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

[Rigby5]

That would be a disaster for the country. Budget Deficits would balloon and the country would no longer be able to defend its interest around the world.

Nope. Eliminating tax expenditures would not only balance the budget, it would provide a surplus which could be used to LOWER tax rates for EVERYONE.

What you don't realize is all the functions of government that are necessary for the country to survive. Those things have to be properly funded. If you cut spending by 50%, that won't happen.

You clearly do not know what tax expenditures are.

Likely you are correct, but you have to admit it is deceptive terminology and you could explain it better or use a different term. I had to look it up myself in order to know what you were talking about.

It's not deceptive terminology. In fact, it is an accurate economic term which reflects the fact they are an expenditure which has to be paid for. And they are paid for by higher tax rates and borrowing.

That's why I use the term very deliberately. It is the denial that they are an expenditure which is deceptive. I am undoing that deception by using the accurate and correct term.

If we eliminated tax expenditures, we would realize several benefits.

First, the budget would be balanced and we could lower tax rates for everyone.

Second, we would no longer have the existing insane system where entities earning identical incomes pay radically different taxes.

Third, we would no longer be hostage to a government behavioral control program which rewards and punishes certain behaviors.

Fourth, the incentive for special interests to bribe our politicians to put tax expenditures in the tax code for them would be removed. Instant campaign finance reform the RIGHT way.

I agree with your points, except that the words "tax expenditures" sounds like congress spending tax revenue. And when it is an allowance for taxpayers to write off some business expenses in a very selective and arbitrary manner by congress, that usually has some more descriptive terminology, like deduction or credit.

Expenditure sounds like it is money congress has already collected and has in hand, when in reality it is like congress spent the money, but only in a very abstract way because it was never in the hands of Congress. It really is more like an exemption.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

Perfect demonstration of the inability to grasp the purpose behind AOC's proposal and proof positive that she knows more about Economics than you do.

I just heard, "The smart person is the one saying things I agree with."

Or in your case "The smart person is the one saying things Putin told me to say".

 

[Pilot1]

Or in your case "The smart person is the one saying things Putin told me to say".

Russia's economy, and Putin's wealth is solely derived by ENERGY SALES. If Trump was a pawn of Putin why would he put an Energy Policy in place which has increased world supply thus depressing the cost of energy, including oil, and gas which kills Russia's economy? It makes absolutely NO SENSE.

The U.S. is now a net exporter of oil for the first time. Also our fracking technology has greatly increased the production of Natural Gas. We are liquifying that gas and selling it to Europe, and elsewhere in DIRECT competition to Russia, which also forces prices down, and their energy revenue to plummet.

Why would Trump do something so absolutely destructive to Putin? Can you answer that question?

 

[Flopper]

400 plus posts and not a one showing any indication of an understanding of macroeconomics, public policy, and tax strategy. When you increase the tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or even soft drinks everyone seems to understand that it discourages consumption. An income tax rate of seventy percent on income over ten million dollars a year does the same thing. When are you taxed on income, when you take it out of the business. A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Why do companies not invest in training their employees like they used to back in the day. Why do companies not provide benefit packages equivalent to those back in the day. Why do companies buy back their own stock instead of making even moderately risky capital investments like they did back in the day. Why do companies offer 401K's instead of pensions like they used to. Because their taxes, and the marginal tax rate, no longer provides them with the incentive to invest in that training, provide those benefits, make those riskier investments, or take on the risk of market loss that a pension entails. The "opportunity cost" of not taking profits is too steep. The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT. Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company. It is about expanding the frontier curve.

That is why the high tax rate's of the 50's resulted in a massive increase in production. That is why, back then, we often had double digit GDP growth not this puny ass two and three percent shit. That is why, back then, the wealthy actually paid less of the total tax burden than they do now, because they had the incentive to invest in their businesses and increase the revenue of their employees, not their investors.

But who am I kidding. You morons can go on ranting about the evils of socialism, or communism, or how about how damn lazy poor people are. In reality, you guys don't even understand the fundamentals of the capitalism you are so enamored with.

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

I don't see how a 70% marginal rate is going to encourage businesses to cash out. In fact, I think it would do the opposite because all reinvestment in the business are treated as capital gains and are only taxed when assets are sold.

If the 70% marginal rate only applies to income in excess of 10 million, I doubt it would have much effect on the number startups.

If the corporate rate remained the same, it would have little effect on the large corporations.

That's not to say that there are no negative impacts. Individuals with high income would probably look to investing part of their portfolio in overseas corporations to avoid going into a high tax bracket. Tax free municipal bonds would become increasing attractive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A seventy percent tax on income discourages business owners from taking money out of the business and instead, motivates them to PUT THE MONEY BACK IN.

Business owners? Who wants to ever start a business when the government is going to take 70 cents out of every dollar of profit?

The tax code actually encourages those businesses to CASH OUT.

What will more likely encourage a businessman to risk his money to start up a new company?

Country A, where his profit, if any, is 70% taken away by government, or Country B where his profit, if any, is only 21% taken away by government?

Changing that dynamic is the rationale behind Cortez's proposal. It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue. It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Only morons think more taxes provides an incentive.

This from the dude who was explaining how taxes are progressive. Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars. So lots of people would start a business and bust their ass so that they could reach ten million dollars of income and the seventy percent rate. What, did nobody start any businesses back in 1950? What about Dunkin Donusts, Denny's, Sonic, and HR Block? You are just spouting off nonsense. Did anyone ever refuse to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were so high? Besides, taxes come out on the back end, not the front end, which all you conservatives fail to understand. What is it Warren Buffet said, he never knew anyone who ran away from a successful endeavor because of the tax rate.

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax-rate. Higher tax rates increase a companies risk appetite. I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money. Investors who worry more about the return on their money than the return of their money usually end up with no money.

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them. The United Arab Emirates has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and they sure as hell have no shortage of foreign investment, nor of business Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates. Now, with the lower corporate tax rate, a dumbshit president, and a dysfunctional government, I fully expect that position to be lost. Number two was Great Britain. Watch them fall in the ratings as well for many of the same reasons.

Remember, the seventy percent tax rate would only apply to the income over ten million dollars.

Oh, so the corporate rate will remain 21% on the profit up to $10 million and then the rate will spike to 70%.

Well, that's much better. No disruptions possible there. DURR!

But yes, higher taxes actually encourage greater risk.

Of course, I'm more likely to invest in equipment to increase my profit from $10 million this year to $20 million next year when the payoff is an additional $3 million after-tax, than when the payoff is an additional $7.9 million.

That's hilarious!

And your company a, company b choice is just stupid. There are many decisions when it comes to locating a business and the tax rate is not high among them.

Right. Ireland had just as many companies before they cut their tax rate to 12.5% as after.

I mean companies are like investors, it is not the return on their money that they are mostly concerned with. It is the return OF their money.

It's both, except for idiots like you.

Matter of fact, the United States has more new businesses than any country in the world and that was when we had one of the highest corporate tax rates.

I'm pretty sure new business formation suffered with our highest in the 1st world corporate tax rates under the previous dumbshit President.

It is not about "socialism", it is not about punishment, hell, it is not even about increasing revenue.

Lie, lie, lie.

It is about providing the incentive and subsidizing the risk, of investment back in to the company.

Raise the tax rate to 100%, subsidize the shit out of risk, eh comrade?

Not very impressive. First, the AOC proposal never said anything about the corporate tax rate albeit that rate should most certainly be adjusted upwards. The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks instead of capital investment proving my point quite eloquently, to bad you don't have the knowledge to understand.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Plus they have a minimum wage that equates to over $1800 a month. You sure Bernie Sanders didn't get his ideas from Ireland?

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all. Like your more likely to invest fantasy. Guess there are advantages to working for someone rather than running your own business though.

When it comes to new business formation why don't you check the Kaufman Index. It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why? I will give you a hint, it had something to do with Obama.

And finally the stupid one hundred percent argument, which is just as stupid as the zero percent argument. The Laffer curve is a curve, afterall. Sometimes you can raise revenue when cutting taxes and sometimes you can't. Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

The results of the cut have not been as promised and much of it was directed towards corporate buybacks

Yeah, I hate it when my stocks go up too.

Ireland, the favorite example of tax cutting fools, is not just about the low tax rate. An educated workforce is also a variable, free college education and all.

Obviously. Because their workforce wasn't educated before they cut the tax rate.

Like your more likely to invest fantasy.

You should ask a businessman if a 70% tax rate would make him want to invest more than a 21% rate.

It took a dive because of the recession but jumped rather significantly in 2010. Do you know why?

A Republican House?

Anyone who thinks we are on the left side of the Laffer curve at these absurdly low rates is absolutely delusional.

Anyone who thinks 70% is the revenue maximizing rate is even more delusional.

Who cares about your damn stock. Stock prices increasing were not part of the "deal" when it came to the corporate tax cut. Hell, them going up was a given considering after tax income for every corporation immediately went up. But the deal was investment would increase, incomes would increase, and the economy would blow past four percent GDP growth. Didn't happen.

And you are right about Ireland. Obviously first we need to provide free college education to all Americans and raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour. Then, after a decade or so, we can cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Who knew you were a Bernie supporter.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman because nobody successful would base their decisions solely on the marginal tax rate.

The Kaufman index took a big jump in 2010 because of Obamacare. See if you can figure out why that happened. And a 70% marginal tax rate is closer to the revenue maximizing rate than 20% based on every empirical study ever done.

And if a businessman only cares about the tax rate, well he ain't really a businessman

If a businessman wants to invest more at a 70% tax rate than at a 21% tax rate, he ain't really a businessman.
At least he won't be one for long.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ah, the brilliance of the right. Create a meme that is a lie, and then act like you've said something profound.

Che Guevara was a communist revolutionary, who believed in the violent overthrow of government. When offered a position in the Castro government in Cuba, he turned it down, because all he cared about was the revolution, not what came after.

Ms. Cortez is a legally elected and authorized Member of Congress of the United States of America. She is proposing ideas to the American people, asking them to consider them, discuss them, and to vote on them. AOC is the direct opposite of Guevara, his methods, and his ideals.

Your meme could not be more false.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, because doing so would hurt the economy. Raising the top marginal rate to 70% would suck a huge amount of capital out of the economy, capital that would otherwise be available for investment and savings, and would hand that money over to the government, which typically wastes at least 30 cents of every dollar it spends.

Proving how little AOC knows about economics is her suggestion of a 70% tax on incomes above $10 million. Apparently, she doesn't know that there are only about 2,000 people who have incomes at and above that level.

How much revenue will that raise?

Perfect demonstration of the inability to grasp the purpose behind AOC's proposal and proof positive that she knows more about Economics than you do.

I just heard, "The smart person is the one saying things I agree with."

Or in your case "The smart person is the one saying things Putin told me to say".

Hush, pissant. Any conversation about smart people by definition has nothing to do with you.

 

[Pilot1]

But Trump is Putin's pawn, although EVERY policy he has put in place is anti Russia, and directly hurts Putin's pocketbook.

 

[U2Edge]

1812 is world that no longer exist. The United States has interest all over the world that is vital to its economy and its survival. As time goes by, the world becomes ever more interdependent. Isolationism has been dead since the 19th century. A country like Switzerland is dependent upon NATO for its true security.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

I agree, the US had absolutely no business in WWI and it totally screwed up Europe for a long time, because it was an evil war.

Had the United States been more involved in Europe before 1914, to include having troops stationed in France and Belgium, World War I would never of happened. The Germans would not have attacked risking war with France, Britain, The United States and Russia all at once.

The Germans started the war when they invaded Luxembourg on August 1, 1914. By August 2, 1914, there were tens of thousands of German troops in Luxembourg. The Germans were the first country to violate another country's sovereignty in 1914 and thus the blame for the World War rest with them.

 

[basquebromance]

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

"Oh? What’s that? The majority of Americans respect when you break down reasonable policy proposals that are designed to combat runaway income inequality and help fund priorities they value most? We can win public sentiment, stand our ground, & not be scared by GOP information." - AOC

 

[U2Edge]

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

"Oh? What’s that? The majority of Americans respect when you break down reasonable policy proposals that are designed to combat runaway income inequality and help fund priorities they value most? We can win public sentiment, stand our ground, & not be scared by GOP information." - AOC

Good link and post. Despite the arguments for and against raising the top federal tax rate to 70%, the poll shows that support is growing among American voters to do this. Its 59% support now, and will get higher as each year goes by. The rich don't have the votes to stop it. Popular support for raising the top federal tax rate as well increasing budget pressure mean that an increase in the top federal tax rate is nearly inevitable.

 

[Pilot1]

Ah, the brilliance of the right. Create a meme that is a lie, and then act like you've said something profound.

Che Guevara was a communist revolutionary, who believed in the violent overthrow of government. When offered a position in the Castro government in Cuba, he turned it down, because all he cared about was the revolution, not what came after.

Ms. Cortez is a legally elected and authorized Member of Congress of the United States of America. She is proposing ideas to the American people, asking them to consider them, discuss them, and to vote on them. AOC is the direct opposite of Guevara, his methods, and his ideals.

Your meme could not be more false.

Castro was legally elected. So was Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Minh. All murderers like Che who I am sure could have rigged things to get elected somewhere if he hadn't been killed. So that is not a litmus test of benevolence. Cortez is no murderer, but she is a supporter of what will eventually become Totalitarian Oppression. When that happens, and it will, you will be glad we have legal gun owners who are well armed, and well trained. You will be the one cowering behind them as they defend your life, and your property.

 

[Synthaholic]

Thank you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!!!

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent



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.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[westwall]

Thank you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!!!

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent



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.

These the same polls that said the shrilary was a shoo in? Thanks, i'll pay attention to non propagandists.

 

[Markle]

It didn't happen. Those are "estimates".

Prove it with a reliable source and link. Otherwise....

 

[MarcATL]

God bless that woman.

 

[NLT]

Typical libstain wants your money so she can spend it. **** all that.

 

[Mr Natural]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

 

[Montrovant]

That $20 trillion debt is not going to pay itself off.

That's true. I doubt the money gained by raising the top tax rate would go toward paying down the debt, though.