{"items": [{"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1453324923"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767558469552", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767558469552", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The kind I like *is* steeply graduated, because of how the \"give everyone $X\" interacts with the \"tax everyone at $Y\".
Still, if you want to prevent wealth accumulation you need a wealth tax or at least a beefier estate tax. Income taxes are much more limited.", "timestamp": "1453325470"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1453326069"}, {"author": "Bryan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767559362762", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767559362762", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I am slowly switching my favorite tax scheme over to Bill Gates' proposal of a graduated consumption tax and increased estate tax, paired with a minimum income: https://www.gatesnotes.com/.../Why-Inequality-Matters...", "timestamp": "1453326119"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767559367752", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767559367752", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Elliot: That doesn't sound like a response to my comment?", "timestamp": "1453326123"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1453326577"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767561393692", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767561393692", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff, I think I'm with Elliot. Your system doesn't have enough free parameters, if I understand you right. For example:
Suppose we have a sense of how much tax people with incomes of $20k, $200k, and $2million should be paying. As a hypothetical, let's say it's $0 (with no transfer from the government either), 30%, and 50% respectively.
(These hypotheticals are meant to be total, but you could reason with marginal rates too if you want.)
You can't get that with your system.", "timestamp": "1453327963"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767561802872", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767561802872", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Another way of looking at it: For sufficiently large incomes, X is small enough that \"give everyone $X\" is a rounding error. So in that range, your tax system is hardly progressive at all.", "timestamp": "1453328244"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767563180112", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767563180112", "service": "fb", "text": "→ There are two reasons not to set the tax rate at 100%:
* we want people to be able to spend money on themselves for things they need
* we don't want to lower the incentive to work too much
Why should we tax someone earning $1M at a lower rate than someone earning $10M? Both are well past what they need, so it's just a matter of keeping up incentives to work. (Declining marginal value of money means you'd actually want a decreasing tax rate to handle incentives, but that seems too weird.)
So this is where you get the two parts: give people $X so they have what they need, and tax people at Y% which is as high as you can without hurting incentives too much.
(You can lower Y% some if you don't actually need that much money for the government.)", "timestamp": "1453329331"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767557601292&reply_comment_id=767566189082", "anchor": "fb-767557601292_767566189082", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh, interesting. I was coming at this with the assumption that you were just trying to simplify things, and I didn't think giving up progressive taxation (at the higher income ranges) was worth the gain in simplicity.
Now I see that getting rid of progressivity is a desired feature of your plan. I guess I haven't thought about this much. I'm open to being convinced, but by default I'm inclined to go with what seems to be the common understanding that taxing someone earning $10M at a higher rate than someone earning $1M doesn't mess up incentives. I'm sure there's lots of research!
I think there's probably a lot of complexity you're not considering about incentives. One argument I've heard is that many purchases at very high income levels are actually positional goods, so all that matters for peoples' incentives with respect to their ability to purchase those goods is their ranking relative to others (relative yacht size vs. absolute yacht size, etc.).", "timestamp": "1453331033"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559597292", "anchor": "fb-767559597292", "service": "fb", "text": "I disagree. Our tax brackets are simple. Our tax *write-offs* are complicated. And enormous. Yuuuugggggeeeee. I estimate that 50% of tax expenditures are some type of subsidy (\"deduction\"). And, of course, 90% of that goes to 10% of us.", "timestamp": "1453326418"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1453326680"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559597292&reply_comment_id=767559901682", "anchor": "fb-767559597292_767559901682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Bil: I'm not sure we actually disagree? I'm pointing out a place where Sanders is decreasing taxes on people he should be increasing them on.", "timestamp": "1453326715"}, {"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559597292&reply_comment_id=767562087302", "anchor": "fb-767559597292_767562087302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That works. My point is that official rates and actual payments are completely different.", "timestamp": "1453328558"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559597292&reply_comment_id=767562571332", "anchor": "fb-767559597292_767562571332", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I agree with Bil in that Jeff's affine tax system seems like a reaction against complexity. But tax brackets are pretty simple. The complexity is elsewhere in the system.", "timestamp": "1453328869"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559941602", "anchor": "fb-767559941602", "service": "fb", "text": "What, exactly, do you mean by \"give everyone $X and then tax everyone at Y%\"?
I interpret it as \"everyone gets a $X deduction [transferable to spouse?], and a flat Y% (ex various deductions) for everything past that\".", "timestamp": "1453326772"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1453327008"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/767555410682?comment_id=767559941602&reply_comment_id=767568130192", "anchor": "fb-767559941602_767568130192", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I believe that this is a better idea than my interpretation.", "timestamp": "1453332583"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1453335880862", "service": "gp", "text": "You didn't quote the part where the Sanders campaign uses the word \"households\" twice. I'd assume their intent is to tax households at those rates or higher regardless of MFS/MFJ. The easiest way to enforce that is to set punitive MFS brackets at 50% of the MFJ brackets, as has been the norm since at least 1986. There would be an incentive for high earners not to be married to each other, as there is today, but there wouldn't be a trivial filing status loophole.\n
\n
\nIf you disagree, you could check whether your interpretation raises the claimed $110B.", "timestamp": 1453335880}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1453388917012", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n\u00a0Huh, I had interpreted \"households\" as basically meaning \"entities filing tax forms\". \u00a0If A and B are married but separated and living in different places, and file as married-filing-separated, that's not two households? \u00a0Or are you saying that the way \"households\" is used here it counts a married couple as a single household even if they file separately and live apart?", "timestamp": 1453388917}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1453408640948", "service": "gp", "text": "My interpretation is that A and B are one household, yes. \u00a0I don't think there's any definitive authority to consult other than the Sanders campaign, but here's some supporting evidence for my usage:\n
\n
\nUnder current rules as described in IRS Pub 501, a married couple must file as either MFJ or MFS, with the exception that if they live separately, any members of the couple who have dependent children may file as Head of Household. \u00a0This suggests to me that there's one \"household\" with no unitary \"head\" until there's a divorce, or the stringent \"considered unmarried\" test is met.\n
\n
\nIf you agree it's at least ambiguous, which of the following is more likely? \u00a0(1) Sanders is proposing the change you describe, with all the tax-cutting consequences you point out. \u00a0(2) Sanders is proposing the change I describe, and his staffers didn't feel the need to spell out tax implementation details in a blurb about healthcare.", "timestamp": 1453408640}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1453412365024", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n\u00a0Added an update.", "timestamp": 1453412365}]}