In theory, how much could Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax rate bring in?

[McRocket]

'On the left, it’s been applauded. On the right, it’s been widely critiqued and even ridiculed. But theoretically, how much could Ocasio-Cortez’s top tax rate actually raise—and how much difference would that make to the lives of ordinary Americans?

Even under the best possible circumstances, the numbers may disappoint.

According to figures from the Social Security Administration, just 3,755 Americans earned more than $10 million in salary in 2017, for total earnings of around $82.47 billion. Under Ocasio-Cortez’s plan, their earnings over $10 million—some $44.92 billion—would be taxed at 70%, rather than the present 37% rate for all earnings over $500,000 a year.

If this rate were adjusted to 70%, the IRS would receive an additional $14.8 billion each year from this tippy-top 0.0007% of all earners—at the absolute most. (This assumes she would only be raising taxes for earners over $10 million, as mentioned in the CNN interview, rather than a gradual increase for all high earners.)

It sounds like a lot, but an extra $14.8 billion a year in government coffers would make very little difference to America’s economy. It’s less than the US spends on NASA, for instance, and only around 2% of the present military budget. If it were given out to Americans as a cash payment, each person would get just $45.50.

At present, the federal budget is at $4.4 trillion, with a $985 billion deficit anticipated for Oct. 2018 through Sept. 2019. This extra income would scarcely make a dent in that sum.'

In theory, how much could Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax rate bring in?

Are you fucking, kidding me?

All this hype over a lousy $14.8 billion...or only about 1/3 of 1% of the entire budget?

That's it?!?

This is clearly little more than a hate tax on the mega rich (because it sure as shit won't do squat to pay down the deficit or fund some progressive, pipe dream bill).

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Keep in mind that imposing a tax that high on any economic activity will tend to significantly suppress that activity. Whatever revenue you think such a tax will bring in, in reality, it will bring in much, much less than that.

 

[Oddball]

'On the left, it’s been applauded. On the right, it’s been widely critiqued and even ridiculed. But theoretically, how much could Ocasio-Cortez’s top tax rate actually raise—and how much difference would that make to the lives of ordinary Americans?

Even under the best possible circumstances, the numbers may disappoint.

If this rate were adjusted to 70%, the IRS would receive an additional $14.8 billion each year from this tippy-top 0.0007% of all earners—at the absolute most. (This assumes she would only be raising taxes for earners over $10 million, as mentioned in the CNN interview, rather than a gradual increase for all high earners.)

It sounds like a lot, but an extra $14.8 billion a year in government coffers would make very little difference to America’s economy. It’s less than the US spends on NASA, for instance, and only around 2% of the present military budget. If it were given out to Americans as a cash payment, each person would get just $45.50.

At present, the federal budget is at $4.4 trillion, with a $985 billion deficit anticipated for Oct. 2018 through Sept. 2019. This extra income would scarcely make a dent in that sum.'

In theory, how much could Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax rate bring in?

Are you fucking, kidding me?

All this hype over a lousy $14.8 billion...or only about 1/3 of 1% of the entire budget?

That's it?!?

This is clearly little more than a hate tax on the mega rich (because it sure as shit won't do squat to pay down the deficit or fund some progressive, pipe dream bill).

Two things that are certain:

1) What gubmint claims it will take in by raising taxes always falls short.

2) What they claim their do-gooder programs will cost always greatly exceeds that guesstimation.

 

[Thinker101]

'On the left, it’s been applauded. On the right, it’s been widely critiqued and even ridiculed. But theoretically, how much could Ocasio-Cortez’s top tax rate actually raise—and how much difference would that make to the lives of ordinary Americans?

Even under the best possible circumstances, the numbers may disappoint.

If this rate were adjusted to 70%, the IRS would receive an additional $14.8 billion each year from this tippy-top 0.0007% of all earners—at the absolute most. (This assumes she would only be raising taxes for earners over $10 million, as mentioned in the CNN interview, rather than a gradual increase for all high earners.)

It sounds like a lot, but an extra $14.8 billion a year in government coffers would make very little difference to America’s economy. It’s less than the US spends on NASA, for instance, and only around 2% of the present military budget. If it were given out to Americans as a cash payment, each person would get just $45.50.

At present, the federal budget is at $4.4 trillion, with a $985 billion deficit anticipated for Oct. 2018 through Sept. 2019. This extra income would scarcely make a dent in that sum.'

In theory, how much could Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax rate bring in?

Are you fucking, kidding me?

All this hype over a lousy $14.8 billion...or only about 1/3 of 1% of the entire budget?

That's it?!?

This is clearly little more than a hate tax on the mega rich (because it sure as shit won't do squat to pay down the deficit or fund some progressive, pipe dream bill).

Welcome to liberal lala land.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Two things that are certain:

1) What gubmint claims it will take in by raising taxes always falls short.

2) What they claim their do-gooder programs will cost always greatly exceeds that guesstimation.

3) What their do-gooder programs actually accomplish always fall far short of the claims.

BTW, you might want to take a careful look at how your #2 point is worded. I think you ended up saying the opposite of what you meant; or at least not really saying what you meant. Actually, I think the same may be true of your #1 point as well. I understood what you mean, but I don't think you said it correctly.

 

[imawhosure]

'On the left, it’s been applauded. On the right, it’s been widely critiqued and even ridiculed. But theoretically, how much could Ocasio-Cortez’s top tax rate actually raise—and how much difference would that make to the lives of ordinary Americans?

Even under the best possible circumstances, the numbers may disappoint.

According to figures from the Social Security Administration, just 3,755 Americans earned more than $10 million in salary in 2017, for total earnings of around $82.47 billion. Under Ocasio-Cortez’s plan, their earnings over $10 million—some $44.92 billion—would be taxed at 70%, rather than the present 37% rate for all earnings over $500,000 a year.

If this rate were adjusted to 70%, the IRS would receive an additional $14.8 billion each year from this tippy-top 0.0007% of all earners—at the absolute most. (This assumes she would only be raising taxes for earners over $10 million, as mentioned in the CNN interview, rather than a gradual increase for all high earners.)

It sounds like a lot, but an extra $14.8 billion a year in government coffers would make very little difference to America’s economy. It’s less than the US spends on NASA, for instance, and only around 2% of the present military budget. If it were given out to Americans as a cash payment, each person would get just $45.50.

At present, the federal budget is at $4.4 trillion, with a $985 billion deficit anticipated for Oct. 2018 through Sept. 2019. This extra income would scarcely make a dent in that sum.'

In theory, how much could Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax rate bring in?

Are you fucking, kidding me?

All this hype over a lousy $14.8 billion...or only about 1/3 of 1% of the entire budget?

That's it?!?

This is clearly little more than a hate tax on the mega rich (because it sure as shit won't do squat to pay down the deficit or fund some progressive, pipe dream bill).

I believe you are referring to what is known in economics as, "Hausers Law." Not sure I spelled it correctly, but you get the drift.

Leftists in congress know this "law," and are just pandering to their base as usual. Unfortunately, their ignorant base does not, so if it sounds like it will work and screw people they are taught to despise, they are all for it!

 

[kyzr]

According to my math in old posts it would take a 3% Federal sales tax and raising the top tax rate 7% above 2016 levels to balance the Budget. Then spending cuts would decrease the Debt.

 

[McRocket]

According to my math in old posts it would take a 3% Federal sales tax and raising the top tax rate 7% above 2016 levels to balance the Budget. Then spending cuts would decrease the Debt.

Unfortunately, that will not work.

Politicians (from both parties) will just look upon the extra money as more money to spend. They won't balance the budget - they will just spend it.

And the result will be even more taxes on Americans.


Spending is COMPLETELY out of control (and both parties are to blame). Just 10 years ago, the budget was roughly 3 trillion. Now it is over $4 trillion. That is insane.

US Federal Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History

The solution is cutting spending...both the military budget (which is ridiculous for peacetime) and the social budget.

And put some law into Congress that they can only pass a deficit during a declared war or national emergency.


Balancing the budget is simple...it just requires enough people with enough guts to do it.