We’ve got to be able to have fair, reasonable ways to tax the super wealthy without demonizing them.
The wealthy pay a lot, however, due to how incredibly much they have, and inequality, they still don’t pay their fair share. The goal of taxation is to pay for government in the least harmful way possible, not to liquidate the rich. Fair taxation and reasonable welfare policy is good. Class warfare is evil. A society that taxes in order to end billionaires, or that uses rhetoric that endangers the wealthy, will be a violent and repressive society–either because the masses will turn authoritarian and violent, or because the wealthy will out of fear.
“the president and his political allies flooded the ordinarily sleepy state legislative primaries — where the spending is typically in the tens of thousands and primary votes cast number about 10,000 to 12,000 — with millions of dollars in advertising casting the incumbents as disloyal to Trump and blaming them for voters’ various frustrations, particularly property taxes.
Trump’s approval rating has slipped nationally, and his support among independents has evaporated. But very conservative voters — those who make up his base — are still with him. And they are the voters who decide contests like state Senate primaries in deep-red Indiana.”
Jeff Bezos pays himself an 82k salary even though he is the head of a massive company, Amazon, but he is fabulously wealthy through his stock, which he can use to take out loans tax free. So, he lives a tremendously wealthy lifestyle while paying very little taxes. This is legal. The estate tax is supposed to make up for this, but it is riddled with loopholes.
“Quality of services in many cases declined. It’s clear, for example, that there was a shift in fire protection away from professional fire departments and toward volunteer fire departments in some parts of the state.
It hurt the schools. School finance has continued to, of course, increase in California as it has elsewhere in the US, but California used to be at the top in terms of quality of education in primary and secondary education and in terms of school spending. And now it’s definitely not.
It has hurt the quality of infrastructure — potholes in the roads, response times of first responders. It has shifted the state tax structure onto income taxes, which means that the tax system in California is really swingy — in a boom, a lot of money might flow into the state’s coffers, and in a recession, the state budget really suffers. During the financial crisis, this meant that local governments that could no longer rely on a lot of property tax revenue were especially vulnerable to bankruptcy.
It has also created all kinds of unfairness — new unfairness, rather unlike the old system. Now you might actually pay a lot more tax than somebody else in your neighborhood who has an identical home worth the same amount of money, just because they bought their home earlier than you did. And they might agree that that’s unfair, but they might not vote to change it because it’s an unfairness that allows them to stay in their home.”
Trump’s tariffs haven’t much limited goods coming from China to the US because China just ships them through third-party countries. The administration talked about cracking down on this, but haven’t really done it.
“The Trump administration signaled a plan Friday to revoke a two-year-old tax rule designed to crack down on an arcane but highly lucrative tax avoidance tactic used by some of the largest and most complicated businesses.
If enacted, the Trump administration’s proposal would mean that large business partnerships no longer need to tell the IRS when they shift assets from one corporate entity to another. Those transactions, called “basis shifting,” have allowed businesses to dodge tens of billions of dollars in taxes, the Treasury Department alleged in the past, by illegally depreciating the same asset over and over again.
…
the IRS workforce has shrunk drastically under Trump. In the first months of his term, more than a quarter of the agency took buyout offers or otherwise left their jobs.”
“Trump appointees who defy the president’s will are showing the courage of their convictions, applying the law as they understand it rather than reflexively deferring to the politician who gave them their jobs. But Trump, who takes it for granted that justices vote the way they do for political reasons, neither understands nor appreciates judicial independence.”
“These new tariffs are likely unlawful too.
Indeed, Trump’s own attorneys even admitted as much during the legal battle over the original tariffs.
…
Trump is leaning on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
…
Section 122 allows presidents to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”
What’s that? The Trump administration wants to pretend—or perhaps wrongly believes—that it’s the same thing as a trade deficit. It’s not.
A balance-of-payments deficit is an archaic problem that existed before the introduction of floating exchange rates for foreign currencies. Changes made to the international monetary system in the 1970s—changes that Milton Friedman advocated, it’s worth noting—eliminated the circumstances that could lead to a balance-of-payments deficit.
“The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since we adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago,” explains Bryan Riley, director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. “Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs.”
Just like with the IEEPA tariffs, Trump’s use of Section 122 ignores the plain language of the law and invokes a broad executive power where Congress clearly provided a narrow one.”
“Tariffs don’t conjure consumer demand out of thin air. Americans were buying plenty of washing machines, clothing, and steel before the tariffs. What changes is where some things are made. Production shifts from foreign manufacturers with efficiency or cost advantages to more expensive domestic manufacturers. American producers stand to gain, except when they must pay tariffs to import the materials they need (as is often the case).
But everyone who buys the product pays more. The extra $100 a family spends on a washing machine won’t instead be spent at the restaurant next door, the repair shop, or the shoe store. Real wages—what your paycheck actually buys—fall when the prices of most things rise.
…
When Americans buy less from China, it’s true, some of our overseas business competitors lose revenue. But what about the American households losing access to cheaper goods? Or the American producers losing access to cheaper materials and ingredients that make them more competitive?
Both countries take a hit. Serious analysts who favor targeted tariffs for strategic reasons generally acknowledge this tradeoff and argue that the benefits justify the costs. What they don’t claim is that such costs don’t exist.
…
Even when firms do absorb some of the hit, the money doesn’t disappear. These companies instead hire fewer people, pay lower wages, invest less or, in industries where profit margins are already thin, hike future prices. The burden just takes a different route to your wallet.”