Do you support a 70%+ tax bracket for top earners? (1 Viewer)

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,855
Reaction score
25,554
Location
Redneck Riviera
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.

Tell me how the 25 million invested in Exxon or Walmart stcck creates jobs?
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,855
Reaction score
25,554
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
Tax them at 70% and you destroy their ability to scale and create more jobs, thus knocking them out of the top. If people want more money, do what the top do - execute. .
I edited this post because I somehow managed to quote the wrong one of your statements and threw the whole conversation into stupidville. My apologies. Revised it and now it's probably going to make it even harder to follow.


Your assertion above is incorrect.

If you took half the net worth of the richest 40 people on earth via tax in 5 years those same 40 people would likely have just as much again as they do now and still be the richest 40 people on earth.

When you are worth 10s or 100s of billions, losing half is not going to change your life. You will still have enough with the skill and assets you had before to regrow the loss.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
335
Reaction score
929
Age
40
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Your assertion above is incorrect.

If you took half the net worth of the richest 40 people on earth via tax in 5 years those same 40 people would likely have just as much again as they do now and still be the richest 40 people on earth.

When you are worth 10s or 100s of billions, losing half is not going to change your life. You will still have enough with the skill and assets you had before to regrow the loss.
What's this have to do with people executing and not living by excuses? If anything, it supports the statement I made.
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,051
Reaction score
17,452
Offline
Too much is focused on what is fair in taxation. What is critical is figuring out how to stimulate a much larger share of wealth to circulate through the economy. Use tax policy to directly incentivize economic stimulation, job creation, and wage growth or send out the heavy tax bill. Arguing that billionaires earned it and it's all their's is like arguing, from the back seat, that it's Dad's car and if he wants to drive it off the cliff, that is his right. Ours is the illusion of a strong consumer economy that is increasingly propped up by personal debt. It's economic suicide to not come up with a more sustainable longterm track than what we are on.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
335
Reaction score
929
Age
40
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Too much is focused on what is fair in taxation. What is critical is figuring out how to stimulate a much larger share of wealth to circulate through the economy. Use tax policy to directly incentivize economic stimulation, job creation, and wage growth or send out the heavy tax bill. Arguing that billionaires earned it and it's all their's is like arguing, from the back seat, that it's Dad's car and if he wants to drive it off the cliff, that is his right. Ours is the illusion of a strong consumer economy that is increasingly propped up by personal debt. It's economic suicide to not come up with a more sustainable longterm track than what we are on.
This is a fair point. Credit cards and other loans are amazing. They allow you to spend money that may not exist and dupe an entire populous.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,668
Reaction score
12,277
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Of course there's a difference. This is not rocket science. That difference, however, is irrelevant to my argument.
Speaking of irrelevant arguments.
You do realize this tax would be on personal income, right?
Tax Bill Gates at 100%, it makes no difference in what Microsoft does.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
7,265
Offline
Who paid the trillions of cost you referenced?

Is this where you try and pivot away from the discussion to make a dumb tax is theft play?

Save me, we went through all of this in the first 8 pages. Any questions feel free to go back and quote where you take issues and we can go from there.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,668
Reaction score
12,277
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
What's your plan to stop the personal income being gamed?
Is there a plan now? If not, what does it matter where we put the top bracket? The ultra-rich will just skate away like they are now. Of course, if they can't skate on all of it, just a certain percentage, well that's a horse of another color, innit?

I might also ask you the same thing. Do you have a plan to keep the billionaire class from gaming their personal income so they don't pay the taxes they should?

I'm not a PHD in tax policy, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. A real answer for un-gaming would have to come from someone with the same level of expertise as the accountants currently doing the gaming. A white-hat tax hacker, if you please.
 

IntenseSaint

Powhatan Power
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
6,462
Location
South
Offline
This is a policy I have really changed my stance on over the years.

I personally have no ambitions to accrue that kind of wealth, so it would really never impact me. Not that I want to stick it to anyone who wants to earn that much, but it's not something I have ever had a need for.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
335
Reaction score
929
Age
40
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
I might also ask you the same thing. Do you have a plan to keep the billionaire class from gaming their personal income so they don't pay the taxes they should?
No I don't. That's a highly convoluted game as the tax codes were written for the rich with a lot of provisions and components to game the provisions.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,893
Reaction score
33,429
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Tax them at 70% and you destroy their ability to scale and create more jobs, thus knocking them out of the top. If people want more money, do what the top do - execute.
Irrelevant. Taxing ridiculously high rates at >= $10 million or whatever # the classroom academics feel is 'fair' still impacts the rate of scale and innovation. Textbook example of the Cobra effect.

When that stops, you don't just stay where you are in business...you shrink and get squeezed out thus not being in the top anymore. Current value trends downards. It's a simple model.
You wouldn't necessarily destroy anything. The only group that could possibly be effect would be outside investors. Since, anyone who is running their own business/company, would be using company dollars to fuel growth, not their personal dollars.

Outside investors, wanting to pour millions into a company may be affected, based on how they set up their investment vehicle. i.e. is it personal or through a LLC or something? so, yes, maybe a corporation or very large business will have a harder time attracting outside money to grow.

Now, the fundamental question is how much of that money that could be poured into investment works its way down to workers, worker pay, adding jobs? Or does it more likely fuel acquisitions and mergers? I'll admit, I'm not as well versed in that data. Other than looking at how wage data, especially as a share of profits, hasn't kept up. It's going up, but at a slower rate.

So, is it more of a benefit to possibly add another 30k/year job that may or may not be filled, or adding more part time work, a better benefit, or working out a healthcare for all type plan (even if it's just like a Medicare part A and B, and you have to buy D on your own on the private market.. or you get a part B covered by the feds, and you have to get A and D.. some combo). A minimal coverage is better than nothing for a lot of people. I won't even have the dillusion that wages will raise significantly.

The devil will be in the details of this tax analysis, especially if there aren't ways around reporting your "income".
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
7,265
Offline
So you're telling me that the key to economic growth is less capital investment?
Depends.

You have to have people with the capacity to purchase and consume those products. If one side of the economy, the investments side, is overloaded while the consumption side is widely out of balance and lagging significantly, you can keep dumping as much money as you want into the capital side and it is not going to produce the optimal results. Worse, it has the potential to act as a ticking time bomb for economic health. Which is illustrated in one of the research links I posted earlier in this thread in post #50. Supply side fixes are not one size fits all. As much as those that benefit from such policies in the short term would like to sell it as.
 
Last edited:

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)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Saints RSS News Feeds 0

Similar threads




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom