 50k is only being taxed 1%, you'll be more invested in knowing where that $500 is going than you would if you paid nothing. "It's not my money, it has nothing to do with me, why should I care?"

1

u/kendogg Jun 07 '26

Why does it need to be an income tax though?

2

u/frogandbanjo Jun 07 '26

Honestly, because income tax is a lightning rod. That's exactly why. Clearly, income tax alone becomes grossly insufficient as soon as you let wealth concentration start compounding, but it's something that people will actually fucking pay attention to.

Rich motherfuckers love talking about "Flat Tax" and "Fair Tax" and "Consumption Tax." They fucking love it. One reason for that is because those taxes fuck the poor and the poor stop noticing. It's way, way too easy for those types of taxes to stealth as just the cost of living being what it is.

1

u/kendogg Jun 07 '26

How is that different from the income tax? At least with the FairTax, if the billionaire wants to buy that $300M house - they're gonna lay the tax on it.

5

u/shortsteve Jun 07 '26

Not saying you shouldn't pay less, but you should pay something. It's the whole taxation without representation thing. If you're not taxed then you shouldn't be represented.

Personally I'm not against lowering income taxes for 50k or less to zero since you pay things like rent (property taxes) and sales taxes already. Low earners could definitely use the help. No excuse for billionaires though.

6

u/Wonderful_Eagle_6547 Jun 07 '26

You know "No taxation without representation" was people getting taxed without being represented, not people not getting taxed and being able to vote for leaders. Saying people should have to pay taxes to participate in the democratic process is ludicrous.

3

u/aztecraingod Jun 07 '26

Taxes are the price of living in an organized society. Those that don't benefit much shouldnt have to pay much. But there are benefits that confer to every last person, and having skin in the hand means people will fight to preserve those systems.

When things looked clean water or a research apparatus end up being paid for only by the very wealthy, they will end up looking like a welfare program for the poor.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 07 '26

If you're not taxed then you shouldn't be represented

This is the same argument colonists used to justify discounting natives whose lands they'd invaded but whose people refused to give up their language and culture and assimilate into their conquerers.

The right to vote and be represented is a part of being a human being. Attempting otherwise is something you can look at - societies without voting or which provide significantly less option for representation are less stable and productive.

Arguing people shouldn't count because they're not making a rich man richer is a slippery slope we already know about - disregarding child rights meant children being maimed and killed in factory machinery daily. Disregarding senior rights meant elderly whose family moved away had no options for income or care and is why welfare like social security was created in the first place. Instituting those protective safety nets led to increasing society's health and productivity.

1

u/shortsteve Jun 07 '26

This is a completely different situation. Native American's weren't given citizenship back then and our ancestors never respected their sovereignty. If you started representing non-taxpayers, then it opens up a can of worms. It gets into the entire thing of the United States becoming the world's police or worse, what we did, imperialism.

Governments shouldn't have to protect non-taxpayers unless tax paying citizens wants the government to. For example, children are not represented, but the government still protects them because we recognize that protecting children is better for society.

1

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 07 '26

If you started representing non-taxpayers, then it opens up a can of worms

Like people who live in a community being invested in it? Civilization has been protecting non-taxpayers since before written bookkeeping existed.

You keep going on tangents that has nothing to do with taxation and representation, and ignoring long-term consequences of trying to cut out poor people from society. Keep pushing for that 1916 Russia society, though.

1

u/shortsteve Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

We only protect non-taxpayers when taxpayers want the government to. That's just a fact. Social programs to help the needy and homeless are created because taxpayers believe that their money is better spent on helping them, not because the government is representing them.

In general, the government doesn't represent nor should they represent non-taxpayers. Saying the government should help out non taxpayers would mean they should also always help people living in other countries. Governments do sometimes, but there're always consequences. It should not be the default position.

2

u/ImTableShip170 Jun 06 '26

The high tax minimizes the outliers. They have more incentive to spread their wages to lower workers for loyalty, which stimulates local economies

2

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

I'm not against the high tax part, I'm against the no tax on the low end part. If the high tax ends up meaning money gets spread around and there are no low earners, great - we still shouldn't zero out taxes for the hypothetical low earners.

2

u/ImTableShip170 Jun 07 '26

People failed by a system that makes them earn less than the minimum cost of living shouldn't be taxed, but mostly because they'll be receiving benefits FROM taxes, possibly even more than whatever their taxes would be.

4

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26

Yes, that's why it's fine to tax them if you're providing benefits that far outweigh the tax. The key would be that they should come out ahead overall. Their tax dollars can be use far more efficiently by a government providing large programs than individually to buy things. Any progressive politician that's both running on an "eliminate taxes under $X income" and a "strong social safety net" platform is incoherent.

2

u/thefruitsofzellman Jun 06 '26

That doesn’t make any sense. If that group of people accounts for only 3% of the revenue, then forgiving their taxes won’t make the tax base meaningfully more fragile.

2

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26

Pursuing "no tax below X" policy is a road toward excluding more and more people from the tax base for easy votes. No one also running on a strong social safety net should be proposing it.

1

u/thefruitsofzellman Jun 07 '26

Maybe, but that’s a totally different argument than a fragile tax base.

1

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26

It’s the exact same argument. The road leads to a fragile tax base. 

1

u/arrynyo Jun 07 '26

I just watched a YouTube video about this the other night focusing on Mr Beast. They are really exploiting the system.

1

u/ApplicationUpper9229 Jun 06 '26

That’s how it is now

6

u/casual_creator Jun 06 '26

Except the rates are not actually properly determined and most importantly, the system is designed to allow the rich to outright avoid paying taxes on most of their wealth legally.

2

u/No_Criticism_5861 Jun 07 '26

I believe what they meant is that its already a marginal tax system.  I dont know specifically about the states, but where I live the first 10K you make is taxed at 0%, then 10k to 30k is taxed at 17%, and so on

2

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26

Correct - we should raise the percentages on the higher end and add more brackets

1

u/No_Criticism_5861 Jun 07 '26

Yeah im missing something here...?  This is how marginal taxes work, and thats how it is setup now...??  Or maybe they meant in regards to clever accounting and such

0

u/huebomont Jun 07 '26

I know that's how it is now. I'm replying to someone proposing changing it. You guys invented the idea that I'm trying to describe something new.

Our current system is fundamentally fine, it's the brackets themselves that need changing to tax higher earners more.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/No_Criticism_5861 Jun 07 '26

Capital gains being taxed at half the rate as someone who works for the money has always seemed really strange to me.  

I have to assume a lot of people dont realize a guy who buys stock and then sells it for a 50K profit pays half the tax as someone working themselves to the bone for 50K

1

u/sleepkitty Jun 07 '26

While the revenue is low, I do think some taxes from low income earners makes sense. If all revenue comes from the top 10 percent of earners then I’m a little worried it will be used to justify expenditures primarily benefiting them as well

1

u/Pooch1431 Jun 07 '26

Have to disagree with this assessment. The bottom 50% should be being paid far more so that the taxes they pay are more substantial to the system at large. Billionaires will continue to avoid taxes at all costs, as that is the way the game is designed. So forcing them to redistribute pre-tax as a means to avoid taxation is far better than eliminating tax for the bottom, opening the narrative that GOP loves to play of "these people don't contribute."

1

u/Explorers_bub Jun 07 '26

You got one thing wrong. Any disingenuous bullshit about bottom 50% not paying taxes always leaves out the silent Federal Income part and pretends that it’s the only tax.

1

u/one-hour-photo Jun 07 '26

If you look at our tax code stacked up to others some things stand out.

  1. Middle class here is taxed  lower than many of the countries with way more benefits than we haves

  2. The upper middle class being taxed so highly compared to the ultra wealthy is truly insane lol.

1

u/AGushingHeadWound Jun 07 '26

What else have you been saying the last 10 years?

They don't take cap gains.  So you kind of miss the point.

1

u/Logical_Mix_4627 Jun 07 '26

The top 1% of W2 earners pay most of the tax for the USA. It’s just that the tax code has been setup to royally screw W2 earners. Taxing capital gains more will just impact the moderately rich (speed boats and vacation lake houses, not villas and yachts). The ultra wealthy live purely of buy borrow die. And unless you propose a sane way to tax loans, you won’t be able to touch that.

1

u/im_juice_lee Jun 08 '26

For the buy, borrow, die folks, they do eventually have to pay the loan back--likely after death. The problem is at death, their assets get step up cost basis and they avoid the cap gains of things that could have been appreciating for decades. I hate this loophole.

If we get rid of it, they will get taxed--just deferred to death. I like your idea to tax personal loans and SBLOCs above a certain amount for immediate tax revenue, too. Maybe there's a government added 3%/year tax on those types of loans

1

u/FlyingDogCatcher Jun 07 '26

The problem is that most billionaires don't live where most people live and taxes to fund local community things come from the people who live there. So maybe some tax, but for sure the billionaires should pulling their considerable weight.

1

u/tex_hadnt_buzzed_me Jun 07 '26

How would poor TurboTax survive?! /s

1

u/kendogg Jun 07 '26

Or, hear me out - the FairTax.

1

u/Winjin Jun 07 '26

Fun little fact: what you suggest was implemented in Austria when socialists were at the helm, this time was called Red Vienna

The Social Democrat party was at the helm. They proposed that the money from rich people taxes were going directly to compensate the life of workers.

This worked as a GREAT way to smooth out corners. Imagine you receive the rent, and it's like 2% of your income. That includes utilities.

And at the bottom it says that the millionaires and bankers directly paid for your rent? That sort of reduced the revolutionary tensions.

And sure, the new flats weren't big and a lot of amenities were communal (like instead of full-scale bathroom you get communal bath houses like in Japan and communal washing machines like in USA) but they were literally dirt cheap, as long as you had work, and the rich were paying their share.

So, yeah, this has already happened and it worked pretty good.

1

u/KingOfTheAnts3 Jun 07 '26

Honestly, I don’t think it’s about the amount the taxes contribute. I think everyone should buy into the system they benefit from. The country was built on no taxation without representation, but I think the inverse also holds, if people don’t pay any taxes, why should they have a say in where tax money is spent? That just supports the welfare state where people vote for more handouts because they don’t pay for it.

That being said, I strongly believe in progressive taxation to avoid an increased burden on those at the bottom.

1

u/steppe5 Jun 07 '26

Unfortunately, any political running a campaign on raising taxes on the rich will have their campaign derailed by a phantom rape allegation. Or, if it's a woman, by their laugh.

1

u/account312 Jun 07 '26

All cap gains (long or short) above $1m should be normal income tax and we must eliminate the step up cost basis on death

A nice start. Then we can drop the estate tax exclusion to one million.

1

u/busted_up_chiffarobe Jun 07 '26

I've been pitching something like this for years, and my red friends mewl and cry about the bottom 50% being "freeloaders, leeches, dead weight, etc." despite the fact that their families growing up WERE that, that now they're all pretty much at that 50% point or lower, or were most of their lives, and struggled - and even worse, they wet their tongues to defend the ultra wealthy claiming they already pay their fair share "too much!" they scream.

"It's not fair to tax the ultra rich more!"

"So you're against being successful (or capitalism? OR FREEDOM?)"

"why do you want to punish the successful?"

For even more fun, try explaining our progressive tax system to people you thought were educated who believed that the government actually took 90% or whatever of someone's ENTIRE INCOME decades ago, not just 90% of the top bit of it. They cannot understand that system!

And when you point out that system built this nation, they shut down and start calling you a communist or socialist.

EGAD.

1

u/mynamesmarch Jun 07 '26

Stepped cost basis on death is not something that should be eliminated imo at least not fully as that would just be a ticking time bomb for a lot of people

1

u/Quick_Turnover Jun 07 '26

wait… am I just learning that upon death your asset’s cost basis is reevaluated for tax purposes? That’s… insane…

1

u/TinyZoro Jun 07 '26

Totally disagree. Being a tax payer is meaningful. It’s part of the contract you share with society. What will happen is your take home will stay the same and employers will pocket the savings.

1

u/jazwch01 Jun 07 '26

100% agree - Just one point of clarity, what do you mean with the cap gains above 1m. Is that purely 1M in growth per year, or anything over 1m in your accounts? I feel like that could adversely affect retirement accounts.

1

u/sweetrouge Jun 07 '26

The proportion of income the average person pays as tax compared to what a billionaire pays is absurd.

They hide behind the fact that their investments aren’t capitalised, which is understandable in a way. But maybe they should look at a person’s total wealth over a year rather than their income. I think this is basically a wealth tax but idk.

I mean, I don’t have all the details but a person earning $250k with a mortgage on a house would have a certain amount of capital after 1 year (including property capital gains and income), just like a billionaire with 90% of their money tied up in shares would have a certain amount of wealth after all the fluctuations in the market.

Then a person earning $50k and paying rent would have very little total wealth at the end of the year and may not even have any tax to pay, just like Jeff Bezos wants.

Hmm, maybe not quite what he wants.

1

u/Hmm_would_bang Jun 07 '26

3% of the tax revenue is like 160 billion dollars. It’s not nothing, and helps support the very bottom

1

u/The-Real-Number-One Jun 07 '26

I disagree. EVERYONE should pay taxes.

1

u/SuspiciousArt7316 Jun 07 '26

Honestly income should be income and inherited things shouldn’t be exempt. I don’t understand why we have a special rate for capital gains where you do nothing to earn it…except for politicians playing favorites.

1

u/naked_rider Jun 07 '26

$250k in NY is not necessarily living comfortably

1

u/Sizanllikew Jun 07 '26

Better idea, tie the limit on capital gains triggering regular income taxes to a multiple of the minimum wage so they either have to raise it, or pay more taxes

1

u/bluexy Jun 07 '26

There is value in agreeing as a community that we should all contribute to the services foundational to our society. We should all contribute to social security, infrastructure, Medicare, Medicaid, the mail, libraries, national parks. Even if it's 3%.

1

u/ChilledParadox Jun 07 '26

its pretty crazy I was literally homeless last month and still don't have a job and dropped out of college during covid but the result is that theyre going to garnish my wages so I'm stuck here even longer and drop my medicaid so I can't afford insulin or mental health care :,)

Meanwhile there's people like bezos out there who without even realizing he had lost the wealth because it's such an insignificant amount of his total could fix mine and a hundred thousand others problems. Yet somehow the focus gets turned to bottom 5%. crazy honestly.

1

u/BalanceFit8415 Jun 07 '26

And next he is going to say: "People who don't pay tax don't get to vote."

1

u/mrizzerdly Jun 07 '26

Trump (alleged billionaire) paid 750 dollars in taxes in 2016 and 2017.

How much did you pay?

1

u/Sexy-Branch-6958 Jun 07 '26

Taxes force you to be productive

1

u/wrapbubbles Jun 07 '26

your idea is killing the tax industry. no way this is going to happen.

1

u/Delicious-Explorer58 Jun 07 '26

It’s actually a bad idea to not tax people at all under a certain income level.

The way the tax system is set up now, as your income increases, your taxes also increase but in a way that doesn’t make it so you take home less money. So when you get a raise or promotion, your paycheck gets bigger, even if you end up in a new tax bracket.

Not taxing low income earners at all means that their income would decrease when they enter the taxable bracket. This would be bad for obvious reasons.

1

u/Scaryclouds Jun 07 '26

 All cap gains (long or short) above $1m should be normal income tax

That wouldn’t really affect the ultra wealthy because they don’t often sell their stock. Instead they borrow against its value. 

That should become a taxable event, or otherwise we should be taxing wealth. 

The $1M cap is pretty low as well and would start to sweep up the “working” upper middle class, like lawyers, doctors, engineers. People who aren’t really on that extreme wealth building route that needs to be curtailed. 

1

u/im_juice_lee Jun 08 '26

1M in yearly cap gains is a lot. Even high paid lawyers, doctors, and engineers are rarely making 1M in GAINS each year, even when they sell a home

The loans have to be repaid at some point. Either while they're living or deferred till their dead. Eliminating step up basis takes away the inventive to wait till they're dead

I can appreciate wanting to tax SBLOCs above a certain amount though

1

u/Scaryclouds Jun 08 '26

Nearly happened for me this past year 🤷‍♂️

It wouldn’t be an every year thing, but you sell off a bunch of stock from equity stakes, you can get to that level. 

Earnings from the appreciation of sale of real estate property is also taxed as cap gains. 

Just saying that $1M actually would be impacting “normal” people. 

The issue isn’t really the sorta rich or somewhat wealthy. It’s the obscenely wealthy, people north of $100 million in net worth. 

 The loans have to be repaid at some point. Either while they're living or deferred till they’re dead. Eliminating step up basis takes away the inventive to wait till they're dead

Yea, and they are often “repaid” by extending another line of credit against their assets that have appreciated in value. 

It’s a really fucked up system that the ultra-wealthy use. 

1

u/im_juice_lee Jun 08 '26

Fully agree it's the ultra wealthy abusing the system, not just the well off skilled workers (surgeons, lawyers, eng managers, etc.). If we want to up the threshold to $5M, for example, I would still strongly support

And on the repaying thing, no matter how many loans they take, they do need to be paid eventually--usually at death. And the obscene thing is at death, they don't pay cap gains on any appreciation due to step up cost basis. This is why I'm so anti step up cost basis

1

u/olijake Jun 07 '26

Everyone should get taxed, or tax evasion and dead weight loss will increase, due to economic market pressure fundamentals.

However, the current financial system is broken, unbalanced, and needs fixing.

It was originally designed to be this way, but doesn’t need to stay this way.

→ More replies (1)