What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[JBP]

Originally Posted by danstanford

You aren't a stranger, and I know you brought what was presented as truth. I would greatly prefer an open discussion and the presentation of facts as we know them just as you did.

Hold on a minute there, I do not buy everything I see on the Internet. Very much no. I had hoped my sarcasm was more obvious.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by JBP

Hold on a minute there, I do not buy everything I see on the Internet. I had hoped my sarcasm was more obvious.

Yes it was obvious! I am kind of used to people spoiling for a fight and am trying to retain the discussion portion of our discussion forum.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

My friend's family property on Iron Bottom Sound

Please, not to derail.
O wow, like Guadalcanal/Savo/Florida?
Ok, back to regular programming.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by gonesail

wrong. it's more like 0.08% of the world population .. but they control almost 50% of the wealth.

Got a reference for that?

I just did the simple math. Number of Estimated Billionaires Worle wide (per Forbes etc) vs estimated world population.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Don't forget the statistics everyone is citing is for cash and cash equivalent assets.

My friend's family property on Iron Bottom Sound might be worth US$40k. If it were in Hawai'i it would be worth $4million.

I pay US$60 for a kilo of crap frozen tuna. He pays US$8 for a whole damned fresh tuna. His fresh banana, mango and papaya is free- ours sucks and isn't worth buying.

If I need to re-roof (every 20 years), it's going to cost US$15k. He re-roofs (every 20 years) with thatching, and it's free.

If I want to go visit him, it'll cost me US$3k just for flights. When I invite him to visit me, he laughs.

We go to the Sydney Fish Market- I'm a pig in hog heaven, binging on cheap prawns and muddies. He's mortified that anyone would pay those prices.

My home wouldn't buy a parking spot in NYC or SanFran. Income generally reflects that, but that doesn't show up in income statistics.

Having owned buildings w thatch roofs, it does still cost to repair and re-roof. Even if you get the leaf itself for free then there is still a LOT labor...its a hell of a lot of work to replace a big thatch roof: harvesting the leaves, transporting them, laying them up on the roof frame. And at least some of the workers need to be skilled in making thatch roofs so they cost a little more.

Also, in many places the leaf is not free. In the large quantaties required its not practical just to nip a few leaves off your property, you need substantial quantites so often they come from fincas who grow them. It took about 10,000 leaves to reroof my house in Guatemala.

Like conventional roofing, there are also different categories of leaves for thatch with different service lives. And of course, the better leaves often cost more.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

A recent (2018) analysis by a couple of Berkley economists attempted to analyze total tax burdens in the USA since the 1950s.

They break it down by major tax reform period. It shows the highly progressive nature of the US tax system in the 1950s (the top blue line), and how it dramatically drops for the rich and rises (less dramatically) for the poor over time.

The US has morphed into generally a flat-tax structure, EXCEPT for the ultra-ultra rich where they show a regressive trend (IOW, the very rich pay less).

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZ...0JEP(NBER).pdf


ADD: I would love to see similar analysis for other countries, like my own (Canada), and the oft-lauded northern European countries.

There seems to be a difference here-

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-data-2021/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

There seems to be a difference here-

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-income-tax-data-2021/

You'll need to explain further what you are pointing at. But note, the study I referenced is looking at ALL taxes. Yours is just looking at federal taxes.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You'll need to explain further what you are pointing at. But note, the study I referenced is looking at ALL taxes. Yours is just looking at federal taxes.

Right, federal income tax. Tables are annotated clearly.

For the individual, there are also taxes on consumption of goods and services (sales tax), property taxes on houses, cars, boats, planes, inheritance tax, and transfer taxes.

In Santa Barabara and San Luis Obispo Counties, there is a view tax on properties that can see the ocean, even if 10 miles away. Even on parcels without structures. Around 10% increase for the transaction, and a yearly maintenance tax on it.

Now, you can make money with money, using various investment strategies, starting a business, buying real estate, and general speculation. These options aren't available to lower income tax payers except through the stock market, generally.

So should success be taxed in another way (not just income tax). There could be additional asset taxes levied on folks who successfully make money with money. Asset taxes are levied on homes/personal and businesses already.

One tax not yet invoked is a tax on money just setting in the market (401Ks). Those funds are only taxed when withdrawn, then become income tax. Senators Warren and Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.

If you tax a private business to the degree that it looses to a competitive business in another country with a similar product or service, those taxes can hurt the general economy (lay offs or close the business). These are also private businesses and those assets are privately owned.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Right, federal income tax. Tables are annotated clearly.

For the individual, there are also taxes on consumption of goods and services (sales tax), property taxes on houses, cars, boats, planes, inheritance tax, and transfer taxes.

In Santa Barabara and San Luis Obispo Counties, there is a view tax on properties that can see the ocean, even if 10 miles away. Even on parcels without structures. Around 10% increase for the transaction, and a yearly maintenance tax on it.

Now, you can make money with money, using various investment strategies, starting a business, buying real estate, and general speculation. These options aren't available to lower income tax payers except through the stock market, generally.

So should success be taxed in another way (not just income tax). There could be additional asset taxes levied on folks who successfully make money with money. Asset taxes are levied on homes/personal and businesses already.

One tax not yet invoked is a tax on money just setting in the market (401Ks). Those funds are only taxed when withdrawn, then become income tax. Senators Warren and Sanders have proposed wealth taxes.

If you tax a private business to the degree that it looses to a competitive business in another country with a similar product or service, those taxes can hurt the general economy (lay offs or close the business). These are also private businesses and those assets are privately owned.

Yes indeed, all good questions and thoughts. I'd certainly support a more equitable treatment of income and assets.

But my view (as I think I wrote a while ago), is that it's hard to tax your way to societal equity. Since wages are the major way we distribute wealth in our capitalist societies, a better approach is to use laws, policies and regulations to support better wages for all.

This is far more efficient than tax redistribution, and it has the added benefit of being more psychologically appealing. Humans feel loss greater than the equivalent gain, which is why (I believe) so many people gripe about taxes. They feel like something is being taken from them.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes indeed, all good questions and thoughts. I'd certainly support a more equitable treatment of income and assets.

But my view (as I think I wrote a while ago), is that it's hard to tax your way to societal equity. Since wages are the major way we distribute wealth in our capitalist societies, a better approach is to use laws, policies and regulations to support better wages for all.

This is far more efficient than tax redistribution, and it has the added benefit of being more psychologically appealing. Humans feel loss greater than the equivalent gain, which is why (I believe) so many people gripe about taxes. They feel like something is being taken from them.

Something is being taken from them!

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Got a reference for that?

sure. 0.08 percent .. or 42 million people in the world are considered to hold billionaire status. but really that is what we know about .. I suspect that number is a lot larger.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1879723...ntage-economy/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Something is being taken from them!

Right, so better they never had it in the first place. This is why I say it's better to have a more equitable distribution of wealth at the outset, than to try and redistribute it later through taxes.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Right, so better they never had it in the first place. This is why I say it's better to have a more equitable distribution of wealth at the outset, than to try and redistribute it later through taxes.

I don’t remember you detailing that. You mean like just give everyone a million bucks at birth and see what happens?

[GordMay]

I was looking at my bank statement, and realized I was a .1 percent-er
I don't know why anyone wants to be one, it's a crappy interest rate.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

I don’t remember you detailing that. You mean like just give everyone a million bucks at birth and see what happens?

Who's giving it? That doesn't really make any sense to me, but maybe you can expound on the idea.

I meant what I wrote: "Since wages are the major way we distribute wealth in our capitalist societies, a better approach is to use laws, policies and regulations to support better wages for all."