Do you support a 70%+ tax bracket for top earners? (2 Viewers)

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,446
Reaction score
7,754
Offline
Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised:





Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her Republican critics have both called her proposal to dramatically increase America's highest tax rate "radical" but a new poll released Tuesday indicates that a majority of Americans agrees with the idea.​
In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, which was conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent, found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea.​
Women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin. A majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. The proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it as well, 56 percent to 44 percent.​
Increasing the highest tax bracket to 70 percent garners a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it.​


https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,290
Reaction score
33,884
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
A play in two acts:


Your abuela gives you $10 for doing a chore. You come home and your parents take $3 from you, to go towards paying for the thousands of dollars in food, clothing, cleaning, equipment, transportation, electricity, internet, TV, water, etc that you enjoy.
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
3,679
Offline
A thallus it was more than that after WW2 when the US growth rate was the highest it’s ever been. Basic economics here.
If we can only destroy the manufacturing capacity of every other industrialized country in the world, this would work!!! That's exactly the situation that existed after WWII. Basic economics?
If you have 2 people one making 25,000 a year and one making 25 million a year, then double their earnings. The 25,000 dollar guy will up his consuption, pay that back in sales taxes, fees, whathave you. He will spend a majority on it making a better life for his family and in the long run the economy as a whole. (See Henry Ford and why he paid his employees so much). Now take the 25 million dollar guy, up it to 50. What’s he going to do? Invest it. What does that do for the majority of the economy? Absolutely nothing. There is no benefit to society at all. So yeah I do support it.
This makes absolutely no economic sense at all. Business investment creates jobs. So the guy who invests an extra 25 million creates hundreds of jobs.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
21,257
Reaction score
51,091
Location
GBTR
Offline
This makes absolutely no economic sense at all. Business investment creates jobs. So the guy who invests an extra 25 million creates hundreds of jobs.
Why does he invest 25 million creating jobs when the demand isn't there because the people are barely scraping by and cannot afford his new goods or services from the 25 million investment?

Or are you saying his simple investing of money in a market creates those jobs?
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,273
Reaction score
16,554
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
If we can only destroy the manufacturing capacity of every other industrialized country in the world, this would work!!! That's exactly the situation that existed after WWII. Basic economics?


This makes absolutely no economic sense at all. Business investment creates jobs. So the guy who invests an extra 25 million creates hundreds of jobs.
Henry Ford when he built Ford Motor Company paid wages high enough so that his employees could buy his vehicles. He also encouraged/strong armed his suppliers to do exactly that same thing. Ford knee he had a winner, but unless the average guy was paid a higher wage, his sales would never be what he wanted. So yes he could’ve paid his workers Wal mart wages, and made himself more money per vehicle, but by doing what he did not only transformed manufacturing, but completely changed the idea of middle class. Ford is never given the credit he deserves with helping to create a strong middle class.
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
3,679
Offline
Henry Ford when he built Ford Motor Company paid wages high enough so that his employees could buy his vehicles. He also encouraged/strong armed his suppliers to do exactly that same thing. Ford knee he had a winner, but unless the average guy was paid a higher wage, his sales would never be what he wanted. So yes he could’ve paid his workers Wal mart wages, and made himself more money per vehicle, but by doing what he did not
What does this have to do with a 70% marginal tax rate?
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
21,257
Reaction score
51,091
Location
GBTR
Offline
What does this have to do with a 70% marginal tax rate?
If you followed the posts, it makes sense. There was someone claiming that letting someone with massive income keep it all was the same as letting someone with low income keep it all and the effect on the overall economy.

This goes directly to why you'd want a higher % on top earners.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,273
Reaction score
16,554
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
What does this have to do with a 70% marginal tax rate?
The comment was said that business investment creates jobs. You can create all the jobs you want, if people don’t have the money to pay for what they need, your great 25 million dollar idea isn’t going to work. We are right now at a place where there is a lot of pressure on peoples incomes. The lower class, even reaching the lower middle class is having a tough time. Wages are too low. The lower to lower middle class is generally so maxed out on debt their spending power is gone. That’s beginning to creep up the income levels. The facts are there that this tax cut has done nothing for business that translates to workers. Unemployment numbers haven’t dramatically changed, wage growth hasn’t happened to any huge degree, but companies now are sitting on ridiculous piles of cash. The .1%, no you aren’t them, is rolling in the dough. All that money while supposedly rolling back into the economy isn’t. Trickle down economics has been proven to be wrong. So my quote about Ford was that he paid his workers enough to live cutting into his own profits. Not happening at any real rate right now. This country has been cutting taxes on high incomes like crazy since Reagan. What has it gotten the middle class?
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
3,679
Offline
Why does he invest 25 million creating jobs when the demand isn't there because the people are barely scraping by and cannot afford his new goods or services from the 25 million investment?

Or are you saying his simple investing of money in a market creates those jobs?

1) unemployment is low and real wages are rising.
2) Yes. Supply and demand react to each other. Was there demand for an Iphone in 2005? There sure is now. Without the investment by Apple and Steve Jobs, there would be no demand today.
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
3,679
Offline
The facts are there that this tax cut has done nothing for business that translates to workers. Unemployment numbers haven’t dramatically changed, wage growth hasn’t happened to any huge degree, but companies now are sitting on ridiculous piles of cash.
NPR: said:
The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 3.7 percent in September, a nearly 50-year low. The U.S. jobless ratedropped to 3.7 percent in September — the lowest since 1969, though the economy added a lower-than-expected 134,000 jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The jobless rate fell from August's 3.9 percent.
Here's the link
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,273
Reaction score
16,554
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
Exactly my point. It follows the trend that’s been going under Obama. No huge difference. Also, if you notice in the article wage growth, while increasing at 8 cents per hour is lower than last 2 years.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,765
Reaction score
12,511
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
1) unemployment is low and real wages are rising.
2) Yes. Supply and demand react to each other. Was there demand for an Iphone in 2005? There sure is now. Without the investment by Apple and Steve Jobs, there would be no demand today.
You mean like all those huge factories turning out Zunes? R&D can bring you a product people end up wanting, that's true. But unless A: They want it and B: They can actually buy it, no jobs are created.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,290
Reaction score
33,884
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
The point, I believe, was that the tax cut hasn't seemingly caused an impact on unemployment or wages. As, they have been pretty steady before and after them. You'd expect to see a shock in the data, or a rate change, if you will.

1547745060683.png

If you look at average payroll wage growth, you'll see that after the recession, it was pretty steady at 2%, and then between 2015 and 2016 it started to hover around 2.5%, where it still hovers around today.

1547745203275.png

It might be easier to see here, there isn't even a blip in total payrolls, if the tax cuts did something, you'd see a rate change, you'd see an inflection point in the curve. Take home pay went up, but no wage growth beyond the same old same old, which is pretty anemic.

1547745303995.png
 

xardoz

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
823
Offline
As has been explained a million freaking times. Come on. Isn't there something better in the Libertarian playbook but "Progressive taxation is actually re-gressive and taxation at all is theft!" It's been debunked, denuded and defenestrated a thousand times in a thousand different ways.
Actually, what you call progressive taxation is repression. What gives you (anyone) the right to another's property (income)? Not to mention the threat of you losing EVERYTHING you have if you do something wrong on that piece of paper - regardless of Mens Rea? What about the shift of the burden of proof to prove your INNOCENCE rather than the government prove your GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt? (Which is what happens filing your income taxes)

Many of the prohibitions on government that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution guaranteed no longer protect us or our property from an over-active government.

[/QUOTE]
This idea that anyone is an island, utterly free from the society in which they were born, raised and now reside is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

- nobody said that. Quit being arse-hurt and just keep on topic. Again, you have no right to the fruits of another's labor. If you read Rousseau's "Social Contract", technically, since the government has violated it's contract with the people of this country - I am actually no longer bound to keep my part of the contract. The social contract binds the government to the governed and society as a whole. The responsiblity is on the side of the government. It is up to the people to remove their validation of that contract when government violates said contract.

[/QUOTE]
Want to live untethered to societal responsibility? Want to live somewhere you don't have to pay for things provided by other people that you use? Fine. There's millions of acres near the poles you can move to. Break off a tree branch, knap yourself a spear point and get down with your bear-food self.
[/QUOTE]
I uphold my part of societal responsibility. At this time, the only entity exercising untethered societal responsibility is the government. They are not being responsible to the taxpayer with their budgeting, management and organization. (Hell, any of the words that made up POSDCORB)

I am about RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. They do not need to take 70% of ANYONE'S income. Government spends too much and is in too many places and too many businesses. Name one thing you can do that is not taxed or regulated.... Try it. The Bill of Rights has been eroded and property is taken without our consent. If you want to

[/QUOTE]
Otherwise, shut up and stop this ridiculous doublespeak claim that a shopkeeper who demands payment is a thief in order to cover up your own shoplifting.[/QUOTE]
Oh, now I have to shut up because your little feelers are hurt? You cannot engage in a little debate. I will put my Masters in Public Administration against your 'beliefs' any day. As Nietzsche said, "Beliefs are bigger enemies of the truth than lies."

btw... The shopkeeper figures in "shrinkage" when he sells his product, and if you agree to his price, you pay it. YOU HAVE CHOICE. Whether the shrinkage is due to thievery or natural causes - does not matter. Cost-of-business has nothing to do with government activism.

and I DO NOT shoplift. On top of that I pay WAY MORE in taxes than I recieve in benefits.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom