Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[Jake]

(ie. the idiotic proposed 90% tax) 

FWIW the proposal is 70%, not 90%. Let's have our numbers straight here. I think there was a 90% number mentioned briefly and quickly shot down. 

Per Forbes:

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

I don't know that it's the best approach, but it should be acknowledged (for the sake of those who are more "the sky is falling!" than I am) that it's been done before. Whether it encourages capitalism for those making $10MM or more annually is up for debate. I do know that I, and everyone else in my network, do not make more than $10MM per year. Even the guy who founded an incredibly successful law firm 40 years ago and lives fairly extravagantly as a result. So, yes, it would affect some, but I'd be curious how many.

Edit: This Forbes piece I quoted from above has a good explanation on the type of people who would even be affected. If you're making money from investments and such, this income tax change doesn't appear to matter much compared to how it's portrayed on the news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleck...45b76ebbff

[JPolen01]

I always love it when people who have little to no chances of ever making millions of dollars per year argue that rich people can't afford to be taxed on their earnings over $10 million.

[WRXtranceformed]

I always love it when people who have little to no chances of ever making millions of dollars per year argue that rich people can't afford to be taxed on their earnings over $10 million.

You could also change the end of that sentence after "year" to "feel like they should let the government effectively confiscate the fruits of other peoples' labor".

90%, 70%, both numbers are an absurdly high tax to put on any individual and as it was said earlier in the thread that the ultra rich will find ways to skirt laws like that with loopholes.  And who do you think are the ones funding most politicians' campaigns?  These people aren't going to donate to someone so that they can lose their fortune. There are a only a very few ultra rich people who have come out and said that they would be fine with being levied that kind of tax burden (and it's been the .1% of the 1% who couldn't spend their fortunes in multiple lifetimes)

Significant, incremental tax revenue for the fed is not going to come from a handful of uber wealthy people anyway, it's going to come from properly applying tax to corporations and fair, equitable tax across the populace.

[HAULN-SS]

What does that look like to you guys? A couple 10/20 percent brackets and then a gigantic gap to ten million? You don't think the taxes will start getting burdensome at say, half million? That's pretty plausible to me. Two incomes in expensive areas already hits pretty hardees on tax burden. my wife and i paid more in taxes last year than most families in my hometown make, and we're just wage earners. I don't have illusions of making ten million a year but progressive tax brackets trickle down as well.

[JPolen01]

I personally do not think we are going to shrink the deficit or bring in huge amounts of revenue by taxing the mega wealthy at high rates, but do they deserve to pay their fair share? Damn right they do. But as Lee said that can only happen when we as a society decide and figure out how to hold politicians accountable. Tax codes need to be rewritten period. It's unacceptable for American companies like Netflix and Amazon to pay $0 in Federal income tax. Netflix made $845 million in profit in 2018. Amazon made over $11 billion in profits. Neither owed a dime, but people like us are forced to give up 35% or higher in Federal income tax. Sounds fair to me.

[G.Irish]

Per Forbes:

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

Thank you for posting this. America's economy hummed right along in that era despite very high top tax rates. So the idea that rich people will all of a sudden decide they don't want to make more money, doesn't square with reality.

The problem I see is that the wealthy and corporations have successfully lobbied to cut their tax rates massively, and now that has contributed to ballooning deficits and wealth concentration. Do we need to go back to 70-90% top tax brackets? I don't think it needs to go to that point, but we have to starting roll back the successive decades of accumulated tax cuts and tax loopholes. Not to mention that massive tax evasion is a global problem that is straining governments around the world.

The far left people pushing for higher taxes in the wealthy are not wrong in a way. Wealthy people and corporations have used their clout to rig the tax code in their favor for over 40 years. But they're wrong in thinking that they can pay for a massive expansion of entitlements by just raising taxes on rich people. Countries that have an expansive social safety net have high tax rates across the board, not just on rich people. And keep in mind none of those countries are spending anywhere near what we do on their military, even as a percentage of GDP.

There are some things I want to see succeed like universal healthcare and better access to education but I am very much against throwing money at problems rather than pragmatically figuring out what works and can be cost effective before scaling up. People like to say 'free college for everyone!' without thinking about the fact that government backed loans is what distorted the market for higher education and driven massive tuition inflation.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[CaptainHenreh]

Per Forbes:

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

Thank you for posting this.  America's economy hummed right along in that era despite very high top tax rates.  So the idea that rich people will all of a sudden decide they don't want to make more money, doesn't square with reality.

Oh, yeah, the booming 1971-1980, definitely want to go back to THAT economy...

oooh yeah, look at that GDP growth!

---

Regardless, if you want to raise tax revenues to reduce deficit spending then go nuts, I'm all for it.

But the left hates reducing spending as much as they love shitting on the constitution, so that's never gonna happen.

[Apoc]

 do they deserve to pay their fair share? Damn right they do. 

The problem is agreeing on "fair." For me, it ain't ridiculously high progressive tax brackets.

Those tax rates were post-war era boom... until the economy hit the shitter in the 70s. The current economy is much more tenuous.

I think the Dems are in real danger. I want that asshat out of office, but the progressive faction is turning those who don't identify with either party off. If that's the party they wanna be, cool, but they could very well lose in 2020 because of the fractures.

[JPolen01]

 do they deserve to pay their fair share? Damn right they do. 

The problem is agreeing on "fair."

For me, it ain't progressive tax brackets.

Sure agreeing on "fair" is not going to be easy. Why not a progressive tax? What would you prefer? If I remember correctly you're in the flat tax camp? I'm genuinely curious to hear others ideas.

[Apoc]

I edited my post to say high progressive.

If I can't have use tax with no income, I'm doing flat tax and exempting food, medicine, clothes, housing, and transportation to prevent it from being regressive.

I'm not totally opposed to progressive rates, but I honestly don't understand how paying 50+% of one's income is "fair" if others aren't, regardless of how much you make

[.RJ]

But the left hates reducing spending as much as they love shitting on the constitution, so that's never gonna happen.

The deficit has gone up under every recent republican administration, so, you cant pin that one on the dems. The party of small govt and fiscal responsibility, as we want to see it, is dead, save for the libertarian fringes - its a plausible argument that the Trump administration is shrinking gov't but that is through willful ignorance (read this if you havent - https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michae...136&sr=8-1 ) not through any kind of strategic policy. I dont think the answer to balancing our budget and investing in our country's future is taxing the top 1%, though.

And, not directed at anyone here in particular, but I have grown tired of seeing the maga nerds on the internet spout off about how investments like infrastructure, healthcare and education for our country are giving shit away for free. No, its investing our immense resources and energy in to the next generation to have a chance at competing against China's impending world dominance.

[Jake]

To go off of RJ's point, I've grown tired of people claiming Democrats "are shitting on the Constitution" as a thinly-veiled coverup of "they're coming to take my gunzzzz." Not pointing to anyone, though Rex did bring the thought to the forefront. I've seen a lot of people claim something similar. It is a tired narrative and I question why the second amendment takes precedent over seemingly everything else.

[JPolen01]

If we're on this topic I'm tired of Republicans claiming social security/Medicare are entitlements. Do they not realize they pay into these programs as well?

[CaptainHenreh]

But the left hates reducing spending as much as they love shitting on the constitution, so that's never gonna happen.

The deficit has gone up under every recent republican administration, so, you cant pin that one on the dems. 

Fair point, although the Dems have it as part of their platform, so at least I can't pretend like they didn't tell me.

To @jake, while firearms and the second amendment were definitely on the forefront of my mind, free speech and privacy are also up there. The left has made it quite clear that they want back doors to encryption, that they don't respect your right to privacy (unless you're having an abortion) and the only speech they will say is free is speech they agree with. 

I'm not on board with having butt-hurt be a criminalized act (See: The Island Where Great Britain Used To Be) and yeah man, I think of the Democratic leadership could confiscate every gun in private hands they absolutely would. Just because they know they can't because they'd be fought tooth and nail doesnt' mean they don't want to, and I'm really tired of the bill of rights dying by a thousand cuts. 

Again, I'm going to draw a distinction between "Well the GOP does it sometimes too" and campaigning on it. 

[.RJ]

To go off of RJ's point, I've grown tired of people claiming Democrats "are shitting on the Constitution" as a thinly-veiled coverup of "they're coming to take my gunzzzz." Not pointing to anyone, though Rex did bring the thought to the forefront. I've seen a lot of people claim something similar. It is a tired narrative and I question why the second amendment takes precedent over seemingly everything else.

I watched stupid people spout off about this for 8 years with Obama, and they bought guns in record numbers.  Hey, guess what, no one took your fucking guns and now you people all look like a loony.  The boogeyman isnt real.  Just like team R isnt going to suddenly make abortion illegal, team D isnt going to take your guns or give all our money away to Libya.

[CaptainHenreh]

If we're on this topic I'm tired of Republicans claiming social security/Medicare are entitlements. Do they not realize they pay into these programs as well?

They are literally an entitlement in that you are "entitled" to the program because you paid into it. S'why they're called entitlements.

[.RJ]

Fair point, although the Dems have it as part of their platform, so at least I can't pretend like they didn't tell me.

Wait, are you saying that both parties advocate for shitty things that will piss off large swaths of people of dubious constitutionality?

no fucking way

[CaptainHenreh]

Fair point, although the Dems have it as part of their platform, so at least I can't pretend like they didn't tell me.

Wait, are you saying that both parties advocate for shitty things that will piss off large swaths of people of dubious constitutionality?  

no fucking way

Yeah well if they don't want me to bitch about it then they can fuckin' stop campaigning on it. Until then, I'm gonna assume they, you know, mean to do what they say.

[G.Irish]

Per Forbes:

The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

Thank you for posting this.  America's economy hummed right along in that era despite very high top tax rates.  So the idea that rich people will all of a sudden decide they don't want to make more money, doesn't square with reality.

Oh, yeah, the booming 1971-1980, definitely want to go back to THAT economy...

oooh yeah, look at that GDP growth!

---

Regardless, if you want to raise tax revenues to reduce deficit spending then go nuts, I'm all for it.

But the left hates reducing spending as much as they love shitting on the constitution, so that's never gonna happen.

I mean if you wanna cherry pick 3-4 years out of 40+, be my guest. Point is that the sky didn't fall, rich people didn't commit mass suicide (except for cocaine overdoses), and a lot of people point to that time period as 'when America was great'.

I don't think the top marginal rate needs to necessarily be that high, but it should be higher than it is now, and there needs to be a mass reduction in the amount of tax loopholes. Maybe just burning it all down and going to FairTax is the answer but the current tax code is Swiss cheese.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[CaptainHenreh]

I mean if you wanna cherry pick 3-4 years out of 40+, be my guest.  Point is that the sky didn't fall, rich people didn't commit mass suicide (except for cocaine overdoses), and a lot of people point to that time period as 'when America was great'.

I don't think the top marginal rate needs to necessarily be that high, but it should be higher than it is now, and there needs to be a mass reduction in the amount of tax loopholes.  Maybe just burning it all down and going to FairTax is the answer but the current tax code is Swiss cheese.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

My point was more that period was the end of America being the only country that didn't have their economy literally bombed to death, and giant-ass tax rates didn't help when that gravy train ran out. 

Keynes was right, even if it's the part everyone forgets: You can maybe spend yourself out of bust as long as you save during the boom. 

Which, since no nation does, ends up just being a "Hey no problem we can spend our way to prosperity, yeehaw and cowabunga!"