zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
I wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios. Worth thinking about what people are willing to do to not pay billions of dollars worth of taxes.

>>andy_p+ex
Taxes are not an automatic good. There are things we want the government to do. It costs some amount of money to do those things. We should figure out what that amount of money is, tax enough for it, and the rest belong to the person who earns it.

Why do people assume we always have to give more and more money to the government? What have they done with the $6 trillion they spend every year so far? What evidence is there that giving them more will improve anything?

Taxes are not for you to punish people you don't like. They're to fund the government enough to perform its necessary functions. That's all.

>>imgabe+zj1
Ppl's obsessions (on both sides) on taxes is so weird.

Governments can fund themselves in numerous ways, not just taxes. Either way you'll pay.

The key issue is do we want a federal government expenditure of 20-25% of the economy? I'd say no.

>>sbsudb+Fy1
This is such a stupid argument. Is your issue that the number is too high? Why? What’s the right number?

Should government spend 25% percent of GDP? Who cares. Governments shouldn’t aim for a specific number, they should spend enough to make sure full employment is achieved, according to saving desires and the private market’s appetite for investment.

Whatever the private market isn’t willing to invest, the government should take care of.

Whether that’s 10% or 50% is literally irrelevant.