I asked ChatGPT what would happen if billionaires paid the same rate of taxes as middle class

[yidnar]

What part of a progressive tax system do you not understand? But come on. If you drive a Bentley, do you pay more for car insurance than if you drive a Ford Pinto? I live a mile down a private dirt road. I never see a cop, or a sheriff, or a state trooper, unless a neighbor died in a car accident or one of my neighbors is getting served. Why should I pay for them?

My grandmother lived to be 93. She left the county one time in her entire life, to go to the beach. She never was on an airplane. Why the **** should her tax dollars go to pay for air traffic control or homeland security? The truth of the matter is the wealthy are far more dependent on the government than the poor. They should pay accordingly, just like that Bentley owner.

the top 10% pay the vast majority of taxes .. low taxes isn't the problem .. waste is !

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This entire post is an example of a useful idiot. For example, if you dispute the claimed 8.2% effective tax rate on the 400 richest families then post some type of counter study. You can't just type bullshit, that ain't worth tits on a boar hog.

And ignoring the payroll tax, that is a good one, a favorite haunt of the useful idiot, and of course the wealthiest Americans, who laugh at the payroll tax. But the street sweeper that makes minimum wage, he pays that tax from the very first dollar to the very last dollar.

I mean here is a thought. Level the playing field. Tax all income the same. Remove the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. Hell, it is not some damn government sanctioned retirement plan, it is ******* social insurance, always has been. Because right now, the playing field is tilted uphill for most Americans, the flipping wealthiest Americans enjoy a nice steep downhill slide to the goal line. The rest of us pay the price.

This entire post is an example of a useful idiot. For example, if you dispute the claimed 8.2% effective tax rate on the 400 richest families then post some type of counter study.

You need a counter study?

Great, post the study they used first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When someone purchases a stock, does the company get to invest the money? Uh no, unless it is an IPO. Can you purchase stock from an IPO? Have you ever tried? Buying stock is not investing, it is saving, based on a certificate. The reality is there is no reason whatsoever to tax capital gains at a lower rate than income. It only benefits the damn traders and the finance companies and has no bearing whatsoever on capital investment.

What is wrong with leveling the playing field?

The reality is there is no reason whatsoever to tax capital gains at a lower rate than income.

There is no reason to tax it at all.

 

[Winston]

This entire post is an example of a useful idiot. For example, if you dispute the claimed 8.2% effective tax rate on the 400 richest families then post some type of counter study.

You need a counter study?

Great, post the study they used first.

I wish the **** I could.

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.

www.americanprogress.org

Hit the internal link here,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/blog/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/

You see that shit? Trump has eliminated it. Why? If nothing else, that should be a wake-up call.

 

[Winston]

The reality is there is no reason whatsoever to tax capital gains at a lower rate than income.

There is no reason to tax it at all.

Well, except for the fact that you have to fund the government. Again, by the same reasoning, there is no reason to tax income.

And come on, they call it "unearned" income. How the hell does it make sense, to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income? That is seriously FUBARED.

Look, I live this shit, to an amazing degree. My father, God bless him, he was a genius. But he inherited hundreds of acres of some of then finest land in the country. Great bottom land for field crops. At the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. Most of it, from a King's Grant that goes back to well before the American Revolution. He liquidated it all, now it is money in the bank that Mom doesn't seem to want to spend.

But then there are the inlaws. Grandpaw bought some land in Texas, scrub land, everyone laughed at him. Now, twenty plus oil wells, thousands of dollars a month in income. Father in law, on disability since he was in his thirties, Mother in law, not worth two shits and never struck a lick, content on living on that SSI disability. Now, rolling in the money and not giving a dime to charity. ******* sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wish the **** I could.

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.

www.americanprogress.org

Hit the internal link here,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/blog/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/

You see that shit? Trump has eliminated it. Why? If nothing else, that should be a wake-up call.

The main reason the top 400 pay such a low tax rate is that a very large share of their income is in the form of unrealized capital gains—appreciation in the value of their assets, mostly stocks and other business interests.

Danny Yagan took actual taxes paid and instead of honestly dividing by actual income, to show their actual effective rate, added unrealized capital gains to actual income to invent an imaginary 8.2% effective tax rate.

He added "not income" to income to say, they pay an unfairly low rate on
"total" income.

Do I need a "study" to show you the idiocy of that claim?

You see that shit? Trump has eliminated it.

He eliminated some bullshit that was posted on the White House website? Good!

If nothing else, that should be a wake-up call.

It should be, but left-wing morons still won't understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, except for the fact that you have to fund the government. Again, by the same reasoning, there is no reason to tax income.

And come on, they call it "unearned" income. How the hell does it make sense, to tax unearned income at a lower rate than earned income? That is seriously FUBARED.

Look, I live this shit, to an amazing degree. My father, God bless him, he was a genius. But he inherited hundreds of acres of some of then finest land in the country. Great bottom land for field crops. At the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. Most of it, from a King's Grant that goes back to well before the American Revolution. He liquidated it all, now it is money in the bank that Mom doesn't seem to want to spend.

But then there are the inlaws. Grandpaw bought some land in Texas, scrub land, everyone laughed at him. Now, twenty plus oil wells, thousands of dollars a month in income. Father in law, on disability since he was in his thirties, Mother in law, not worth two shits and never struck a lick, content on living on that SSI disability. Now, rolling in the money and not giving a dime to charity. ******* sad.

Well, except for the fact that you have to fund the government.

20% isn't enough?

 

[Seymour Flops]

A person on Medicare cannot support themselves? Damn, if you are so amateur that you don't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid perhaps you might want to rethink this whole posting thing. You just look like an idiot. Of course people on Medicare invest.

I actually meant Medicaid, and I thank you for the correction.

I'm not far away from Medicare myself, and I do know the difference. People on Medicaid cannot support themselves, nor invest if they are honest, as I'm sure you agree.

But now, a lesson between investing and savings. Like I said, savings is when you deposit money into a vehicle and fully expect to get it back. Like buying a stock. You got a certificate, it has a value, and you are counting on that value going up, cashing in the certificate, and getting your money back and then some. It doesn't matter if it is a CD or a stock.

It is not the same for this reason: The corporation from which you buy stock has no obligation to buy it back from you at all, much less at a higher price. You are free to "count on" selling your stock after the value goes up, but no one guarantees that.

A Certificate of Deposit clearly states how much it will be "bought back" for when you decide to cash it in. Most are FDIC insured, which stocks are certainly not.

They do both have the virtue of being used to promote business, and employment, though.

When you invest, you have no intention of getting your money back from some future sale. No, you invest to generate income.

That is one way to invest, but not the only way. You may be using some difinition of investment that I have not heard, but it is not the standard definition if it does not include buying stocks, or saving money in an interest bearing account.

The classic example is buying a lawn mower and starting a lawn mowing business. Do you calculate selling that lawn mower at some future date? Hell no, you buy the lawn mower to generate income. You buy the lawn mower to go to work. You buy the ******* lawn mower to MAKE MORE PIE.

Yes, that is another way to invest money. If you buy two lawnmowers and hire another guy to mow lawns at wages, while you keep the profit, that is the classic Marxian definition of capital. But it is not the only definition.

And that is the real problem. Our tax system punishes people for making more pie. It rewards people for taking more of the pie that is aleady there. That is called rent seeking, and sorry, but you are woefully under qualified to have a discussion about rent seeking.

You are using a word salad to avoid simply saying that you hate rich people. If a man or woman work hard to build a business and achieve success, they did not "take" anything. They earned it, while growing the pie far more effectively than the laborers they hired could or would grow it.

Please answer my question: You said you wanted a level playing field. Would that mean a flat tax, if the same flat tax rate applied to capital gains?

If not, it seems that the "level playing field" that you envision actually has a steeply sloped playing field, in which winners are expected to play in an uphill direction, while the losing team gets the benefit of the high ground.

A good rule if the goal is that losing be more similar to winning and vice-versa. It sounds like "participation trophy economics."

 

[Winston]

The main reason the top 400 pay such a low tax rate is that a very large share of their income is in the form of unrealized capital gains—appreciation in the value of their assets, mostly stocks and other business interests.

Danny Yagan took actual taxes paid and instead of honestly dividing by actual income, to show their actual effective rate, added unrealized capital gains to actual income to invent an imaginary 8.2% effective tax rate.

He added "not income" to income to say, they pay an unfairly low rate on
"total" income.

Do I need a "study" to show you the idiocy of that claim?

You see that shit? Trump has eliminated it.

He eliminated some bullshit that was posted on the White House website? Good!

If nothing else, that should be a wake-up call.

It should be, but left-wing morons still won't understand.

Thank you. Here is the study.

https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/39/3/438/7245778?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

He used the Haig-Simons income model, and I agree, that is a bit disingenuous. But it does shed light on the problem. Yes, the wealthy pay a much higher marginal tax rate on their taxable income, but that is just it, taxable income. I mean been there, done that. For years, I kept my taxable income at a minimum, I deferred most of it, wrote off expenses like nobody's business. Yes, I played the game.

But that is just it. Most Americans can't play the game. Single mom, she has no way to defer her income, she lives paycheck to paycheck, has no investments, struggles to get by. She pays taxes on every single dime she manages to get, at least the FICA tax. Then you have the Walmart heirs. Do they work? Uh, no, they raise race horses, some of them are on the board, as figureheads. They don't make any pie. That single mom, she ******* makes pie. Tax those that don't make pie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank you. Here is the study.

https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/39/3/438/7245778?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

He used the Haig-Simons income model, and I agree, that is a bit disingenuous. But it does shed light on the problem. Yes, the wealthy pay a much higher marginal tax rate on their taxable income, but that is just it, taxable income. I mean been there, done that. For years, I kept my taxable income at a minimum, I deferred most of it, wrote off expenses like nobody's business. Yes, I played the game.

But that is just it. Most Americans can't play the game. Single mom, she has no way to defer her income, she lives paycheck to paycheck, has no investments, struggles to get by. She pays taxes on every single dime she manages to get, at least the FICA tax. Then you have the Walmart heirs. Do they work? Uh, no, they raise race horses, some of them are on the board, as figureheads. They don't make any pie. That single mom, she ******* makes pie. Tax those that don't make pie.

Yes, the wealthy pay a much higher marginal tax rate on their taxable income, but that is just it, taxable income.

It's weird, we only tax income.

That's why I called the bullshit "study" what it was.

Single mom, she has no way to defer her income, she lives paycheck to paycheck, has no investments, struggles to get by. She pays taxes on every single dime she manages to get, at least the FICA tax.

Right, she pays basically no income tax and then she gets more out of FICA for her contribution than the rich guy.

Then you have the Walmart heirs. Do they work?

It's awful! They only pay tax on their dividends and on any shares they might sell.

 

[MarathonMike]

Taxing capital gains at a lower rate is just fubared. It really is. It makes no sense. Think about it, capital gains are called unearned income. Why in the hell should you pay a lower tax on income that isn't earned than income that is earned? Just stupid. Hell, we are punishing people for earning income, rewarding them for not earning it. WTF?

I mean think about it. You are a doctor. You spent a quarter of a million dollars going to medical school. You have a thriving practice, you do good work. But the income you generated is taxed higher than the income you generate gambling in the stock market. Again, WTF? How in the hell does that make sense? I mean our tax system is all but telling you, don't ******* work, don't contribute to society, just buy some damn stock. Who benefits from this fubared system?

You are missing an important point. The majority of Capital Gains are from assets that were purchased by money that was ALREADY TAXED. So if you have the good fortune of buying an asset that appreciates in value it should be taxed below income tax level.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So if you have the good fortune of buying an asset that appreciates in value it should be taxed below income tax level.

But if you have the bad fortune of buying an asset that loses value it should be taxed above income tax level.

 

[egp320i]

ChatGPT
Log in

You said:​

What if billionaires paid taxes at the same rate as middle class?

ChatGPT said:​

If billionaires paid taxes at the same effective rate as the middle class, it would have significant economic and social implications. Let’s break it down:

---

​

• Billionaires' effective tax rate: Often 8%–23%, depending on how it's calculated (e.g., unrealized capital gains are often untaxed until assets are sold).
• Middle-class effective tax rate: Roughly 20%–25%, including payroll and income taxes.

Billionaires often pay lower rates due to:

• Capital gains preference: Long-term capital gains and dividends are taxed at lower rates than wages.
• Tax deferral: Unrealized gains aren't taxed until assets are sold.
• Use of loopholes and shelters: Trusts, offshore accounts, etc.

---

​

Let’s assume billionaires paid a 25% effective tax rate, similar to the middle class.

1.​

• A 2021 analysis by the White House estimated that the 400 wealthiest families paid an average of 8.2% effective federal tax.
• If raised to 25%, that’s three times more, potentially yielding hundreds of billions of dollars more per decade.

Estimates:

• A wealth tax proposal (like Warren or Sanders suggested) could raise $2–3 trillion over 10 years.
• Just closing the capital gains loophole could raise hundreds of billions.

2.​

• More revenue could reduce the federal deficit, lowering interest payments on national debt.

3.​

• Funds could support programs like:
  • Universal pre-K and childcare
  • Climate initiatives
  • Health care expansion
  • Infrastructure

4.​

• Many people feel the system is unfair. Aligning tax rates could improve public trust in government and institutions.

5.​

• Disincentives to invest: Critics argue that higher taxes on the wealthy could reduce investment or encourage capital flight.
• Valuation challenges: Taxing unrealized gains would require annual asset valuation, which is complex.
• Legal and lobbying resistance: The wealthy have powerful tools to shape or resist policy.

---

Example Thought Experiment:​

If Elon Musk (worth ~$250B) paid 25% tax on wealth growth instead of much less, and if this model applied across the top 1,000 billionaires globally, governments might see over $1 trillion/year in additional revenue.
_____________________________________________

So now we know where the federal deficit comes from. But listening to repubs, it is middle and lower income earner's fsult.ha

This thread illustrates the very common misunderstanding among Democrat and "not Democrat" voters about what it means to be "a billionaire."

These folks who are dependent on government think that a billionaire is a person who has a billion dollars in the bank, in an account readily accessable by ATM/Debit cards. The OP, for example, hears about a billioniare and thinks, 'why should he have a billion dollars, when I only have (looks at ATM receipt) $229.54? Plus, I'm out of SNAP benefits until the first and it's only the seventeeth.

'Not fair! How can I live on less than three hundred bucks for two weeks?"

Why should I try? Tax the wealthy bastards, so I can have more!'

To a person who is either unemployed or employed in a low-skilled job, money in the bank is the wealth, along with some personal items like cars and clothing.

JimH52, in reality a billionaire is not going to have that kind of huge account for personal spending. Upwards of 95% of that wealth will be in the form of ownership, part ownership, and stock investments in companies and corporations, plus financial investments, such as bonds, and various money market accounts and other financial intruments that put large amounts of money in the hands of lenders for long term.

Both the businesses, and the lenders that support them, produce goods and services needed by people of all economic strata, as well as providing the job opportunities for those who aim to move up in that heirarchy.

Yes, a billionaire's cars, clothing, jewelry, etc. will be nicer and more valuable than yours. He will also own a large home, needing not to settle for Section 8 housing. That can create envy.

But taking it is not the answer. Tax all billionaires by 90%, confiscating their wealth until they become "hundred millionaires" and they will not have to sell their cars, their houses, their jewelry, etc. They will liquidate their financial assets and companies and give the money to Uncle Sam. Now these assets and companies will be owned and managed by people were not savvy enough to become billionaires, likely run by committee since there will be no incentive to be wealthy with business assets.

That is bad for everyone, and government would only waste the money anyway, paying for some future version of Shrimp on a Treadmill, and Pride Parades in Ghana.

haha, so the people that have the money to own a business that employs those who work should pay more so lazy people can collect welfare, food stamps and medicaid......oh that's so brilliant

 

[egp320i]

But if you have the bad fortune of buying an asset that loses value it should be taxed above income tax level.

wrong, you are gambling your money to make more money, if you lose that money you can write it off but you DON"T pay any higher tax level.
do you kick somebody who's on the ground and dying?
why would the government add to your misery of losing money by taxing you more?

That makes zero sense and that is not how it works, apparently you don't have any stock account

 

[Winston]

Yes, the wealthy pay a much higher marginal tax rate on their taxable income, but that is just it, taxable income.

It's weird, we only tax income.

That's why I called the bullshit "study" what it was.

Single mom, she has no way to defer her income, she lives paycheck to paycheck, has no investments, struggles to get by. She pays taxes on every single dime she manages to get, at least the FICA tax.

Right, she pays basically no income tax and then she gets more out of FICA for her contribution than the rich guy.

Then you have the Walmart heirs. Do they work?

It's awful! They only pay tax on their dividends and on any shares they might sell.

It is weird, the federal government only taxes income. But local governments, they tax property values. So it is not like the concept is verboten.

But the claim that the single mother living in poverty gets more out of her FICA contributions than the wealthy is laughable. Sure, the monthly payments of the wealthy are a lower percentage of their FICA contributions than those of the poor, but damn, first you got to draw that Social Security check. In the US, the life expectancy of the top one percent is ten years longer than the bottom one percent, and that is for females. For males the difference is almost fifteen years.

The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014: Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States - PMC

The relationship between income and mortality is well established but remains poorly understood. To measure the level, temporal trend, and geographic variability in the association between income and life expectancy, and identify factors related to ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not only should the cap on the FICA tax be eliminated, Social Security benefits should be phased out for those with the highest incomes. They don't need the money, they usually save it, invest it, and leave it to their heirs which is a huge contributor to the increasingly growing wealth gap.

And that is our nation's biggest problem. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and most of the rest of us face increasing hurdles to building our own wealth. That has been going on for almost fifty years now. And the thing is, Democracy does not function in a society with a huge disparity in wealth.

You, and your fellow comrades on the right focus on what the government takes. What you don't seem to realize is what the government gives, what the government protects. The wealthy have so much more to protect than the poor.

But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Luke 12:48

It seems, over the last fifty years, the wealthy have fought mightily to keep from giving more. I don't understand what happened. At some point, the wealthy started believing that taxes are punishment. The whole confiscation of "our money" comes to mind. That is not the way it used to be. That is not the way I was raised. Paying taxes should be a matter of pride.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are missing an important point. The majority of Capital Gains are from assets that were purchased by money that was ALREADY TAXED. So if you have the good fortune of buying an asset that appreciates in value it should be taxed below income tax level.

Psst - the principal/base value of the asset sold is NOT TAXED again (Purchase Price - Selling Price = Profit) because as you say, it was already taxed. The tax is only on the PROFIT which is viewed as income.

The question isn't whether base value is taxed, it's not. The question is should Capital Gains be taxed as regular income (Income Tax) when the asset is sold or at a discounted rate (Capital Gains Tax) once the asset is sold and profit realized.

(On the flip side the same rules - do currently - should apply to an asset sold at a loss. Then you have Purchase Price - Selling Price = Loss, and that should be reflected as a loss of income and deducted from AGI.)

WW

 

[Winston]

haha, so the people that have the money to own a business that employs those who work should pay more so lazy people can collect welfare, food stamps and medicaid......oh that's so brilliant

I worked in sales at a furniture store years ago. Worked with a bunch of right wingers, except for a couple of nice Yankee women. I am proud to say that I built one of the finest sales teams in the country, we still manage to get together once in a while, decades later.

We worked on a "ups" model. We took turns taking guests as they came in the door. We hired this one girl, she was terrible. She couldn't sell for shit. What she did do is beg. I mean she would tell her guests some sob story and ask them, flat out, just to give her money. She used the job to panhandle.

The result, she was burning ups. It was so comical. I gathered the rest of the sales team together and suggested we just go ahead and give the girl some money and tell her to stay home. They all agreed, she was actually costing us money. But when they agreed I trumpeted, welcome to the left.

I mean here is the thing. If you are so lazy, and so unmotivated, that some SNAP benefits and Section 8 housing keeps you happy. Then hell, have at it. I will gladly pay for that just to keep your dead ass out of the workforce and out of my damn way.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I worked in sales at a furniture store years ago. Worked with a bunch of right wingers, except for a couple of nice Yankee women. I am proud to say that I built one of the finest sales teams in the country, we still manage to get together once in a while, decades later.

We worked on a "ups" model. We took turns taking guests as they came in the door. We hired this one girl, she was terrible. She couldn't sell for shit. What she did do is beg. I mean she would tell her guests some sob story and ask them, flat out, just to give her money. She used the job to panhandle.

The result, she was burning ups. It was so comical. I gathered the rest of the sales team together and suggested we just go ahead and give the girl some money and tell her to stay home. They all agreed, she was actually costing us money. But when they agreed I trumpeted, welcome to the left.

I mean here is the thing. If you are so lazy, and so unmotivated, that some SNAP benefits and Section 8 housing keeps you happy. Then hell, have at it. I will gladly pay for that just to keep your dead ass out of the workforce and out of my damn way.

If only we could get all the dead ass billionaires out of our way too.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not only should the cap on the FICA tax be eliminated, Social Security benefits should be phased out for those with the highest incomes. They don't need the money, they usually save it, invest it, and leave it to their heirs which is a huge contributor to the increasingly growing wealth gap.

Should the cap on monthly Social Security benefits also be phased out?

It seems, over the last fifty years, the wealthy have fought mightily to keep from giving more. I don't understand what happened. At some point, the wealthy started believing that taxes are punishment. The whole confiscation of "our money" comes to mind. That is not the way it used to be. That is not the way I was raised. Paying taxes should be a matter of pride.

This is where being an old dude comes in handy. Also reading.

I can assure you that the wealthy have objected to paying higher taxes for far more than fifty years. I heard them complaining more than fifty years ago.

If you will read a book or two on European history, you will see that objecting to higher taxes has been going on for centuries.

Recommended Reading:

• A World History of Tax Rebellions: An Encyclopedia of Tax Rebels, Revolts, and Riots from Antiquity to the Present - David F. Burg
• Histories of Tax Evasion, Avoidance and Resistance - Korinna Schönhärl, Gisela Hürlimann, and Dorothea Rohde
• The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688-1783 - John Brewer

What do you think the U.S. government would do with the additional revenue (if any), if Capital Gains were taxed at the same rate as income?

Would they use the money to pay down the National Debt?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is weird, the federal government only taxes income. But local governments, they tax property values. So it is not like the concept is verboten.

But the claim that the single mother living in poverty gets more out of her FICA contributions than the wealthy is laughable. Sure, the monthly payments of the wealthy are a lower percentage of their FICA contributions than those of the poor, but damn, first you got to draw that Social Security check. In the US, the life expectancy of the top one percent is ten years longer than the bottom one percent, and that is for females. For males the difference is almost fifteen years.

The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014: Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States - PMC

The relationship between income and mortality is well established but remains poorly understood. To measure the level, temporal trend, and geographic variability in the association between income and life expectancy, and identify factors related to ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Not only should the cap on the FICA tax be eliminated, Social Security benefits should be phased out for those with the highest incomes. They don't need the money, they usually save it, invest it, and leave it to their heirs which is a huge contributor to the increasingly growing wealth gap.

And that is our nation's biggest problem. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and most of the rest of us face increasing hurdles to building our own wealth. That has been going on for almost fifty years now. And the thing is, Democracy does not function in a society with a huge disparity in wealth.

You, and your fellow comrades on the right focus on what the government takes. What you don't seem to realize is what the government gives, what the government protects. The wealthy have so much more to protect than the poor.

But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Luke 12:48

It seems, over the last fifty years, the wealthy have fought mightily to keep from giving more. I don't understand what happened. At some point, the wealthy started believing that taxes are punishment. The whole confiscation of "our money" comes to mind. That is not the way it used to be. That is not the way I was raised. Paying taxes should be a matter of pride.

It is weird, the federal government only taxes income.

It's not weird, it's in the constitution.

But the claim that the single mother living in poverty gets more out of her FICA contributions than the wealthy is laughable.

It's not laughable, it's true.

Sure, the monthly payments of the wealthy are a lower percentage of their FICA contributions than those of the poor, but damn, first you got to draw that Social Security check.

See, you just admitted it ^ here.

In the US, the life expectancy of the top one percent is ten years longer than the bottom one percent, and that is for females. For males the difference is almost fifteen years.

Obviously, that's the fault of the rich and the tax system.....DURR

We could have private accounts and perhaps government contributions to
supplement the accounts at the bottom. Then, if they die early, the account can be passed to their children, instead of staying in the Trust Fund. But that would make sense.

Not only should the cap on the FICA tax be eliminated, Social Security benefits should be phased out for those with the highest incomes.

Leave the cap and eliminate the benefits. Boost the Medicare tax for the wealthy.

It seems, over the last fifty years, the wealthy have fought mightily to keep from giving more.

Considering how much the wealthy pay in, compared to how little the bottom half pay in, looks like the wealthy failed.