Yes, that's why I advocated for fixing convoluted and possibly broken system and specifying a paradigm shift is needed.
Shrugging and saying "this is how it's always been" is a great way to make sure it never changes.
We are talking past each other on this.
@Cincydawg and I have taken your points seriously and addressed them.
It isn't simply a matter of saying "that is how it's always been."
Taxing "the rich" isn't easy and tends not to be terribly productive. That isn't because we aren't doing it right and need a paradigm shift, it is because of the nature of the endeavor. As laid out ad-nauseum above:
- The very rich have a great deal of flexibility that even the "only" somewhat rich simply do not have. If you are a VERY highly paid Doctor or Engineer, for example, and you make say $600,000 per year you don't have all that much flexibility. Your income doesn't come from investments it comes from working for someone and when you get paid for that, you get taxed. It is different for people who make say $20M/yr. Outside of perhaps a few athletes and entertainers, nearly everyone making that kind of money is getting it almost all from investments. They can switch to lower-tax investments. They can also move. The Doctor/Engineer is here because their patients/clients are here but someone with $400M in investments can go wherever they want.
- There isn't all that much money to be had no matter what you do. According to Politifact (I do NOT vouch for this, just the first hit on a google search) confiscating literally all wealth over $1B would run the Federal Government for 263 days. That may sound like a lot but it really isn't because confiscating all wealth over a set amount is obviously a one-time thing. Apart from all the issues of enforcement, and practically putting this into effect, you can't repeat it. So lets consider smaller steps. If taking all of it would run the Government for 263 days then 10% would run the government for 26.3 days. That literally wouldn't even close the deficit THIS year and that assumes that you could actually get it all. A 1% wealth tax would be more practical but it would also run the Federal Government for only 2.63 days so it isn't enough money to be worth the mess.
- Tax Evasion / Tax Avoidance are major issues with people who can justify spending big money on extremely smart tax attorneys.
Way back in 1992 Bill Clinton ran on a "Middle Class Tax" cut and said he'd only raise taxes on "the rich". Then he got in office and jettisoned the "Middle Class Tax Cut". At the time he said that he worked as hard as he had ever worked in his life and just couldn't figure out a way to do it. That may seem confusing, it was back when officeholders at least tried to care about the deficit. Anyway, as it turned out nearly everyone with a job was "rich" according to Clinton's campaign promises because nearly everyone with a job got hit with a tax increase.
Clinton was either utterly incompetent or a liar and I think we all know which. That said, his tax increase worked. Federal Revenues were around
17% of GDP from 1986-1992 but they were about 19% of GDP from 1999-2001.
Taxing "the rich" is a great sound-byte but if you want to actually raise an appreciable amount of money you either need to give it up or redefine "rich" as more-or-less anyone with a job.
That said, I'll say again that our primary problem isn't on the revenue side. The highest ever Federal Revenue as a percentage of GDP was 19.8% in 1945 and spending hasn't been below that since 2007. Starting with the credit crunch recession in 2008 Federal Spending has gone completely out of control:
- 20.2% in 2008
- 24.3% in 2009
- 23.0% in 2010
- 23.1% in 2011
- 21.7% in 2012
- 20.5% in 2013
- 19.9% in 2014
- 20.2% in 2015
- 20.5% in 2016
- 20.3% in 2017
- 19.9% in 2018
- 20.6% in 2019
- 30.7% in 2020
- 28.8% in 2021
- 24.1% in 2022
- 22.1% in 2023
- 23.1% in 2024
For comparison the Federal Government only spent 21.2% of GDP in 1942 while fighting WWII (it peaked at almost 41% in 44 and 45).
Even if we could manage to sustain 19.8% collections we'd still need spending to average 23% or less just to keep the debt growing slower than or only as fast as the economy (averages 3.2%). We've only achieved that in one of the past five years.
