Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?
The point is to enact tax policy that applies to everyone, so that the sum total of the changes can actually make an impact. Saying "well people can always donate to the treasury" is a ridiculous way of dismissing it.
The point is that nobody will take you seriously until you show some concrete action. It's easy to claim that you'll give your money willingly, if you know that it's extremely unlikely to happen.
In any case, to answer your question: No, the IRS doesn't prohibit it, and as far as I can tell it's not illegal.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/the-right-to-pay-no-more-than-t...
> Taxpayers who overpaid their taxes can file for a refund. Taxpayers must file a claim for a credit or refund by the later of these two dates: Three years from the date they filed their original return. Two years from the date they paid the tax.
I guess if you overpaid, didn't file for a refund, and waited 3 years, the money would just vanish.
The problem is it'd vanish into a black hole - no congressional committee has budgeted for that "extra" money to suddenly appear, there's not really any accountability for it like you'd have for charity.
A higher tax rate means that economists can much more confidently say "this is how much money the US government will have for spending in 2020" than guessing how much ultra-wealthy will pay, and then not request refund on.
Yeah that's my thought. 'Why don't you personally go do that and get back to us' in response to argument for collective action is a bad faith response.
So, he did that. He works full time as a philanthropist, then came back to us with this blog post and said "I alone can't fix this, we need collective action, in the form of higher taxes on the rich."
The typical argument made by fiscal conservatives is "the philanthropists will remove the need of the welfare state." This rich philanthropist is writing this article to say "that is incorrect, it isn't enough."
It doesn't just vanish, it reduces inflation which allows more money to be spent by congress. It would only be able to "vanish" if you were paying your taxes with a non-fiat currency.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/04/orrin-hatch-says...
While one billionaire paying extra for the Greater Good would be fine in isolation, how effective would that be in the big picture?
Concerns of virtue signaling? The ramifications of what he is proposing is that if he gets his wish, he (and others like him) have their taxes go up. He's coming out in support of policies already being discussed (and attempting to persuade other politicians to also champion those policies). This isn't changing one's profile picture in support of the cause of the moment.
This is why it is important that increased taxes for the highest brackets are instituted generally and not on the charity of a few.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
>In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action.
This man appears to be taking action, and advocating action.
> Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of what had so generously been given to me. But I’ve come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream.
Lately, I find myself in discussions with people using the term to mock anybody that demonstrates care for liberal cause. I'm happy to acknowledge the transformation of the term "virtue signalling" to mean "supporting liberal causes," if that's what you want the term to mean in your post. Of course, I'd abandon any presumptive negative associations with the action of "virtue signalling," then.
The author, Eli Broad. He's not just using words, he devotes himself "full-time" to philanthropy.
This is my confusion - everyone's saying "why doesn't HE do anything about it?" He is, is he not? And he wrote this article because he's " come to realize that no amount of philanthropic commitment will compensate for the deep inequities preventing most Americans — the factory workers and farmers, entrepreneurs and electricians, teachers, nurses and small-business owners — from the basic prosperity we call the American dream." So what gives?