Tesla's Big F***ing Field

[heironymouspasparagus]

...

Read an interesting thing today that gives a little more perspective to this whole fantasy idea that billionaires should continue to be exempt from paying taxes.


Imagine, it is 80,000 BC.  You are immortal.  The world is still frozen in an ice age.

You decide to save $10,000 EVERY DAY, never spending any of it.

82,021 years later, it is 2021.

You STILL don't have as much money as Elon Musk!!

Tax the billionaires!!

[Red Arrow]

...
Read an interesting thing today that gives a little more perspective to this whole fantasy idea that billionaires should continue to be exempt from paying taxes.
Imagine, it is 80,000 BC.  You are immortal.  The world is still frozen in an ice age.
You decide to save $10,000 EVERY DAY, never spending any of it.
82,021 years later, it is 2021.
You STILL don't have as much money as Elon Musk!!

Tax the billionaires!!

I believe there are very few people who believe billionaires should be exempt from paying taxes.  The real question is how much should they pay.

https://usdebtclock.org
https://www.bing.com/search?q=elon+musk+worth+2021&qs=AS&pq=elon+musk+worth&sk=EP1AS4&sc=8-15&cvid=9A91C3EE243D4A7E8F261BB5F2036FF2&FORM=QBLH&sp=6

If you took all of Elon Musk's net worth it would only amount to about 7% of the US annual income tax revenue.  Would the world be better off without SpaceX and Tesla plus few other companies?  What about Jeff Bezos?  How much of his net worth should the US Government confiscate?

What should the maximum after tax annual income (including investments) be in the USA?  What should the maximum net worth of a USA citizen or person living in the USA be?
Should the US Government confiscate any net worth above some arbitrary level?

Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples' money.  

Edit, add:
Most of these folks' net worth can vary wildly (more than my total net worth) daily due to stock market prices.  They don't have all their $ stashed in a credit union.

[Red Arrow]

...Read an interesting thing today that gives a little more perspective to this whole fantasy idea that billionaires should continue to be exempt from paying taxes.
Imagine, it is 80,000 BC.  You are immortal.  The world is still frozen in an ice age.
You decide to save $10,000 EVERY DAY, never spending any of it.
82,021 years later, it is 2021.
You STILL don't have as much money as Elon Musk!!

You appear to be ignoring the time value of money (mostly inflation) in your example. Even at .015% interest, one year of $10,000/day ($3,650,000 per year) without further savings for 82,021 years would be $803,678,444,579  [(3,650,000 X (1.00015^82021))=803,678,444,579] which is far more than either Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is worth.  I'm sure you had Engineering Economics at TU.

[Red Arrow]

...Read an interesting thing today that gives a little more perspective to this whole fantasy idea that billionaires should continue to be exempt from paying taxes.
Imagine, it is 80,000 BC.  You are immortal.  The world is still frozen in an ice age.
You decide to save $10,000 EVERY DAY, never spending any of it.
82,021 years later, it is 2021.
You STILL don't have as much money as Elon Musk!!

Just some more stuff late into the night....

If someone is worth $200,000,000,000 ($200B) and they decide to spend just 1% of their net worth, that's a $2,000,000,000 ($2B) chunk of change for a maybe worthwhile project. Or, maybe a pet, not so worthwhile project. He/she is certainly not going to provide any jobs to pursue that project so there is certainly no net benefit to society from that project.  Someone with $10,000 savings spending a similar percentage would spend $100, just barely enough for a week's groceries for a small family.  The little guy keeps his/her family fed, maybe.  The big guy just gets richer and nobody else benefits.  SpaceX and Tesla do not employ anyone.  No one benefits from those companies.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I believe there are very few people who believe billionaires should be exempt from paying taxes.  The real question is how much should they pay.

https://usdebtclock.org
https://www.bing.com/search?q=elon+musk+worth+2021&qs=AS&pq=elon+musk+worth&sk=EP1AS4&sc=8-15&cvid=9A91C3EE243D4A7E8F261BB5F2036FF2&FORM=QBLH&sp=6

If you took all of Elon Musk's net worth it would only amount to about 7% of the US annual income tax revenue.  Would the world be better off without SpaceX and Tesla plus few other companies?  What about Jeff Bezos?  How much of his net worth should the US Government confiscate?

What should the maximum after tax annual income (including investments) be in the USA?  What should the maximum net worth of a USA citizen or person living in the USA be?
Should the US Government confiscate any net worth above some arbitrary level?

Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples' money.  

Edit, add:
Most of these folks' net worth can vary wildly (more than my total net worth) daily due to stock market prices.  They don't have all their $ stashed in a credit union.

Well one thing we do know is that if the Bush tax cuts and the Trump tax cuts had not been enacted, we would be paying off national debt instead of making more.  And that wouldn't even go back up to what the rates were when Raygun - the "holy grail" for Republicontins - was in office.

So, just go back to much less than Raygun cut them to.  Problems solved.

But then you couldn't have the "Trillions for Billionaires" program destroying the country.


Nobody said anything about confiscating - just go back to where they only made obscene amounts of money and got to keep it....

[heironymouspasparagus]

You appear to be ignoring the time value of money (mostly inflation) in your example. Even at .015% interest, one year of $10,000/day ($3,650,000 per year) without further savings for 82,021 years would be $803,678,444,579  [(3,650,000 X (1.00015^82021))=803,678,444,579] which is far more than either Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos is worth.  I'm sure you had Engineering Economics at TU.

There was no interest 80,000 years ago....

[Red Arrow]

There was no interest 80,000 years ago....

Not much money either.

[Red Arrow]

Well one thing we do know is that if the Bush tax cuts and the Trump tax cuts had not been enacted, we would be paying off national debt instead of making more.  And that wouldn't even go back up to what the rates were when Raygun - the "holy grail" for Republicontins - was in office.
So, just go back to much less than Raygun cut them to.  Problems solved.
But then you couldn't have the "Trillions for Billionaires" program destroying the country.
Nobody said anything about confiscating - just go back to where they only made obscene amounts of money and got to keep it....

https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

[heironymouspasparagus]

https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

Yep.  Note how when the big tax cuts for the highest, since those are the brackets that makes the most immediate difference, the debt also increased proportionally.

[Red Arrow]

Yep.  Note how when the big tax cuts for the highest, since those are the brackets that makes the most immediate difference, the debt also increased proportionally.

Rates went down but a lot of loopholes were eliminated.  I have an article from the Tulsa World acknowledging that tax revenues actually went up.  The debt came because we were outspending the Soviets with our space defense programs which eventually bankrupted the Soviets.  I'll see if I can find the article in my file cabinet somewhere to get a date of publication.

When the number of people in the highest tax brackets are considered vs. the number of people in the mid tax brackets, I find it highly unlikely that the people in the highest brackets could carry the load of the national debt.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Rates went down but a lot of loopholes were eliminated.  I have an article from the Tulsa World acknowledging that tax revenues actually went up.  The debt came because we were outspending the Soviets with our space defense programs which eventually bankrupted the Soviets.  I'll see if I can find the article in my file cabinet somewhere to get a date of publication.

When the number of people in the highest tax brackets are considered vs. the number of people in the mid tax brackets, I find it highly unlikely that the people in the highest brackets could carry the load of the national debt.

The highest rates got the highest cuts.  Mid brackets didn't see that much difference - below say $200,000 or so.  Maybe $150,000.  Still 90% of the population.  And this is not a single point, it is a continuum going since Reagan.  When the debt was $900 Billion when he took office.  And about $4 Trillion when he left.  And on and on, down through the ages til today.

I have posted the link to the national debt page repeatedly - it shows the entire history since the very first year.

[Red Arrow]

The highest rates got the highest cuts.  Mid brackets didn't see that much difference - below say $200,000 or so.  Maybe $150,000.  Still 90% of the population.  And this is not a single point, it is a continuum going since Reagan.  When the debt was $900 Billion when he took office.  And about $4 Trillion when he left.  And on and on, down through the ages til today.
I have posted the link to the national debt page repeatedly - it shows the entire history since the very first year.

You and I will just have to disagree on how much the rich need to pay.  "You" could take everything the super rich make and it still won't solve the deficit.  I believe a flat rate income tax above a certain amount is the best approach.  Allow, pick a number say $25,000, for a single person as income tax free. Above that everyone pays, again pick a number like 15%.  No deductions, no loopholes......  "You" get to choose how you spend your money.  Defining income is another problem. Unrealized gains should not be taxed as they could be non-realized losses the next year.  As a single person who chose not to have children... I resent but accept allowing additional allowances for children.  Children is an expenditure "you" chose to make.  I also accept not having an income tax penalty for married couples where both work.  With a flat tax that wouldn't really be a problem if the base non-taxable amount were adjusted accordingly.   But... I want an allowance for my airplane.

The national debt is as much political as anything else.  Used to be that the Republicans opposed the deficit but within the last 50(?) years, the deficit depended on which party was in power in Congress and which pet projects were on the line.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You and I will just have to disagree on how much the rich need to pay.  "You" could take everything the super rich make and it still won't solve the deficit.  I believe a flat rate income tax above a certain amount is the best approach.  Allow, pick a number say $25,000, for a single person as income tax free. Above that everyone pays, again pick a number like 15%.  No deductions, no loopholes......  "You" get to choose how you spend your money.  Defining income is another problem. Unrealized gains should not be taxed as they could be non-realized losses the next year.  As a single person who chose not to have children... I resent but accept allowing additional allowances for children.  Children is an expenditure "you" chose to make.  I also accept not having an income tax penalty for married couples where both work.  With a flat tax that wouldn't really be a problem if the base non-taxable amount were adjusted accordingly.   But... I want an allowance for my airplane.

The national debt is as much political as anything else.  Used to be that the Republicans opposed the deficit but within the last 50(?) years, the deficit depended on which party was in power in Congress and which pet projects were on the line.

Just go back to pre-Bush and pre-Trump rates.  Stop squandering our national wealth on unnecessary, unjustified wars, and by now the debt could have been paid off.   Lol... yeah, I know, we can't resist our imperialist voyeurism, so none of that is gonna happen.

[Red Arrow]

Just go back to pre-Bush and pre-Trump rates.  Stop squandering our national wealth on unnecessary, unjustified wars, and by now the debt could have been paid off.   Lol... yeah, I know, we can't resist our imperialist voyeurism, so none of that is gonna happen.

Be careful what you wish for, the end of the Reagan years were 28% max.  Bush I and Clinton raised the top marginal rates.  I think the difference between 35% (Bush II), 37% (Trump) and 38.9% wouldn't make that much difference considering the number of people in those top brackets.

Probably cost Bush I his re-election due to 'read my lips, no new taxes". 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Be careful what you wish for, the end of the Reagan years were 28% max.  Bush I and Clinton raised the top marginal rates.  I think the difference between 35% (Bush II), 37% (Trump) and 38.9% wouldn't make that much difference considering the number of people in those top brackets.

Probably cost Bush I his re-election due to 'read my lips, no new taxes". 

Except for some special people making between about $40,000 and $117,000 - they got a 33% rate.  (I remember hearing about that 'bubble' thing but since I was nowhere near that, so it didn't apply to me.)

Also, showed just how catastrophic Reagan really was for the economy.  The big recession in '83/84 was his.  And all his tax cuts combined raised the debt by almost 300%.  Leaving us at $2.87 Trillion.  He took a cheap shot at Bush with the '86 cuts cause he knew tax hikes would be needed.  He really didn't like Bush very much.  Nor the rest of the country!   Debt was $4.4 Trillion after Bush's final spending spree - not quite doubled!

He also raised taxes in 82 and 84 - the biggest tax hikes ever in peace time.   As well as making sure some people got the chance to pay on Social Security income.  There are lots of adjustments, so it is tricky to plan for.


And now we are going up at over $1 Trillion a year due to Trump and his Minions.   More every year than the cumulative total for over 200 years!