Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, your moronic claim that wealthy people "pull money out of circulation" is cartoonish at best.

Sure. Explain it to us, professor.

The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.

The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.

Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.

Tell us where you believe it is, professor.

Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

 

[Redfish]

Are you completely ignorant?

Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?

By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure. Explain it to us, professor.

The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.

The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.

Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.

Tell us where you believe it is, professor.

Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no justification for the government to take 70% of anyone's income! In fact, it is hard to justify the government taking any more than 20% of anyone's income. When the government just takes that money and gives it to other countries. It should be illegal for US tax money to be spent outside of the borders of the United States,

If our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not serious enough for wartime tax rates, they should be abolished.

 

[Redfish]

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

 

[Redfish]

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

 

[Andylusion]

Are you completely ignorant?

Are you seriously suggesting that the wealthy have vaults of money all over the place?

By the way, you are wrong about the Reagan tax cuts causing this. The super wealthy, were super wealthy, long before the tax cuts.

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

We all know how marginal rates work.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

Or I would donate the money to charities in my name, and have the deduction lower my taxable income below the $191K.

Or I would simply reduce my income completely. I could do what Warren Buffet does, and take a mere $100K salary. Or like Mark Zuckerberg, and earn a $1 salary. Instead I would pump the money into stocks and dividends, which since I'm the largest share holder, would benefit me the most.

Another possibility, would be to have the company just start doing some crazy investments. Nationwide insurance, has a crazy facility here in Ohio, which was formerly a hotel, but now serves only corporate executives. I worked for another company, that had their own private jet, and it was well know that the CEO would fly to meet a client, and then hang out at the beach.

There are nearly infinite ways to avoid high taxes. When California tried tax yachts docked in the bays, they sailed them miles off shore, and paid someone to boat them out to their yachts.

The bottom line is.... 70% taxes will never work. You will get more people avoiding taxes. The stupid mindless left-wing lemmings will see that statistically the wages of the rich elite will go down on paper. But nothing will change, and you won't get the money you think you will for all your idiotic social programs.

 

[danielpalos]

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

lousy right wing management does that; thank Goodness, FDR was a left winger.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

We all know how marginal rates work.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

Or I would donate the money to charities in my name, and have the deduction lower my taxable income below the $191K.

Or I would simply reduce my income completely. I could do what Warren Buffet does, and take a mere $100K salary. Or like Mark Zuckerberg, and earn a $1 salary. Instead I would pump the money into stocks and dividends, which since I'm the largest share holder, would benefit me the most.

Another possibility, would be to have the company just start doing some crazy investments. Nationwide insurance, has a crazy facility here in Ohio, which was formerly a hotel, but now serves only corporate executives. I worked for another company, that had their own private jet, and it was well know that the CEO would fly to meet a client, and then hang out at the beach.

There are nearly infinite ways to avoid high taxes. When California tried tax yachts docked in the bays, they sailed them miles off shore, and paid someone to boat them out to their yachts.

The bottom line is.... 70% taxes will never work. You will get more people avoiding taxes. The stupid mindless left-wing lemmings will see that statistically the wages of the rich elite will go down on paper. But nothing will change, and you won't get the money you think you will for all your idiotic social programs.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

I'm going to challenge you here.

No one is suggesting that rate at that income level. AOC actually said it should apply to the highest earners. She used $ 10m so your strawman is moot.

This isn't a hypothetical experiment. This has been done before. We have decades of data that shows your argument to be false.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

No.

There is no justification for saying the government should get over 2/3 of someone's income.

Just no.

 

[Andylusion]

I fully understand progressive tax rates, what I am telling you is that most liberals don't understand that and they think that they will take 70% of the rich guy's total income to punish him or her for being rich. I am also telling you that in the socialist countries it actually is 70% of all income.

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

Taxes alone do not make a country socialist, I agree.

However, you seem to be implying that socialist and capitalist, are like a light switch, that you flip it one way, and you are socialist, and flip it the other way, and you capitalist.

In reality, the change from one system to another is more like a sliding slope. An individual policy either tracks towards socialism, or it tracks towards capitalism.

High taxes is a more socialistic policy. It is in fact a step in that direction. Which is why FDRs bad policies resulted in a recession inside the great depression.

The problem today is that we are doing the same things that Venezuela did. We are trying to increase taxes, to pay for social programs. Trying to do the exact same thing, and expecting a different result, is shear stupidity.

Socialism never works. Never. It hasn't in the nordic countries. It hasn't in Europe. It hasn't in France. It hasn't in Greece. It has not worked in any country that has ever tried it.

You can drag out the slow moving failure of Socialism, by having it funded by a Capitalist based economy, like the US is doing right now, but in the end it will always fail.

This is why Social Security is going broke. This is why Medicare is going broke.

This is the reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course I suggested no such thing.

Yes, yes they were super wealthy. Just not like today. It was Reagan who started the trend of tax cuts on the wealthy. It was at 70% before he halved it.

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

We all know how marginal rates work.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

Or I would donate the money to charities in my name, and have the deduction lower my taxable income below the $191K.

Or I would simply reduce my income completely. I could do what Warren Buffet does, and take a mere $100K salary. Or like Mark Zuckerberg, and earn a $1 salary. Instead I would pump the money into stocks and dividends, which since I'm the largest share holder, would benefit me the most.

Another possibility, would be to have the company just start doing some crazy investments. Nationwide insurance, has a crazy facility here in Ohio, which was formerly a hotel, but now serves only corporate executives. I worked for another company, that had their own private jet, and it was well know that the CEO would fly to meet a client, and then hang out at the beach.

There are nearly infinite ways to avoid high taxes. When California tried tax yachts docked in the bays, they sailed them miles off shore, and paid someone to boat them out to their yachts.

The bottom line is.... 70% taxes will never work. You will get more people avoiding taxes. The stupid mindless left-wing lemmings will see that statistically the wages of the rich elite will go down on paper. But nothing will change, and you won't get the money you think you will for all your idiotic social programs.

simply criminalize tax avoidance over a certain amount and treat them like the illegals they are.

 

[danielpalos]

LOL

You just said nothing.
You didn't understand and are now trying to cover. There was no need to add this if you understood.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

As to progressive taxes, we have had that system in the USA for many years, In most of our income tax history the tax code included many exemptions and deductions that prevented the very rich from ever paying anywhere near 70%. Congress put those loopholes in the code to protect their rich donors. Many of those loopholes have now been closed and the tax table rates reduced, but federal revenues have increased, not decreased.

the liberal fantasy of equal income for everyone will never happen anywhere on earth. Socialism has failed miserably every place it has ever been tried. Look at Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in the world, now the people are starving and eating their pets and zoo animals.

what I said about Denmark is true, everyone pays 65% of all income.

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

Taxes alone do not make a country socialist, I agree.

However, you seem to be implying that socialist and capitalist, are like a light switch, that you flip it one way, and you are socialist, and flip it the other way, and you capitalist.

In reality, the change from one system to another is more like a sliding slope. An individual policy either tracks towards socialism, or it tracks towards capitalism.

High taxes is a more socialistic policy. It is in fact a step in that direction. Which is why FDRs bad policies resulted in a recession inside the great depression.

The problem today is that we are doing the same things that Venezuela did. We are trying to increase taxes, to pay for social programs. Trying to do the exact same thing, and expecting a different result, is shear stupidity.

Socialism never works. Never. It hasn't in the nordic countries. It hasn't in Europe. It hasn't in France. It hasn't in Greece. It has not worked in any country that has ever tried it.

You can drag out the slow moving failure of Socialism, by having it funded by a Capitalist based economy, like the US is doing right now, but in the end it will always fail.

This is why Social Security is going broke. This is why Medicare is going broke.

This is the reality.

we also modernized our economy and moved it into the first world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The $ tied up in their wealth is not changing hands throughout the economy.

Right. Because it's in that gold-filled swimming pool.

Tell us where you believe it is, professor.

Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.

Durr!

Moron.

 

[Andylusion]

why do liberals and dems hate rich successful business people, but love rich successful Hollywood loonies? Do Streisand and Baldwin and Whoopi support a 70% tax on their ridiculous incomes?

Ask them.

I think we both already know the answer. No one wants to pay 70%, rich or poor. What you left wing fools don't understand is that if we were to go to the "government pays for everything" ideology that you seem to want, that YOU would also be paying 70%, unlike now when you pay nothing. the 50% who pay taxes pay for the 50% who don't. Its easy to understand why when you pay nothing you see no personal impact if the govt gives you more free stuff.

Ask the people of Denmark if they like paying 65% of everything they earn. All of them, not just the rich.

LOL
You actually believe this means taking 70% of everything someone earns?


Learn what a marginal and progressive rate is, fool.

Marginal Tax Rate

We all know how marginal rates work.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

Or I would donate the money to charities in my name, and have the deduction lower my taxable income below the $191K.

Or I would simply reduce my income completely. I could do what Warren Buffet does, and take a mere $100K salary. Or like Mark Zuckerberg, and earn a $1 salary. Instead I would pump the money into stocks and dividends, which since I'm the largest share holder, would benefit me the most.

Another possibility, would be to have the company just start doing some crazy investments. Nationwide insurance, has a crazy facility here in Ohio, which was formerly a hotel, but now serves only corporate executives. I worked for another company, that had their own private jet, and it was well know that the CEO would fly to meet a client, and then hang out at the beach.

There are nearly infinite ways to avoid high taxes. When California tried tax yachts docked in the bays, they sailed them miles off shore, and paid someone to boat them out to their yachts.

The bottom line is.... 70% taxes will never work. You will get more people avoiding taxes. The stupid mindless left-wing lemmings will see that statistically the wages of the rich elite will go down on paper. But nothing will change, and you won't get the money you think you will for all your idiotic social programs.

If the top marginal rate is 70% at $191K, it means if I earn $191K by August, every dollar I earn after August, the government will take 70% of it.

That's a waste. I would simply stop investing, stop making more money. I would invest overseas, where my income would be taxed at a lower rate. So I can spend 3 months living off the income I made from my investments in Ireland, sitting on a vacation home.

I'm going to challenge you here.

No one is suggesting that rate at that income level. AOC actually said it should apply to the highest earners. She used $ 10m so your strawman is moot.

This isn't a hypothetical experiment. This has been done before. We have decades of data that shows your argument to be false.

Well of course not. She would be laughed out of congress, and the democrats would lose every seat in Congress.

I'm a bit baffled by your comment that you have loads of data proving my argument false. We have tons of examples prove it is true. Did you miss where France tried to levy a heavy tax on the rich, and the rich left the country in droves? That was well documented. Did you miss where taxes in Greece resulted in almost a million people leaving? Did you miss where taxes in California have resulted in many people moving to other states?

And the tax data from before the 1980s shows very well that everything I said is dead on accurate. Where do you think I got those examples from? The tax data of the 70s.

Now back to the AOC proposal.

Here is what the problem is. Wealthy people are going to shield their money from the tax, but that won't stop congress from spending money they assume that tax will bring in. Then either when the bill comes due on the debt, or when they try and balance the budget, they will be forced to expand the tax to cover more people.

In the end, it will be the middle and lower class that ends up footing the bill.

How do I know this? Because it has happened routinely, and around the world.

Remember the 3% luxury tax on phones? It was a tax against the rich. Who ended up paying most of that tax? The middle and lower class.
Remember that Alternative Minimum Tax? It was a tax against the rich. Who ended up paying most of that tax? The middle class retirees.
In California taxes on wealthy land owners, results in high rent prices. Who ended up paying most of those taxes? The middle and lower class.

In all cases, taxes aimed at the rich, end up hurting the poor and middle class at some point in the future.

And the only difference between the left-wingers here in this country, and the left-wingers in Europe, is that our left-wing is still delusional. In Europe, everyone knows that higher taxes end up on the poor and middle class. This is why someone in Norway making just $50K to $70K a year, pays 40% of their income in taxes. And that is just income. Then they pay 25% sales tax on everything they buy.

They difference is, they know who they have to tax in order to pay for all their government programs. Namely... everyone.

The idiotic mindless left-wing of the US, still believes in their myths and fairy tales about how we'll get the rich to pay for it.

 

[Andylusion]

Tell us where you believe it is, professor.

Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Swimming around in the economy. Just like your wealth and mine.
Pulled out of circulation? Laughable.

Not an answer, dope.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Spending is circulation. Increased circulation is growth.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

All economic investment is around 15% of GDP.

It's amazing!! That investment produces 100% of GDP and all the income those consumers get to spend.

Rich folks don't spend more because they received tax breaks.

I know, they fill up their gold swimming pools.

I knew you had nothing, loser.

Those who over the last forty years who have pulled an obscene amount of money out of circulation.

Durr!

Moron.

This guy is a total idiot. They actually believe they are pulling money out of circulation....... Public schools man...... Public education showing through.

You're right of course. My third house just added it's 100th employee and announced profit sharing for this year!