****for income above 10 million****
We have a lot of big earners on AT but I’ve never heard of a 10 million plus AT earner
Nope. Estimates put the coast of ending poverty in the US at $175 billion dollars. Estimates also put the cost of poverty in the US at $500 billion. In other words, its possible we would save ourselves over $300 billion by ending poverty.Simple math... Taxing the top 5% won't pay to depoverty the bottom 50.
Where were you this past year? AOC personally proposed a 70% tax rate. It's bad enough I'm in the 25% bracket.
Prove to me that under her plan my taxes will not go up 1¢...
He just did? Unless you are a 10M+ earner?Prove to me that under her plan my taxes will not go up 1¢...
It fluctuates more than that yearly anyhow, and guess what, inflation means taxes go up each year (that or the govt's available spending power goes down). You cannot just blame every increase in taxes on a filthy liberal.Prove to me that under her plan my taxes will not go up 1¢...
Are you seriously citing the heritage foundation? This idea that lower tax rates increase revenue has been so thoroughly debunked I can't believe people still try to pedal the idea. Based on your argument, we could easily maximize tax revenue by eliminating all taxes. Brilliant. I mean sweet Jesus, we have data from Trump's latest attempt to implement your strategy. Didn't work out like your Heritage Foundation told us it would. How many times do we have to see tax cuts fail before we give up on this bullshit.Also anyone with half a brain here needs to understand that tax reductions historically increases overall tax revenue.
Why? Because no one wants to take risks, or attempt to grow their business if a giant slice of pie is taken from every dollar they earn.
See the Laffer Curve. Taxing people at higher and higher rates does not equal more tax revenue dipshits: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#targetText=If this effect is large,of revenue the government receives.
Historical Records of lower tax rates: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates-0
Bill Clinton used to get shit for his $300 haircuts back in the 90s, we have had approx 200% inflation since then, and people make a big deal about a woman with long hair who gets a hair cut and dying and such and leaves a big tip?
See the Laffer Curve. Taxing people at higher and higher rates does not equal more tax revenue dipshits: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#targetText=If this effect is large,of revenue the government receives.
How much do you think Trump spends on his hair? You know it's dyed.
Trick question. $0. He never pays his bills.
Are you seriously citing the heritage foundation? This idea that lower tax rates increase revenue has been so thoroughly debunked I can't believe people still try to pedal the idea. Based on your argument, we could easily maximize tax revenue by eliminating all taxes. Brilliant. I mean sweet Jesus, we have data from Trump's latest attempt to implement your strategy. Didn't work out like your Heritage Foundation told us it would. How many times do we have to see tax cuts fail before we give up on this bullshit.
Column: A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good
You may remember all the glowing predictions made for the December 2017 tax cuts by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration: Wages would soar for the rank-and-file, corporate investments would surge, and the cuts would pay for themselves.www.latimes.com
Christ, the laffer curve again. The laffer curve is basically only useful theoretically, as there has been 0 successful research that actually pinpoints that magic tax percentage number that maximizes revenue in a given economy. Additionally, real world data indicates that we are well below the taxation percentages that would cause revenues to decline.
I am so glad I wasn't born stupid.
That's not 'interesting', that's 'a great data point'.I find it interesting the biggest expansion of the middle class occurred during a time when the top marginal rate was 90%
My responses to your responses.
The left was upset about tax cuts because it’s horrible policy. What exactly have we gained from tax cuts? Our debts certainly haven’t gone down, GDP hasn’t shown any noticeable change, wealth inequality hasn’t improved. Your straw man noted.
Sorry but the complaints about the Reagan tax cuts are entirely based on the "policy" idea that we should punitively tax the rich which is unfair in its own right. A 70% or 90% marginal tax rate is itself inherently unequal. The rich already pay the most income taxes by far. If you want to talk about other taxes (payroll, state income/sales taxes, etc.) that's an entirely different conversation. Plus as a resident of State A then I literally have zero control over you putting a 10% sales tax on your poors in State B. If overall tax burden is your boogeyman then that's almost entirely on your state and local politics to fix. Raising my federal tax rate so you feel less bad about paying your 8% state income tax plus another 10% sales tax is ridiculous.
That’s not only false but it’s extremely ignorant as this country has has many policies that indeed hold people down. Things like redlining, compounding fines, and a justice system that isn’t applied equally, are just several things that contradict your claims.
Great, go address all those things. Redlining is already illegal and the compounding fines and justice system is again primarily a state issue. The remaining federal issues around sentencing and such are primarily related to the War on Drugs which we're winding down anyway.
Straw man number 2. What he’s saying is that the rich control politics, as in those with the money to lobby and to give large campaign contributions control policy. I hope I don’t have to give examples of this because it would not reflect well on you.
You completely ignored my question about why we give so much power to politicians to begin with. If we don't take most of it back then it's simply an exercise about who gets to exercise that vast power on their own behalf at the expense (direct and opportunity cost) of others unless it's true core government functions like infrastructure that benefit everyone. If it's a matter of "the poor should get the goodies not the rich" then you're already abusing government to screw one group to help another. Thus if you "lose" in the contest of who the goodies go to, then I have zero sympathy for you. The government isn't there to play Santa Claus for the subset of people you think "deserve" it. If the rich shouldn't control policy then the poors shouldn't control policy either.
Just because the rich makes their money via other means that allows them to take advantage of a lower tax rate doesn’t negate the
If you want to complete the rest of your sentence I'll address it.
I think I usually see it rebutted with "but in reality they were only effectively taxed at 25%" or something along those lines. Maybe one of them will chime in.That's not 'interesting', that's 'a great data point'.
My responses to your responses.
The left was upset about tax cuts because it’s horrible policy. What exactly have we gained from tax cuts? Our debts certainly haven’t gone down, GDP hasn’t shown any noticeable change, wealth inequality hasn’t improved. Your straw man noted.
Sorry but the complaints about the Reagan tax cuts are entirely based on the "policy" idea that we should punitively tax the rich which is unfair in its own right. A 70% or 90% marginal tax rate is itself inherently unequal. The rich already pay the most income taxes by far. If you want to talk about other taxes (payroll, state income/sales taxes, etc.) that's an entirely different conversation. Plus as a resident of State A then I literally have zero control over you putting a 10% sales tax on your poors in State B. If overall tax burden is your boogeyman then that's almost entirely on your state and local politics to fix. Raising my federal tax rate so you feel less bad about paying your 8% state income tax plus another 10% sales tax is ridiculous.
That’s not only false but it’s extremely ignorant as this country has has many policies that indeed hold people down. Things like redlining, compounding fines, and a justice system that isn’t applied equally, are just several things that contradict your claims.
Great, go address all those things. Redlining is already illegal and the compounding fines and justice system is again primarily a state issue. The remaining federal issues around sentencing and such are primarily related to the War on Drugs which we're winding down anyway.
Straw man number 2. What he’s saying is that the rich control politics, as in those with the money to lobby and to give large campaign contributions control policy. I hope I don’t have to give examples of this because it would not reflect well on you.
You completely ignored my question about why we give so much power to politicians to begin with. If we don't take most of it back then it's simply an exercise about who gets to exercise that vast power on their own behalf at the expense (direct and opportunity cost) of others unless it's true core government functions like infrastructure that benefit everyone. If it's a matter of "the poor should get the goodies not the rich" then you're already abusing government to screw one group to help another. Thus if you "lose" in the contest of who the goodies go to, then I have zero sympathy for you. The government isn't there to play Santa Claus for the subset of people you think "deserve" it. If the rich shouldn't control policy then the poors shouldn't control policy either.
Straw man number 4.
Just because the rich makes their money via other means that allows them to take advantage of a lower tax rate doesn’t negate the fact that their tax rate is lower than most Americans
If you want to complete the rest of your sentence I'll address it.
Still beats the pants off 0%.I think I usually see it rebutted with "but in reality they were only effectively taxed at 25%" or something along those lines. Maybe one of them will chime in.
Repeal your regressive state local and sales taxes and you'll have your wish. That's the cause of the problem you're complaining about.
Also anyone with half a brain here needs to understand that tax reductions historically increases overall tax revenue.
Why? Because no one wants to take risks, or attempt to grow their business if a giant slice of pie is taken from every dollar they earn.
See the Laffer Curve. Taxing people at higher and higher rates does not equal more tax revenue dipshits: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#targetText=If this effect is large,of revenue the government receives.
Historical Records of lower tax rates: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates-0
Are you seriously citing the heritage foundation? This idea that lower tax rates increase revenue has been so thoroughly debunked I can't believe people still try to pedal the idea. Based on your argument, we could easily maximize tax revenue by eliminating all taxes. Brilliant. I mean sweet Jesus, we have data from Trump's latest attempt to implement your strategy. Didn't work out like your Heritage Foundation told us it would. How many times do we have to see tax cuts fail before we give up on this bullshit.
Column: A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good
You may remember all the glowing predictions made for the December 2017 tax cuts by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration: Wages would soar for the rank-and-file, corporate investments would surge, and the cuts would pay for themselves.www.latimes.com
I catch a lot of those these days. Just last night I went to the lake shore and yelled "bribe, bribe" and one ran right into the sack, but I tossed it away. It had strange orange feathers and ran around yelling "Stable genius, great and unmatched wisdom".
It seemed to have some prion disease and we've had about 60 million cases in the US so I was having none of it.
It's propaganda geared towards people who think/act like they're still in middle school. <shrug>
It's also well established that paying for medicare for all alone cannot be accomplished even when taxing the rich 1% at 100%.
That doesn't even include the various other pipe dreams like free college.
I find it interesting the biggest expansion of the middle class occurred during a time when the top marginal rate was 90%
Also anyone with half a brain here needs to understand that tax reductions historically increases overall tax revenue.
Why? Because no one wants to take risks, or attempt to grow their business if a giant slice of pie is taken from every dollar they earn.
See the Laffer Curve. Taxing people at higher and higher rates does not equal more tax revenue dipshits: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp#targetText=If this effect is large,of revenue the government receives.
Historical Records of lower tax rates: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates-0