A 70% tax on income above $10 million; what do we think of this idea?

[glenn1]

Understand this clip.

The only reason for someone to be against a 10mil 70% income tax is if you are ALREADY in the money-money, the fuck-you-fuck-you-money-money. For everyone else trying to get IN the money, you WANT that 70%, in fact your success depends on it.
Comprehend this please, ffs.
Also, what do you think is best for America, a few donzen uber billionaries running slave factories in China or tens, hundreds, of thousands 10-million millionaires running innovation and new job opportunities?

Because those of us who aren't consumed with cutting the rich down to size realize the same principle can be used to justify taking 70% of income could also be used in the name of "fairness" to seize 70% of anything belonging to someone, whether property or time or body parts. Morally taking 70% of Bill Gate's income because "he's one of the few dozen uber billionaires" is no different than saying we'll take 70% of someone's IP because Tom Clancy has so many published books and so much of the population has no published books at all. Or property of a "few dozen undesrving property owners" because they want to give the land to someone else (see Kelo v. New London - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Or because they want to harvest 70% of their cells without compensation because they're one of a few dozen "uber genetic mutations" not common to the general population (see Henrietta Lax - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa).

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You’re arguing for the reduced incentive to work aspect of high taxes on the rich. Good news, there’s a lot of research on the topic and the effects are pretty marginal so there’s not much to worry about.

Do you mind citing those? Curious how one can create a reputable study on this subject considering it's not something that has ever really happened in the recent history of millionaires/billionaires

 

[fskimospy]

Do you mind citing those? Curious how one can create a reputable study on this subject considering it's not something that has ever really happened in the recent history of millionaires/billionaires

I won’t be at a computer today so it will have to wait but there are plenty of studies out there on the effect of marginal tax rates on incentives to earn and they generally find the effects are not large. The idea that rich people are going to Go Galt is a myth.

If you remind me later (like, tomorrow) I can find some.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I won’t be at a computer today so it will have to wait but there are plenty of studies out there on the effect of marginal tax rates on incentives to earn and they generally find the effects are not large. The idea that rich people are going to Go Galt is a myth.

If you remind me later (like, tomorrow) I can find some.

The studies would have to be based on drastically HIGH marginal tax rates since they (AoC, etc.) aren't talking 5, 10, or even 20% hikes. They are talking going from the 30's to 70's - or as much as 90's... That is a substantial difference.



Also, moving around is much easier than previously.

 

[dyna]

The only reason for someone to be against a 10mil 70% income tax is if you are ALREADY in the money-money, the fuck-you-fuck-you-money-money. For everyone else trying to get IN the money, you WANT that 70%, in fact your success depends on it.

It seems like there should be some exceptions, such as If you sell a company that you build from the ground up and you make 10 million+ for that 1 year so that you can retire. Other exceptions might be Musicians that have one hit wonders, patents that flame out after a year etc...

 

[cytg111]

Understand this clip.

The only reason for someone to be against a 10mil 70% income tax is if you are ALREADY in the money-money, the fuck-you-fuck-you-money-money. For everyone else trying to get IN the money, you WANT that 70%, in fact your success depends on it.
Comprehend this please, ffs.

Because those of us who aren't consumed with cutting the rich down to size realize the same principle can be used to justify taking 70% of income could also be used in the name of "fairness" to seize 70% of anything belonging to someone, whether property or time or body parts. Morally taking 70% of Bill Gate's income because "he's one of the few dozen uber billionaires" is no different than saying we'll take 70% of someone's IP because Tom Clancy has so many published books and so much of the population has no published books at all. Or property of a "few dozen undesrving property owners" because they want to give the land to someone else (see Kelo v. New London - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Or because they want to harvest 70% of their cells without compensation because they're one of a few dozen "uber genetic mutations" not common to the general population (see Henrietta Lax - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa).

Full blown stockholm syndrome! Meanwhile, ironically, I am enjoying the American Dream in Scandinavia.

 

[glenn1]

Full blown stockholm syndrome! Meanwhile, ironically, I am enjoying the American Dream in Scandinavia.

That's great, we actually have a saying in the U.S. "different strokes for different folks." Some folks like "all-inclusive" vacations where meals and incidentals are included, others like going out and finding their own meal. Some folks would use a windfall $100 to buy electronic equipment and others would put it into their retirement savings account. Having choices is good, which is why the U.S. is a great place - you can go live in a state with high taxes and government services, or go live in a state with low taxes and low government services. Having the feds step in and force a "high tax/services" on an entire country of 300+ million people with wildly different wants and needs would be a terrible thing IMHO. Presuming that a Mormon father of 12 in Utah prepping for the end of the world and living off-grid would want the government to provide exactly the same services to him as what a black transgender teenager with autism living in inner city Philadelphia would want is the height of arrogance.

 

[dank69]

That's great, we actually have a saying in the U.S. "different strokes for different folks." Some folks like "all-inclusive" vacations where meals and incidentals are included, others like going out and finding their own meal. Some folks would use a windfall $100 to buy electronic equipment and others would put it into their retirement savings account. Having choices is good, which is why the U.S. is a great place - you can go live in a state with high taxes and government services, or go live in a state with low taxes and low government services. Having the feds step in and force a "high tax/services" on an entire country of 300+ million people with wildly different wants and needs would be a terrible thing IMHO. Presuming that a Mormon father of 12 in Utah prepping for the end of the world and living off-grid would want the government to provide exactly the same services to him as what a black transgender teenager with autism living in inner city Philadelphia would want is the height of arrogance.

Anyone can go off grid anytime they want and guess what? They don't have to pay taxes, unless they are trying to get money from somewhere on the grid, and then they aren't really off grid anymore now are they?

 

[glenn1]

Anyone can go off grid anytime they want and guess what? They don't have to pay taxes, unless they are trying to get money from somewhere on the grid, and then they aren't really off grid anymore now are they?

"Off the grid" is generally taken to mean becoming as self-sufficient as possible and not needing to rely on community infrastructure or programs for survival (e.g. electrical power, water, et cetera). It doesn't mean complete withdraw from society like a hermit living in the Alaskan bush 200 miles from the nearest town or being a "sovereign citizen" who thinks the feds have no right to collect income taxes. There can sometimes be some amount of overlap of course and "off the grid" folks sometimes will not work enough to be required to pay taxes (after standard deduction, etc) but it doesn't absolutely require someone to be unemployed or stockpiling guns like Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge to await the final confrontation with the one world government.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's great, we actually have a saying in the U.S. "different strokes for different folks." Some folks like "all-inclusive" vacations where meals and incidentals are included, others like going out and finding their own meal. Some folks would use a windfall $100 to buy electronic equipment and others would put it into their retirement savings account. Having choices is good, which is why the U.S. is a great place - you can go live in a state with high taxes and government services, or go live in a state with low taxes and low government services. Having the feds step in and force a "high tax/services" on an entire country of 300+ million people with wildly different wants and needs would be a terrible thing IMHO. Presuming that a Mormon father of 12 in Utah prepping for the end of the world and living off-grid would want the government to provide exactly the same services to him as what a black transgender teenager with autism living in inner city Philadelphia would want is the height of arrogance.

That's ridiculous. Offering a broad range of services covers both. You don't know shit about the FLDS, either. Their enclaves in Utah & elsewhere would dry up & blow away w/o federal funds.

https://fox13now.com/2017/01/04/flds-members-take-plea-deals-in-massive-food-stamp-fraud-case/

 

[glenn1]

That's ridiculous. Offering a broad range of services covers both. You don't know shit about the FLDS, either. Their enclaves in Utah & elsewhere would dry up & blow away w/o federal funds.

https://fox13now.com/2017/01/04/flds-members-take-plea-deals-in-massive-food-stamp-fraud-case/

FFS it's a hypothetical example. Feel free to substitute any number of tens of millions of people who are self-sufficient and consume no or nearly no federal transfer benefits, for them there's little benefit to living in a high tax/benefit situation and they'd probably have little to no interest in doing so. For them the ideal federal budgeting model would be one of limited taxation and spending that broadly benefited everyone (like infrastructure) and very modest social welfare spending. We already know YOU want to tax the shit out of rich people to give it to poor folks, that's not the question here of whether it's a good idea for that to be done GENERALLY and whether the other 300+ million people in the country should support it also.

 

[Jhhnn]

FFS it's a hypothetical example. Feel free to substitute any number of tens of millions of people who are self-sufficient and consume no or nearly no federal transfer benefits, for them there's little benefit to living in a high tax/benefit situation and they'd probably have little to no interest in doing so. For them the ideal federal budgeting model would be one of limited taxation and spending that broadly benefited everyone (like infrastructure) and very modest social welfare spending. We already know YOU want to tax the shit out of rich people to give it to poor folks, that's not the question here of whether it's a good idea for that to be done GENERALLY and whether the other 300+ million people in the country should support it also.

Self sufficiency in a modern society is a myth & has been for a very long time. Nobody but extremely poor people in remote locations actually live off the grid. All the stuff making such an illusion possible comes from the grid.

 

[Genx87]

That's a great argument! I never get tired of the, "if you do X, then people will start marrying and having sex with animals" type argument.

Of course your fucking argument falls flat on its face when you realize that we've had higher taxes and get this, they went down! In fact, taxes have been lowered more than they have been raised. So much for Pandora's box.

I'm not sure what your point is except to say we should keep trying to make the same mistakes. Because we had a 91% top rate at one point that didn't work we should do it again? If the issue is people don't believe 1.7 trillion in non-FICA tax revenue is enough to fund this bloated carcass of a govt we have. Then close the loopholes and raise the effective rates. Jerking off about 70% over 10 million when we all know anybody making 10 million or more is venturing into capital gains territory is a wast of time. They wont be paying the tax anyways. But then 70% over 10 million tickles down to the middle class who don't take capital gains. You know, like the 1950s when the lowest bracket paid 22-24.6% of their income in federal taxes. Or at least were supposed to. And then we all wonder what happened as the desired result of wealth distribution down failed to materialize, again.

 

[cytg111]

That's great, we actually have a saying in the U.S. "different strokes for different folks." Some folks like "all-inclusive" vacations where meals and incidentals are included, others like going out and finding their own meal. Some folks would use a windfall $100 to buy electronic equipment and others would put it into their retirement savings account. Having choices is good, which is why the U.S. is a great place - you can go live in a state with high taxes and government services, or go live in a state with low taxes and low government services. Having the feds step in and force a "high tax/services" on an entire country of 300+ million people with wildly different wants and needs would be a terrible thing IMHO. Presuming that a Mormon father of 12 in Utah prepping for the end of the world and living off-grid would want the government to provide exactly the same services to him as what a black transgender teenager with autism living in inner city Philadelphia would want is the height of arrogance.

10 million dollars..... is a shitton of dollars.
It is not about punishing the rich, whats the difference between a rich guy making 20 million and 60 million? An astonishing 40 million on the bank account.. other than that they're living in the same neighberhood, kids go to the same school, they eat at the same restaurants.. Differnence in lifestyle is miniscule... How about some of that 40 million diff gets put into infrastructure? So you will have educated competent young people to hire when you go for that dream of yours?
A rich mans money is worth what if he has no where to spend it?????<- thats the key.

 

[glenn1]

Self sufficiency in a modern society is a myth & has been for a very long time. Nobody but extremely poor people in remote locations actually live off the grid. All the stuff making such an illusion possible comes from the grid.

Here's an idea. We'll collect enough taxes so that everyone in the U.S. who needs it can have a job, housing, food, and free medical care. For those who can't afford them on their own these things will be provided to them and we'll do it in a centralized location to make logistics easier. We can call this amazing place a "jail" since that's a nice short word and easy to pronounce.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's an idea. We'll collect enough taxes so that everyone in the U.S. who needs it can have a job, housing, food, and free medical care. For those who can't afford them on their own these things will be provided to them and we'll do it in a centralized location to make logistics easier. We can call this amazing place a "jail" since that's a nice short word and easy to pronounce.

Just trolling, huh?

 

[dank69]

FFS it's a hypothetical example. Feel free to substitute any number of tens of millions of people who are self-sufficient and consume no or nearly no federal transfer benefits, for them there's little benefit to living in a high tax/benefit situation and they'd probably have little to no interest in doing so. For them the ideal federal budgeting model would be one of limited taxation and spending that broadly benefited everyone (like infrastructure) and very modest social welfare spending. We already know YOU want to tax the shit out of rich people to give it to poor folks, that's not the question here of whether it's a good idea for that to be done GENERALLY and whether the other 300+ million people in the country should support it also.

I know what it means but if someone needs to access our monetary system whether it be for a job or even just retrieving investment income then they benefit from all the systems and people that support that system.

 

[glenn1]

I know what it means but if someone needs to access our monetary system whether it be for a job or even just retrieving investment income then they benefit from all the systems and people that support that system.

People can agree in good faith about whether 70% of your income is a fair tradeoff for having someone else build previously "systems" (like roads and schools) that the person never agreed to and can't opt out of. Then we can recursively demand the people who get welfare from those we tax at 70% should give 70% of their welfare checks back to the government since they also benefit from those systems and people who support the system. If we're going to make that argument then everyone supporting the 70% tax rate should be forced to pay 70% of their income to their parents for their role in the person ever being born. The idea that your wealth and income belong to society and you only get to "keep" a certain amount is horrific.

 

[cytg111]

It seems like there should be some exceptions, such as If you sell a company that you build from the ground up and you make 10 million+ for that 1 year so that you can retire. Other exceptions might be Musicians that have one hit wonders, patents that flame out after a year etc...

Or if its a family business and the parents wants their kids to take over.. Its not black or white, lots of border cases to evaluate.

 

[cytg111]

People can agree in good faith about whether 70% of your income is a fair tradeoff for having someone else build previously "systems" (like roads and schools) that the person never agreed to and can't opt out of. Then we can recursively demand the people who get welfare from those we tax at 70% should give 70% of their welfare checks back to the government since they also benefit from those systems and people who support the system. If we're going to make that argument then everyone supporting the 70% tax rate should be forced to pay 70% of their income to their parents for their role in the person ever being born. The idea that your wealth and income belong to society and you only get to "keep" a certain amount is horrific.

So 0 %

 

[glenn1]

It seems like there should be some exceptions, such as If you sell a company that you build from the ground up and you make 10 million+ for that 1 year so that you can retire. Other exceptions might be Musicians that have one hit wonders, patents that flame out after a year etc...

Or if its a family business and the parents wants their kids to take over.. Its not black or white, lots of border cases to evaluate.

So basically a list of "every exception which might conceivably apply to me and still excludes those I don't ever expect to happen to me like founding a Fortune 500 company."

 

[glenn1]

So 0 %

If only we could determine how much it costs to build and maintain the infrastructure and services that broadly support everyone relatively equally without exclusion (like roads) and tax at that rate so without adding a large amount of additional of taxation atop that for punitive reasons under the reasoning "billionaires shouldn't exist" which attempts to ensure they don't.

 

[mect]

For a wealth tax? There's a great case study of failure for this... France

That's true, although many experts think there are differences that would prevent a France style failure. For one, the current proposal for a wealth Tax here would tax wealth based on citizenship, not location. In other words, people couldn't just move out of the US to avoid the tax, they would have to renounce their US citizenship. I (and most economists I've seen chime in on the subject) doubt that people would be willing to give that up. In addition, Europe provides a lot more nearby alternatives for relocation. In the US, they would have to go significantly farther away. Second, since the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, it is more difficult for people to hide their assets compared to the times when France had implement similar. Still, people will be successful in hiding assets, and that's okay. Just like with income, you don't expect to get the full effect with the wealthy. But even if we are able to implement a tax on 75% of their wealth instead of the full amount, economists predict it would still be effective.

 

[fleshconsumed]

People can agree in good faith about whether 70% of your income is a fair tradeoff for having someone else build previously "systems" (like roads and schools) that the person never agreed to and can't opt out of. Then we can recursively demand the people who get welfare from those we tax at 70% should give 70% of their welfare checks back to the government since they also benefit from those systems and people who support the system. If we're going to make that argument then everyone supporting the 70% tax rate should be forced to pay 70% of their income to their parents for their role in the person ever being born. The idea that your wealth and income belong to society and you only get to "keep" a certain amount is horrific.

It's not 70% of income, current proposal is 70% after first 10 millions. Big difference. And there is a way to opt out. If it's so repressive they can renounce their citizenship and go find a new place to live.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, society should offer no barriers to hoarding & greed.

I mean, greed is good, right?

 

[glenn1]

That's true, although many experts think there are differences that would prevent a France style failure. For one, the current proposal for a wealth Tax here would tax wealth based on citizenship, not location. In other words, people couldn't just move out of the US to avoid the tax, they would have to renounce their US citizenship. I (and most economists I've seen chime in on the subject) doubt that people would be willing to give that up. In addition, Europe provides a lot more nearby alternatives for relocation. In the US, they would have to go significantly farther away. Second, since the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, it is more difficult for people to hide their assets compared to the times when France had implement similar. Still, people will be successful in hiding assets, and that's okay. Just like with income, you don't expect to get the full effect with the wealthy. But even if we are able to implement a tax on 75% of their wealth instead of the full amount, economists predict it would still be effective.

Wow you guys have really spent a lot of time thinking this through. I'm not talking just like a "casually stalking your ex girlfriend for a couple weeks" but rather a Unabomber manifesto level of thinking about how you'll tell those evil billionaires "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too." Do you have a wall plotting out the daily activities of billionaires?