The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Yeah, might need a bit of subtly on it. Western oligarchs certainly exist. But then I guess so do/did regular Russian billionaires.

[Duque de Bragança]

Not to mention the word plutocrat is often what is meant by oligarch albeit I can see some overlapping between both concepts.

[Tamas]

Yeah, might need a bit of subtly on it. Western oligarchs certainly exist. But then I guess so do/did regular Russian billionaires.

I would like to believe that the American media are not significantly worse than the Russian one in uncovering and reporting on graft or just over the counter deals between the state and private actors, in which case the oliga3chism of Russian oligarchs is order of magnitudes worse than I have ever heard from the US.

They really are what in history books you read as "the new king to solidify his reign raised up a new class of aristocrats"

[Admiral Yi]

Western oligarchs certainly exist.

Another word who's meaning is expanded until it's meaningless.

[Syt]

I know wealth increase != income because much of it will come through the value appreciation of assets, but the average taxpaying joe looking at this will still feel mighty miffed:



(Just how companies like e.g. Rockstar in the UK avoid paying taxes. Rockstar, as a reminder, are the plucky, struggling indie developers of beloved niche series "Grand Theft Auto")

Not to mention that taxation on income from capital in many countries will be taxed less than income from labor.

[Admiral Yi]

We've been through this before.  Unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.

People are free to argue in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains, although I think most home owners wouldn't be that jacked with their new tax bill, but it's not that honest to call this calculation the "true tax rate."

[crazy canuck]

Yep, we have been through this before, and Yi again misses the point - extreme and rapidly increasing disparity of wealth combined with diminishing social mobility = bad.

[grumbler]

Yep, we have been through this before, and CC again misses the point - while extreme and rapidly increasing disparity of wealth combined with diminishing social mobility = bad, the arguments and evidence he is supporting are unrelated to that issue.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, do tell Grumbler, what evidence is there that wealth inequality is not increasing.  What evidence do you have that the pain staking analysis conducted by academics who have studied this is in fact wrong.

[DGuller]

We've been through this before.  Unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.

People are free to argue in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains, although I think most home owners wouldn't be that jacked with their new tax bill, but it's not that honest to call this calculation the "true tax rate."

Agreed.  Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't see the benefit of making arguments for a good cause that can be instantly debunked. 

Not taxing unrealized capital gains is a defensible policy choice, not a loophole.  I also wonder if people creating that exhibit would argue for massive tax rebates in 2008, when assets depreciated rather than inflated in value.

[Josquius]

That there should be taxation on people who gain a billion but keep it in stocks does not necessarily mean there should be taxation on people whose house gains 5k in a year.
This is a obvious strawman.
It's like arguing against taxing high salaries because some people are struggling to get by on part time minimum wage work.

[crazy canuck]

We've been through this before.  Unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.

People are free to argue in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains, although I think most home owners wouldn't be that jacked with their new tax bill, but it's not that honest to call this calculation the "true tax rate."

Agreed.  Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't see the benefit of making arguments for a good cause that can be instantly debunked. 

Not taxing unrealized capital gains is a defensible policy choice, not a loophole.  I also wonder if people creating that exhibit would argue for massive tax rebates in 2008, when assets depreciated rather than inflated in value.

If you really are wondering that. By the way I doubt it you're more intelligent than that. Then you're missing the point badly.

[The Larch]

Just for a nice friday laugh. 

[Admiral Yi]

That there should be taxation on people who gain a billion but keep it in stocks does not necessarily mean there should be taxation on people whose house gains 5k in a year.
This is a obvious strawman.
It's like arguing against taxing high salaries because some people are struggling to get by on part time minimum wage work. [/float]

It's an obvious straw man to the idea that only the very wealthy should be taxed on unrealized capital gains.  It's not a straw man at all to the concept of True Tax Rate(c).  Anyone who has untaxed capital gains (i.e. you) is paying less than the True Tax Rate.

[Josquius]

That there should be taxation on people who gain a billion but keep it in stocks does not necessarily mean there should be taxation on people whose house gains 5k in a year.
This is a obvious strawman.
It's like arguing against taxing high salaries because some people are struggling to get by on part time minimum wage work. [/float]

It's an obvious straw man to the idea that only the very wealthy should be taxed on unrealized capital gains.  It's not a straw man at all to the concept of True Tax Rate(c).  Anyone who has untaxed capital gains (i.e. you) is paying less than the True Tax Rate.

Not necessarily.
As said that's not how it works with taxes on wages. Earn below a certain amount and you pay nothing. It steadily ramps up as you earn more which is fair.
I don't think anyone is calling for all capital gains to be taxed into the ground. Only for more rational taxation to be applied, particularly above a certain level.

And yes. If my house were to double in value over night and place me over the threshold at which taxes should be paid then this would be fine. It's about fairness, not screwing people who aren't you.