I don't know about you but the first dollar I make over 10 million a year I have to pay 70% of to the government and I'm selling my mansions and summer homes and moving to Greenland.
I don't know about you but the first dollar I make over 10 million a year I have to pay 70% of to the government and I'm selling my mansions and summer homes and moving to Greenland.Lol! Look another idiot who doesn't understand how taxes work!
The income tax as we know it was enacted in 1913 and was targeting the top 1-2 % of wager earners with a 7% income tax. Within 4 years of its adoption the lowest bracket that was paying 2% in 1913 was paying 12% of their income. Nearly 50% higher than the original rich mans tax bracket. And new lower brackets showed up that were paying the original 7% with half the income of the original lowest bracket. The middle to lower middle classes were paying the previous rich level of taxes. That is the point I think Texashiker is trying to get across. These types of proposals are not in a vacuum. And once you justify a 70% tax rate on one income bracket. What stops them from moving everybody else along?
I also find it interesting how the 1950s is so reveled by the left in this country. It was a time of reprehensible racism and union protectionism that artificially grew the wages of white america. The interstate system was a dept of defense project so we could ferry our troops around the country faster. Not that it wasnt a good project. But the purpose of it was war. And if we love the 1950s so much from a tax perspective. Why do people never mention the bottom paying bracket had a rate between 22-24.6% through the entire decade? Which again plays into Texashikers argument that once they open up the pandoras box of high taxes for the rich it will hit us all.
It really seems like a "bring the rich down to our level" motivation rather than just a "raise money" motivation since taxes paid as a percentage of income has been basically flat over decades no matter what the nominal tax rate was. When the left starts seriously proposing Hugo Chavez style asset confiscation/nationalization that's when we know they're being serious about it but only guys like @Jhhnn would probably be down with that. Like I said until then this is just red meat talk for the partisan rubes who don't realize that wealth distribution isn't outside of the truly long term range (and their inability or unwillingness to see beyond the post WW2 outlier period).
Yes it's so terrible since 1980 that the HDI has gone up nearly 10 basis points.
All tax rates are for social engineering. Again, are you arguing that all tax is bad? Also, we are not capping anything. The person still made over $10M in profit in a single year and is still taking home a small portion of everything over and above that.Because tax rates that high are with social engineering in mind. Why is $10M considered "too much" and in need of drastic taxation? If someone starts a small company and entices people to join in this highly risky venture with large amounts of equity why should we cap that risk at being worth $10M only? What business is that of ours?
As Tesla becomes more successful, obviously Elon Musk's risk in starting that company will not only go a long way towards fighting climate change, but will earn him huge returns on his investment. With a 70% Federal tax on everything he earns above $10M, a 13.3% California state tax, and 2.35% high earner Medicare tax, that means every dollar beyond $10M is taxed at 85.65%.
On top of that, Elon is behind SpaceX which is working to advance mankind into the stars which is another noble cause.
For having such a profound impact on fighting climate change and advancing human engineering and understanding, why do you feel his risky ventures cannot be worth much more than $10M per year to him?
If he knew the potential rewards for the risk of starting these businesses would be capped so severely do you think he would have done both or either at all?
Honestly I don't know what the right number is but whatever the Uber rich are being taxed is not enough. The point of taxes ultimately is wealth redistribution (mostly in the form of social services shared goods) and we're not doing a very good job right now. We pretty much a hair away from the Uber rich buying up national parks.
There's actually data that supports the complete opposite of what you stated: That without the incentive of ludicrous income levels, the highly talented are actually incentivized towards society-benefitting vocations like research scientist or teacher. That rings true if you think about it - I know a lot of very smart people in tech who went to work on Wall Street or at Facebook / LinkedIn / etc instead of starting their own thing or doing research because the lure of high six or low seven figures annually was just too strong.More like "no matter how many amazing ideas I have and incredible businesses I start, I'll never earn much more than $10M a year."
The general welfare of citizens is redistribution. Otherwise it's each man for themselves. When you pay for a military you're redistributing wealth into a shared military for all with out current system because taxes are not equal across individuals.I thought taxes were to ensure the general welfare of its citizens. If it turned out that taxing the rich 0% on all income would somehow fix our infrastructure, make our citizens healthy, and keep us safe, I'd be all for it.
Redistribution isn't the goal, its a means to an end. A lot of righties don't understand this which is why they want a small government instead of an efficient one.
I won't pretend that lots of economics doesn't only work in a magical world where everyone acts rationally and has perfect information available - lots are guilty of that - but the major studies on this topic do take into account tax avoidance. In other words, they've thought about if it would actually work. And they all say it would.Because nobel laueates dont pass legislation.
I don't think you should accept this from yourself, much less expect me to - waving off the consensus of experts just because you want to is one of the worst qualities of modern conservatism. You're better than that. Show me data and studies that this is a bad idea; I'm open to criticism of the idea, but only actual criticism grounded in something real.Well, theres the Constitution to start with. And your expert could be my whack job, just as my expert could be your whack job.
For a wealth tax? There's a great case study of failure for this... FranceI won't pretend that lots of economics doesn't only work in a magical world where everyone acts rationally and has perfect information available - lots are guilty of that - but the major studies on this topic do take into account tax avoidance. In other words, they've thought about if it would actually work. And they all say it would.
I don't think you should accept this from yourself, much less expect me to - waving off the consensus of experts just because you want to is one of the worst qualities of modern conservatism. You're better than that. Show me data and studies that this is a bad idea; I'm open to criticism of the idea, but only actual criticism grounded in something real.
Well isn't that convenient, your chart doesn't go back far enough for a compare and contrast.
It is your fault however that the chart didn't address the point I was making at the time though.1980 was exactly the date cited in the post I replied to. Not my fault that the arbitrary date he chose to cite in his post corresponds with a relevant graphic that has an equally arbitrary start date on it that happens to be the same date provided in that post I quoted. Most of the time series I found online end in 1990, if you have earlier data please feel free to post it here.
It is your fault however that the chart didn't address the point I was making at the time though.
That still does not address the issue. You seem to think that we have to go backwards. The reality is that we would all have been even better off today if we didn't give your shit economic policies a try.People don’t pay for groceries or rent in relative percentages of total national income. The average American is better off than they were in 1980 in Most ways and their quality of life has gone up significantly, that was my point. No honest person would want a 1970s lifestyle even if they had to accept a 1970s “share of income” to go with it. It’s not like the rest of the world has stood still either and American workers are competing against 1 billion Chinese people making one dollar a day.
People don’t pay for groceries or rent in relative percentages of total national income. The average American is better off than they were in 1980 in Most ways and their quality of life has gone up significantly, that was my point. No honest person would want a 1970s lifestyle even if they had to accept a 1970s “share of income” to go with it. It’s not like the rest of the world has stood still either and American workers are competing against 1 billion Chinese people making one dollar a day.
Don't the wealthy funnel much of their fortune into low taxed investments like real estate? Anyway, I think it's an awful idea. The drive to open business and to take massive risk in America would be so low. Why would anyone take risk when the government would take most of it anyway. I don't trust the US government. They'd just waste the money on stupid pet projects.
Tax everything as regular income imo, but calculate taxes owed by recognizing gains straight-line over the asset's holding period and applying the marginal rates to income from each year. This would be a huge boon for equity incentive holders (depending on what rates we're comparing obviously) and significantly reduces risk to entrepreneurs and institutional investors in a high marginal tax rate scheme.Long term capital gains. People that make $10M+ are far more likely to invest and be paid in investments. My company gives me a lot of stock options and RSUs and you can bet I'll hang onto all of them until they qualify for long term capital gains.
Should we tax any investment income as regular income? What effect do you think that would have on the economy if suddenly all long term investments became 15% less profitable (35% tax bracket vs. 20% tax on LTCG)?
Tax policy is a means of subsidizing behavior. Long term investment businesses is good for the country and the economy which is why we tax long term more favorably than short term.
This one of the best ideological arguments for (high) marginal tax rates. A fuck-ton of your success was luck, let's tax a higher proportion of those gains to reinvest in institutions and infrastructure which maximize others' opportunity to control their own destiny.Not to mention the ideal that in this country you control your own destiny (with a fuck ton of luck, too).
Pay me over 10 mill a year and I’ll gladly pay 70%
The income tax as we know it was enacted in 1913 and was targeting the top 1-2 % of wager earners with a 7% income tax. Within 4 years of its adoption the lowest bracket that was paying 2% in 1913 was paying 12% of their income. Nearly 50% higher than the original rich mans tax bracket. And new lower brackets showed up that were paying the original 7% with half the income of the original lowest bracket. The middle to lower middle classes were paying the previous rich level of taxes. That is the point I think Texashiker is trying to get across. These types of proposals are not in a vacuum. And once you justify a 70% tax rate on one income bracket. What stops them from moving everybody else along?
I also find it interesting how the 1950s is so reveled by the left in this country. It was a time of reprehensible racism and union protectionism that artificially grew the wages of white america. The interstate system was a dept of defense project so we could ferry our troops around the country faster. Not that it wasnt a good project. But the purpose of it was war. And if we love the 1950s so much from a tax perspective. Why do people never mention the bottom paying bracket had a rate between 22-24.6% through the entire decade? Which again plays into Texashikers argument that once they open up the pandoras box of high taxes for the rich it will hit us all.
They don't take most of it. They take most of it AFTER your first 10 million.Don't the wealthy funnel much of their fortune into low taxed investments like real estate? Anyway, I think it's an awful idea. The drive to open business and to take massive risk in America would be so low. Why would anyone take risk when the government would take most of it anyway. I don't trust the US government. They'd just waste the money on stupid pet projects.
They don't take most of it. They take most of it AFTER your first 10 million.
Don't the wealthy funnel much of their fortune into low taxed investments like real estate? Anyway, I think it's an awful idea. The drive to open business and to take massive risk in America would be so low. Why would anyone take risk when the government would take most of it anyway. I don't trust the US government. They'd just waste the money on stupid pet projects.
People don’t pay for groceries or rent in relative percentages of total national income. The average American is better off than they were in 1980 in Most ways and their quality of life has gone up significantly, that was my point. No honest person would want a 1970s lifestyle even if they had to accept a 1970s “share of income” to go with it. It’s not like the rest of the world has stood still either and American workers are competing against 1 billion Chinese people making one dollar a day.
When the government spends that money they will look for new sources of income. Then the limit will be dropped to 1 million, then to $100,000 a year... etc until the government hits the middle class.
Thus is the result of democracy, the many taking from the few.
We already have too many taxes. If anything certain taxes need to be abolished.