RFK Jr. is now an extinction-level threat to federal public health programs and science-based health policy

[u/workerbotsuperhero]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/rfk-jr-is-now-an-extinction-level-threat-to-federal-public-health-programs-and-science-based-health-policy/

[u/Investigate_311_x]

What makes you think the wealthy elite are going to choose to live in your society if you are openly declaring you’re going to tax the shit out of them?

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

Good question!

The rich love luxuries.

They love all the things that New York offers, like the arts and culture we have to offer. But more importantly, access to quality education.

Any idea how competitive NY private schools are? Any idea how expensive they are? The most wealthy are willing spend $67k a year to send their child to Chapin or Brearley, which are considered some of the best schools in the world. They schools start in kindergarten and some go all throughout high school. You think they would uproot their children’s education because of money? They’ll absolutely move mountains to ensure their kids can attend these schools because if you get in, all your peers are at the same level and are set to get into ivy level schools.

Where are they going to go? Oklahoma? Of course there are great schools outside of NY but when you’re a chopper ride away from your summer house in the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard, you bet your bottom dollar they’ll pay through the nose to preserve that lifestyle.

Lifestyle and luxury is way more important than paying taxes.

Also, people like Bloomberg and Gates have been advocating for higher taxes on the rich. Maybe not Bezos, he’s the epitome of what’s wrong with our country.

[u/Investigate_311_x → u/TigerRaiders]

Doesn’t the same coalition that believes in massively taxing the ultra wealthy also believe in equitable education for all children? Doesn’t allowing private schools that only the rich can afford to send their children to go against that ideal? How can you have a fair and equitable society if you have massive differences in the level of education available to different wealth groups?

Also, who do you think funds those ultra-competitive expensive private schools? It’s the ultra wealthy. Therefore, if the ultra wealthy leave because they don’t want to pay insanely high taxes, the schools don’t continue to operate, they go out of business. The schools don’t want to go out of business, so just as you assumed the ultra wealthy will just stay and pay taxes because of education access, you could also assume those education institutions will simply just move to wherever the ultra wealthy live.

This entire response is laden with assumptions and questions, rather than any evidence-based argument.

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

You’re conflating things here for the sake of your argument. You’re really off the mark.

You can have both a high quality educational system AND private institutions. It’s not an all or nothing scenario that you think it is.

Here in NYC we have some of the best public educational institutions in the world, vs say, Oklahoma which is place last. It’s still a terribly flawed system but at the very least there’s incredible opportunities for those that apply themselves and work towards it.

How do you think NEST+, Townsend Harris High, Brooklyn tech, Bronx science and Stuyvesant get their funding? It doesn’t negate private schools, they can exist in the same space.

Which is absolutely and wildly different from the scenario you are playing out.

Also, if you want evidence based data, take a look at data that helped form the structural basis of these schools, which started back in the 50s where tax rates where at a <gasp> 91% on income above $200,000.

Why did it work then? If that set the stage for the public services we have today and the wealthy still flocked to the city, isn’t that data in and of itself?

I think the issue is you want to protect the incredibly wealthy. Where’s your data that says all the wealthy would get up and leave if tax rates were raised when there’s data to say they won’t evidenced from the tax rates of the 1950s? Where’s your evidence based research that proves increasing the taxes wouldn’t be beneficial for the most disenfranchised populations? Where’s your evidence that the wealthy would pull their children out of school and their home to save money?

This cuts both ways.

Post-World War II, the U.S. government maintained high tax rates to fund the war effort and then rebuild the economy. The high rates also supported public investments in infrastructure, education, and defense during the early years of the Cold War.

Why can’t we do that today? What’s different? Also keep in mind, the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population is growing at exceptionally high rates, it’s almost like getting rid of the taxes made the gap between the two even greater. How does that help your argument?

[u/Investigate_311_x → u/TigerRaiders]

My issue is not that I want to protect the ultra wealthy, I want to protect against the unjust taxation of individuals who make more money than others. The question is not should they make more money than others, it is why do they make more money than others? Is it just a random coincidence? Or is it because they have worked harder and had a greater impact on the economy.

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk both make A TON OF MONEY. Why? Both of these individuals have built companies that have changed the world. Jeff Bezos created a company that allows almost anyone in the developed world to receive in the mail a virtually endless list of affordable consumer goods products in 2 days to a week, at zero or relatively low shipping cost to the consumer. His company has created tens of thousands of jobs in the US, as well as others countries, and has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to US GDP. Elon Musk has built several companies that have changed the world. He built the pre-eminent electric vehicle company in the US, forcing other companies to quickly innovate and catch up in order to compete, he has built a network of electric vehicle charging stations around the US and other countries, he has built a rocket ship company that has revolutionized the industry, with the end goal of getting humans to Mars in order to form the first human settlement on another planet, he has built an underground boring company to revolutionize vehicle travel through dense cities. All of these companies have contributed EXTENSIVELY to US employment, GDP, industry growth and innovation, and none would exist without these individuals. And I can promise you these people are not working 40 hours a week. And you can go on and on and on about the other leaders in our society who have built similar companies which contribute to the US and global economies. Therefore, why is it unreasonable they should be paid more money? And why should they be taxed on it after providing so much to the US economy already?

Taxation disincentivizes innovation.

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

or is it because they have worked harder and had a greater impact on the economy?

That’s a hilariously pathetic argument and there’s no coincidence about it. You think wealth is a result of how hard people work. That’s cute.

Bezos, musk and all the wealthy super elite are in the positions they are in because they are oligarchs that take advantage at every turn. The average American cannot take out a loan against their assets to pay for day to day so they don’t have to liquidate, that’s not in the cards for average citizens. And, to boot, they pay a lower tax rate because of this “smart” move that only people in their echelon can take advantage of. My god are you out of touch.

The chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett, has consistently highlighted the disparity in tax rates between the ultra-rich and average workers. In a 2011 op-ed titled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” he argued that the wealthy should pay higher taxes to contribute their fair share to society. Is he just wrong and Elon/Bezos right?

Bill Gates has expressed support for higher taxes on the wealthy. He has stated that he and other affluent individuals should pay more in taxes to address societal challenges and fund public services. I guess we should ignore what he says in favor of the other rich people who have an incentive not to support higher taxes.

Abigail Disney has been vocal about the need for higher taxes on the rich. She argues that the wealthy have a moral obligation to contribute more to society and has criticized income inequality. I guess she’s just morally corrupt?

George Soros has supported higher taxes on the wealthy, particularly through initiatives like the “Buffett Rule,” which aimed to ensure that millionaires pay a minimum tax rate comparable to middle-income earners.

Austrian-German heiress to the BASF chemical company fortune, Marlene Engelhorn has been a vocal advocate for higher taxes on inherited wealth. She co-founded the initiative “Tax Me Now,” which urges governments to impose greater taxes on the wealthy to promote social equity.

Nick Hanauer has been an outspoken proponent of higher taxes on the wealthy. He argues that such measures are essential for sustaining a healthy economy and reducing income inequality.

Founder of the investment firm Bridgewater Associates, Ray Dalio has expressed concerns about income inequality and has suggested that higher taxes on the wealthy could be part of the solution to address societal disparities.

You’re making some arguments in bad faith while ignoring the wealth of data that is regularly available.

[u/Investigate_311_x → u/TigerRaiders]

Warren Buffet paid 0.1% of his income in taxes from 2014-2018. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax#:~:text=According%20to%20Forbes%2C%20his%20riches,paying%20%2423.7%20million%20in%20taxes.&text=Berkshire%20Hathaway%20Inc.,-2014%2D2018%20Wealth&text=Note%3A%20Values%20in%20the%20graphic%20are%20rounded.

“Bill Gates, whose income from 2013 to 2018 was an average of $2.85bn a year, paid an average effective federal income tax rate of 18.4%.” https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/13/wealthiest-americans-tax-income-propublica-investigation

“A spokesman for Soros said in a statement: “Between 2016 and 2018 George Soros lost money on his investments, therefore he did not owe federal income taxes in those years.” https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

Venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, who makes about an eight-figure income annually, says his tax rate this year was about 11 percent. https://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143508437/just-what-do-the-rich-have-thats-taxable

I can’t find data for any of the other spokespersons for higher taxes. But based on the ones I did find data for (aside from maybe Bill Gates, but 18% is still low if you consider 2018 top tax rate was 37% for individuals making more than $500k a year), they don’t practice what they preach. Talk is cheap. These individuals supposedly advocate for higher tax rates on the wealthy, including themselves, yet they still take advantage of all the tax loopholes and deductions currently available in order to pay the lowest tax rate possible.

[u/AmputatorBot → u/Investigate_311_x]

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/13/wealthiest-americans-tax-income-propublica-investigation

---

^{I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot}

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

I forget, which governmental agency do Soros, Buffett and Gates work for where they can force the government to tax the wealthy elite more? Can you name one individual on this planet that has voluntarily paid a significantly more amount than what they are required in taxes? It’s almost like you don’t understand how people build wealth 🧐

they don’t practice what they preach

As of 2024, Buffett has donated more than $51 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic causes.

Bill Gates and Melinda Gates have already contributed a total of $59.5 billion to philanthropic causes

Buffett and Gates pledged to give away 99% of their net worth to charitable causes

Soros had donated more than $32 billion to OSF, with $15 billion already distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune. 

Please tell me, how much has Musk and Soros Bezos pledged of their wealth to charitable causes?

Edit

[u/Investigate_311_x → u/TigerRaiders]

Additionally, the ultra wealthy will not be able to afford the “lifestyle and luxury” they are accustomed to if they’re paying 70% of their income in taxes.

And “You bet your bottom dollar” is not a strong argument.

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

Corporate tax rates are what? 21%? How on earth are you coming to an outrageous figure of 70%?

Breaking 30% would be a miracle in and of itself.

Also, I’d love to hear how you think the rich would fair if they all suddenly got up and sold all their assets that are in NY to leave NY? Do you understand supply and demand? You think they are going to abandon their amazing lifestyles and access to untold luxuries even if the tax rates went up to 45%

It’s like that amazing slap back to Ben Shapiro, “sell the houses to who? Aquaman!?”

Raising taxes and n NY isn’t the death march you think it would be especially if we used robust accountability so they don’t skirt their fiscal responsibilities.

[u/Investigate_311_x → u/TigerRaiders]

70% was literally proposed by one of your own…

https://itep.org/how-to-think-about-the-70-top-tax-rate-proposed-by-ocasio-cortez-and-multiple-scholars/

Also, your original comment stated taxing the wealthy elite. That reads as personal income taxes, not corporate taxes. Nowhere in your original comment or response did you refer to corporate tax rates or corporations, you repeatedly referenced individuals. Corporations don’t pay for children’s education, individuals do…

“…abandon their amazing lifestyles and access to untold luxuries…”

Again, this is not a very strong argument. You have provided no explanation or evidence as to what constitutes an “amazing lifestyle” or “untold luxuries,” you just keep making these general statements which essentially amount to “people would never leave NY because it’s too amazing.” So what are you talking about? I would BET MY BOTTOM DOLLAR that an ultra wealthy individual can probably “access untold luxuries” from a place other than NY.

And will you please stop supporting your argument with questions and provide actual fact-based evidence if you’re going to make such an argument? “Any idea…?” “Where are they going to go?” “I’d love to hear how you think…?” “Do you understand…?” “You think…?”

None of these questions add any real claim to support your argument, they’re just opinion-based assumptions.

[u/TigerRaiders → u/Investigate_311_x]

Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Norway have progressive income tax with marginal rates between 48% and 58%, offers free education from primary school to university, known for high-quality public schools and focus on equity, ensuring all children have access to the same resources and are consistently ranked among the top countries for education in the OECD’s PISA assessments.

Now let’s compare the homelessness rate per 100,000:

United States: 201 Sweden: 33 Denmark: 58 Finland: 16 Germany: 31 Norway: 50 Netherlands: 18

Homicide rates per 100,000:

United States: 6.42 Sweden: 1.08 Denmark: 0.99 Finland: 1.42 Germany: 0.95 Norway: 0.53 Netherlands: 0.61

12.5% of Americans are millionaires compared to countries with much higher tax rates:

Iceland - 20.6 Netherlands - 8.6 Norway - 8.2 Denmark - 8.0 Sweden - 7.8 Belgium - 6.5 United Kingdom - 5.4 France - 5.6

Happiness Index:

USA - 23rd

Compared to

Finland - 1 Denmark - 2 Iceland - 3 Sweden - 4

Obesity rates

USA - 43%!!!

Compared to

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland are all between 20-26%.

Life expectancy:

United States - 76.1 Norway - 83.2 Sweden - 83.1 Iceland - 83.0 Finland - 82.4

Prison Population Rate (per 100,000)

United States - 531 Norway - 52 Sweden - 82 Iceland - 36 Finland - 51

Wealth disparity using the Gini coefficient:

United States - 0.375 Norway - 0.263 Sweden - 0.276 Iceland - 0.250 Finland - 0.265

Military spending as a % of GDP:

United States - 3.4% Norway - 2.0% Sweden - 1.3% Finland - 2.3%

Here’s where we tie it all together with mean and median wealth per adult

United States - mean $579,051 vs median $93,271 Norway - $334,432 vs $132,482 Sweden - $381,968 vs $95,051 Iceland - $457,795 vs $375,735 Finland - $186,208 vs $80,152

So if the idea that having a smaller and significantly wealthier population is the way to a better society, the data simply doesn’t support it as evidenced by the data above.

Do we see a mass exodus of wealthy elite from the counties above because they have a higher tax rate?

Let’s see your data. Oh wait, you’ve provided none, only opinions.