pull down to refresh

I mostly stopped re-posting/commenting on TDE articles (unless they're my own!) since the Stackers reliably beat me to that game.

Alas, they missed this oneAlas, they missed this one

So, who wants to read Den remarks on a Paul Mueller review of a schmucky law professor's stupid book? (The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy). #1438025

At some level it's the least shocking thing ever that a law professor locates the source of American inequality in the U.S. tax code. Nails and hammers and all that.

Madoff clearly has an axe to grind against America’s wealthiest citizens, and she is deeply critical of the legal mechanisms they use to protect and transfer their assets. Her argument often seems to boil down to this: Why should wealthy Americans keep so much of their wealth for personal use rather than allow the public — or, more specifically, Congress — to decide how those resources should be spent?

Yeah, I wonder. Also: very unfortunate name in these circles.

Yet The Second Estate is no low-brow polemic. Professor Madoff knows federal tax policy well, and her explanations of the tax code and the ways wealthy individuals use it are often insightful. My disagreement is not with her description of the mechanics of taxation, but with her underlying assumption — at times explicit, at times implied — that concentrated wealth is inherently harmful because it deprives the federal government of resources.

"The wealthiest Americans pay hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times more in taxes than the average taxpayer""The wealthiest Americans pay hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times more in taxes than the average taxpayer"

Shuuuush, don't tell them.

The Second Estate presents a very different picture: a special class of Americans who exist above the reach of the tax code and avoid contributing their fair share to government revenue. We can set aside the questionable assumption that more federal revenue is automatically beneficial for most Americans.

"Madoff explains how wealthy individuals often borrow against their assets rather than sell them. They don’t pay taxes on those loans (though they do pay interest).""Madoff explains how wealthy individuals often borrow against their assets rather than sell them. They don’t pay taxes on those loans (though they do pay interest)."

We know. Us Bitcoiners play this fake-rich game allllllll daaaaaaay loooooong.

...and here for the Elon hatred among the intelligentsia:

Elon Musk, for example, famously paid about $11 billion in income taxes in 2021. This particular tax bill was anomalous both for its size and because the IRS taxed much of it as ordinary income at a high tax rate. Musk had a huge block of his stock options that he had to exercise or lose. Yet even if those were the only income taxes he ever paid over the course of 50 years, that would still come out to ~$200 million in taxes annually — far more than any but the very wealthiest Americans earn over their lifetimes, let alone what they pay in income taxes.

He's paid enough for a lifetime, that's for sure. Some more schmucks with that experience:

There are also large one-time tax payments from capital gains. Ken Griffin paid roughly $4 billion in 2021, Jeff Bezos paid about $2 billion in 2020 and 2021, Jensen Huang paid more than $100 million in 2024 and 2025, and Tim Cook paid roughly $300 million in 2021.

Also: property taxes (unavoidable), consumption taxes (veeeery unavoidable), bureaucracy (passports, transfers, development fees, blah-blah)

"That is hardly “free-riding” on the tax system — especially when they pay many times (10, 100, or even 1,000 times more) than the average taxpayer while consuming nowhere near that proportion of government services.""That is hardly “free-riding” on the tax system — especially when they pay many times (10, 100, or even 1,000 times more) than the average taxpayer while consuming nowhere near that proportion of government services."

Madoff’s quixotic crusade against dynastic or family wealth is just that — tilting at windmills.

Neat summary.

Given that the US government is quickly approaching $40 trillion in debt, it doesn't seem that they are hindered by deficit spending. I wonder if Professor Madoff has an explanation for why more tax dollars extracted from rich people will allow the state to do things that it currently feels unable to do via dumping some more debt onto the pile.

The belief seems to be that money is the limiting factor for state effectiveness even though I'm sure we can dig up plenty of examples of state spending in highly ineffective ways.

reply

That's a great point. Eventually, they'd work their way around to saying reducing inflation is the real benefit, like the MMTers do.

reply

That's such a wonderful, beautiful end point of their (stupid) reasoning:)

love the MMTers

reply
Also: very unfortunate name in these circles.

Indeed. But also:

Samir: Hmm... well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
reply