Skip to navigationSkip to content

Jamie Dimon on Tax-Hike Proposals: The Rich ‘Can Afford to Pay More’

By Bloomberg

Billionaire CEO Jamie Dimon is OK with tax hikes on the rich, as long as the revenue goes where he thinks it’ll do the most good

Comments

  • Also share to
  • Paul O'Brien
    Paul O'BrienCEO at MediaTech Ventures

    There is no better definition in human society of "we know what's best for others," than this topic. I'll never wrap my head around how we all agree that on abhorent circumstances of WKWBFO, such as segregation, we can't/don't allow those who believe segregating others against their will is okay. But when it comes to something like this, "we know what's best is that *they* can afford it, therefore it's okay that we agree to take more of their money," we discuss it as ethically acceptable.

    And then

    There is no better definition in human society of "we know what's best for others," than this topic. I'll never wrap my head around how we all agree that on abhorent circumstances of WKWBFO, such as segregation, we can't/don't allow those who believe segregating others against their will is okay. But when it comes to something like this, "we know what's best is that *they* can afford it, therefore it's okay that we agree to take more of their money," we discuss it as ethically acceptable.

    And then some defend it, as though there is any gray area... "Well they are rich *enough* so clearly that's okay." "Well they have, and others don't, so we think it's okay that we take more of what they have."

  • William MacMonagle
    William MacMonagleCommunity College Instructor

    Two levels of society, the wealthy and wage slaves. Are you comfortable with that, or would you like to see a more equitable society where people pay their fair share to provide goods and services everyone shares? Now we have lots of billionaires but no money for infrastructure, and healthcare that leads to bankruptcy. Great country here where people live in their cars, while a very few buy more yachts and mansions they can live in at once and whine that the people who complain are lazy. Just what

    Two levels of society, the wealthy and wage slaves. Are you comfortable with that, or would you like to see a more equitable society where people pay their fair share to provide goods and services everyone shares? Now we have lots of billionaires but no money for infrastructure, and healthcare that leads to bankruptcy. Great country here where people live in their cars, while a very few buy more yachts and mansions they can live in at once and whine that the people who complain are lazy. Just what do the Uber wealthy think revolutions of the past were caused by?

  • Catherine Tannahill
    Catherine Tannahillprof, teacher

    The question is not whether they can afford to but whether they are willing to AND what are their options to avoid doing so.

  • Rich Eddy
    Rich EddyFounder at Factor Four, LLC

    I suggest that Jamie start by simply writing a check for the "more" that he is willing to pay. No crime in sending extra to the IRS, and it would demonstrate a certain conviction in his beliefs.

  • Rene Gomez
    Rene GomezExports at International Paint LLC/AkzoNobel

    But the federal government doesn't know how to manage that.

    What if taxing the rich isn't enough

    Then what

  • ben ellis
    ben ellis

    There are two vary obvious problems with this. First, disproportionaly taxing highest earning folks is something we already do, so our plan is to add to their tax requirements? No offense, i'd move to a nice non extradition country. Second, and Dimin hinted at this, the government doesnt do a fabulous job with the resources they already draw from tax payers, so we want to give them more to spend poorly. I dont think this is viable or smart.

  • Michael Andrews
    Michael AndrewsFounder & CEO at MPA Global

    Agree!

  • Dave Lane
    Dave LaneRetired

    Capitalism must evolve, or it will die.

    Cut out the middle man... Don't increase taxes for the wealthy and corporations then rely on the government to equitably redistribute that wealth. Instead, business should pay wages that people can live on.

    Corporations should pay their employees well before paying their shareholders at all.

    Wall Street is to blame for the fundamental flaw of capitalism! People who invest in companies have come to expect an unreasonable return on their investments and are

    Capitalism must evolve, or it will die.

    Cut out the middle man...  Don't increase taxes for the wealthy and corporations then rely on the government to equitably redistribute that wealth.  Instead, business should pay wages that people can live on.

    Corporations should pay their employees well before paying their shareholders at all.

    Wall Street is to blame for the fundamental flaw of capitalism!  People who invest in companies have come to expect an unreasonable return on their investments and are the driving factor for decisions made by big business.

    A company will lay off thousands of employees if necessary to achieve their quarterly goals in order to keep their investors happy and their stock value rising -- without thinking twice of the laborers who made it all possible.

    Corporations will lay off staff then replace their services with temporary staff and contract labor that they don't have to provide any benefits to, thereby lowering their overhead and increasing profits for shareholders.

    Companies like Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's pay people so poorly that full-time employees have to turn to the tax funded social services for food, adequate health care coverage, and housing -- All while the owners and shareholders of these companies get wealthier by the hour.

    Many changes are needed to correct the issues we're faced with today and the first two changes are:

    Legislate living wages, and cap ROI -- forcing big business to pay their employees more and their investors less.

    The money needed to correct this should come from the profits generated by bussinesses, not through taxes.

    The country's tax base will increase when millions of middle and working class families are paid what they're worth.

    Tax funded social services will then be adequately funded to care for those who truly aren't able to care for themselves.

    And yes, there are many complications to work through but this isn't my doctoral dissertation -- it's just a really long comment on an article. These complications CAN BE addressed if we have the resolve to do it.

    Like any other organism, if capitalism is to survive it must adapt to the socal forces that exist today and develope a conscience.

    It must evolve.

    Or it will die 

  • Damn right Jamie. But with the firepower against this is more than the weight his words carry.

  • Mark Riley
    Mark Riley

    Every rich person who advocates for a tax hike has a plan or can avoid paying it.

    If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality and not power, you address how the rich person got that way and not redistribution.

    Extreme wealth is always gotten by theft or by market barriers to competition.

  • De’Andre Crenshaw
    De’Andre CrenshawRetail Managment at CVS Pharmacy

    Of course they can be we need legislators and the general public to understand and work to change the system. I’ve been waiting for him to wait her announce a run or back a candidate for years. I’ve listen to his views on infrastructure, education, and modernizing the workforce, free trade, immigration and most of his values are pretty liberal and were in step with where the party was under Obama. He has even been fairly critical of Trump I keep holding out for him to get all the way in.

  • Blake Johnson
    Blake Johnson

    What I've always found so interesting about this topic is the thought that everything knows what's best. Some say the rich can afford more taxes, so hit 'em hard, others say taxes are tyranny. The problem as I see it is yes, the rich can afford to pay more, but robbing the rich who produce and paying the poor who don't is a disincentive for anyone to produce: why work when others get paid for my labor and why work when I get paid for others' labor? Extreme taxes on the rich is a slippery slope, but

    What I've always found so interesting about this topic is the thought that everything knows what's best. Some say the rich can afford more taxes, so hit 'em hard, others say taxes are tyranny. The problem as I see it is yes, the rich can afford to pay more, but robbing the rich who produce and paying the poor who don't is a disincentive for anyone to produce: why work when others get paid for my labor and why work when I get paid for others' labor? Extreme taxes on the rich is a slippery slope, but something MUST be done to address this extreme gap in lifestyles.

  • Daniel Joel Nicolosi
    Daniel Joel Nicolosi

    In a perfect world there would be no need for money and everyone can eat and be merry and be happy. But as a society we are delusional to think that the magnitude of this situation of higher taxes will somehow constitute a shift in human resources. I'm sorry, Mr. CEO but that is what my father calls stinking thinking. We are on two different sides of the same coin. Heads and tails are what we need to get rid of to have a more coherent society. Maybe it's affectataious of me to think this way but

    In a perfect world there would be no need for money and everyone can eat and be merry and be happy. But as a society we are delusional to think that the magnitude of this situation of higher taxes will somehow constitute a shift in human resources. I'm sorry, Mr. CEO but that is what my father calls stinking thinking. We are on two different sides of the same coin. Heads and tails are what we need to get rid of to have a more coherent society. Maybe it's affectataious of me to think this way but it's a prominent way of thinking. Please note that I am not for higher taxation of people that make more money and are successful. Why are we punishing people who are striving to be the best at what they do. You reward people for elevating themselves to a higher plain not repormand. I digress

  • Steve Nevins
    Steve Nevins

    This quote from the writer of this story: "The ideas have sparked a debate about how best to address a growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S."

    It seems to me that by creating more taxes for the rich, the "debate" is non-existent for the liberal minded. They support addressing the wealth gap by making the rich poorer.

    It sure would be nice if we could start incentivizing the poor to become richer.....and that doesn't happen by giving them monthly stipends in the form of goverment "assistence"

    This quote from the writer of this story:  "The ideas have sparked a debate about how best to address a growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S."

    It seems to me that by creating more taxes for the rich, the "debate" is non-existent for the liberal minded. They support addressing the wealth gap by making the rich poorer.

    It sure would be nice if we could start incentivizing the poor to become richer.....and that doesn't happen by giving them monthly stipends in the form of goverment "assistence". Perhaps we should be looking at things like:

    A. Low-interest loans (with accompanied mentoring and monitoring) for start-up businesses,

    B. Reduced tuition and zero-interest loans for post secondary education,

    C. Increased pay & benefits for military career options,

    D. Disincentives (instead of incentives) for out of wedlock births, which is one of the 3 leading characteristics of the poverty class. The others being no high school graduation and not working a full time job,

    E. Cash bonuses for graduating from high school.

    These incentives should NOT be race or sex based, but income based. You may not agree with all these ideas but the point is to create an environment where the poor are elevated, not one that drags the wealthy down. We should be a country where the environment should be one of giving people all kinds of avenues to success, not punishing the few that achieve success.

  • Ron Jacobs
    Ron JacobsRetired General Counsel of NYSE traded Corp

    Ok with paying more tax.....

    ...”As Long As The Money Goes Where HE thinks it will do the most good”!

    Therein lies the rub.

    His idea of where is best is not necessarily what the next man’s is. Moreover “HE” has absolutely no input on how or where extra tax revenue will be spent.

    Nancy might tell him where it won’t be!

  • Brian Lassiter
    Brian Lassiter

    The other question is: Just because they can, does that mean they should?

  • Chris Forman
    Chris FormanDr

    I like the idea of a target income distribution for a population of N people.

    If it's a normal distribution then the variation in people's income is random - not systematic! It's systematic unfairness that we want tax to eliminate. A free world with no built-in unfairness to any one.

    If its normally distributed about some mean m then m*N is GDP. You want global GDP to be static and within the bounds that earth can support. (I'm thinking about whole world here - not just US). If someone starts to

    I like the idea of a target income distribution for a population of N people.

    If it's a normal distribution then the variation in people's income is random - not systematic! It's systematic unfairness that we want tax to eliminate. A free world with no built-in unfairness to any one.

    If its normally distributed about some mean m then m*N is GDP. You want global GDP to be static and within the bounds that earth can support. (I'm thinking about whole world here - not just US). If someone starts to earn too much more than their fair share you gradually, smoothly, increase tax to make it harder, and harder to get mega wealthy.

    I guess m should be around $150K and it should be as high as possible. You want the standard deviation to be about $50K so 68% of people earn between $100 and $200k, 94% between 50 and 250, and only .1% below 25k or above 300k. Might be better if it's slightly skewed. But you want to limit skewness. Ideally kurtosis is very low so that you don't have very heavy tails. No mega rich. No mega poor.

    This way there's still alot of incentive to get from 50k to 300k income but everyone is working for themselves. Not to make some rich bugger richer. You get a nice predictable tax revenue evenly and fairly shared.

    If the income distribution starts to skew you know that taxes aren't being spent fairly.

    Seems simple enough to me.

  • Jim George
    Jim George

    Well Brian? I'm sure you know without a balance between the rich, middle class and poor? Historically you can get a revolution? Everbody argues over the balance? Hate to wait until after the revolt to answer that one? Lol

  • Patrick Lantz
    Patrick Lantz

    I think it should be a straight tax. Something everyone can afford. Say 15%. With no loop holes or tax credits. No business loopholes and no child tax credits. You owe the 15% and thats that

  • "...as long as the revenue goes where he thinks it’ll do the most good." Therein lies the rub.

  • Michael Dee
    Michael Dee

    Why doesn't he just raise salaries for the lowest earners in his organization? Why would he want to give the government more power by not doing that, and prefer a tax increase? Backwards logic? Corporate socialist anybody?

  • Michael Dakova-Vaughan
    Michael Dakova-Vaughan

    The real reason for the income disparity is not oppression from the 'haves' to the 'have nots', it's the culture most societies foster. We live in a world were it is not the norm to follow your own dream or path. "Society's path is the best path for you" is what we are taught subliminally. We are afraid of being embarrassed from not fitting in that we loose our way in the process of deriving a better life. If you observe the lives of most self made billionaires across the globe (of our time), their

    The real reason for the income disparity is not oppression from the 'haves' to the 'have nots', it's the culture most societies foster. We live in a world were it is not the norm to follow your own dream or path. "Society's path is the best path for you" is what we are taught subliminally. We are afraid of being embarrassed from not fitting in that we loose our way in the process of deriving a better life. If you observe the lives of most self made billionaires across the globe (of our time), their riches came as a result of clear-cut individualism. In other words, they deviated from the norm to some degree.

    A progressive tax system is worthless if the revenue gotten by the government (facilitating body of society) is not spent on means to encourage individual freedom. Investments must be made in training programs that teach people about the beauty of life. People are encouraged to live in fear because of things like poverty and a lack of security. This shouldn't be. Progress made in life by any individual should be based off a desire to be better and explore, but not to live in fear of being rejected by the status quo. The perception towards the class systems is flawed. It shouldn't matter what class a person is, and the revenue gotten from the progressive tax system should be spent on ways to change this.

    Hint: start with the education system. Stop teaching children and encouraging parents to believe their lives begin and end with material things such as cars, a big house and secured job. Values that encourage imagination, freedom of being and compassion must be taught instead. The material stuff are just a added prizes. They shouldn't be the end, they are just a means.

  • Loel Larzelere
    Loel Larzelere

    I'm currently a wage slave. I'd like to be a billionaire some day before I die. Along the way, I'd like to think that I know best what to do with the money I earn.

  • David Flores
    David Flores

    I agree. It's difficult to have a conversation explaining that unless we redistribute wealth after you make 10 million and over a year it will lead to only one conclusion. 70% of all wealth goes to 3% of Americans. How much is enough? Capitalism was always meant to be in check otherwise it turns into just as an oppressive society as any other can be

  • Barclay Quatremain
    Barclay Quatremain

    The "people" who are responsible for spending, allowances and where the money goes, need to be more accountable to ensure rules, regulations, applications and acceptances are correctly created in the first place. Needs to be more means testing and more evaluations on a yearly basis per individual to prove their need and to show they have tried (where it is obvious that there is ability to improve) in order to benefit.

  • Michael Gardner
    Michael Gardner

    I don’t think that makes sense to me,because , if that is our philosophical stance then they’re would be two prices for everything on the market

    And every consumer would have show proof of bincome and assets beforehand , this philosophy would cause chaos and turmoil in the marketplace

  • liv walker
    liv walker

    Essentially as it stands a tax of 40% on wage earners that make half a million year is extreme. A 40 percent tax on earners that make tens of millions and above may be warranted though.

  • Jeffrey Rezende, MPA
    Jeffrey Rezende, MPAFlight Attendant at Major Airline

    Some here say the government is not efficient. Tell that to all the Social Security recipients who get their check every month, or all the mail recipients who rely on an efficient USPO. There are too many examples to list here. Don't believe everything you read about government waste.

  • Dennis Morrison
    Dennis Morrison

    How rich is rich, how much more is more, and how is it going to be spent/wasted????????

  • Ben Justice
    Ben Justicebusiness Owner

    No One thinks about, How easy it is For The Republicans, Embezzlement Of Two Trillions each time A new GOP President comes to power? This money is dishonestly Distributed To Koch Brothers, Apple, Google, The Walton Family, 1%....People really hurting for Cash has to return to IRS, the Republican’s Heist! Criminal.! #Debt

  • Patricia Lincourt
    Patricia LincourtSocial Worker

    We are social animals. Great societies invest in individuals to help them thrive and maximize freedom and individuals who thrive contribute back to the whole society. Many very rich people have been saying this for a long time. I think we are seeing a shift towards rebalancing, and it is welcome.

  • Joe Brown
    Joe BrownFreight relocation and logistics specialists.

    Of course he did. My question is why does the Gov't have to come up with a scheme for him to pay more? He can give over and beyond what the Gov't says he is supposed to pay. He knows the Gov't won't come up with anything because then certain politicians would have to pay (supposedly)

  • Max Burroughs
    Max Burroughsstudent at NBHS

    I'm glad that some people still have the ability to put our country before their own self intrest.

  • Ante Perkov
    Ante Perkov

    The vast majority of wealthy people have pricing power, so they simply do not pay taxes. You do when you bank at Chase or drink at Starbucks. But you do you, progressive friends.

  • Kay Zee
    Kay Zee

    This sounds too good to be true. I smell a nasty nasty catch.. one that has to do with purchasing power and inflationary prices...

  • Dan Snook
    Dan Snook

    Dare I say it again. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. We squander our wealth. If everyone paid taxes on every dollar of income (if you’re going to collect taxes by income) there might be a better understanding and appreciation for our treasury dollars.

  • Melanie  Peterson
    Melanie Peterson

    All these billionaires, or anyone for that matter, can contribute more $$ to the Federal gov’t each year if they truly believe the top 1% should pay more. I bet none of them do, or they’d be bragging about it.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.