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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those who defaulted on mortgages had been paying them for years.

Some people started defaulting almost immediately.

I was only when their ARM rates almost doubled their payments after the 3 year freeze was over

Not everyone had an ARM and not all ARMs had a 3 year teaser rate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to buy up mortgages, by law.

I know, and when the law requires them to buy 30% subprime loans and then 50% subprime and finally 55% subprime, you can't say their issues were because they were deregulated. Well, you could say that, but you'd be an idiot.

And yes, Glass Steagall did prevent banks from writing crappy mortgages.

Prove it.

Of course some 0.5% or so always default right away, but that does not cause a real estate debacle or banks to default.
The major problem in 2008 was from massive ARM payment charge increases.

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.
That was exactly and entirely what caused the whole economic problem!

Certainly you are free to disagree, as some others do as well.
But read this.

The Road to Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that CAUSED the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to by ALL the toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages.

Nope HUD forced them to buy crappy mortgages.

Thanks for the link.

Glass-Steagall was designed to stabilize the U.S. financial system by separating commercial banks from the capital markets and by prohibiting nonbanks from accepting deposits.

Weird, not a word about mortgages.

Wrong. Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures. Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall. Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them. It is what their legal purpose was, once the banks created these toxic mortgage derivatives.

Glass Steagall was to prevent banks from investing in their own risky ventures.

And yet, not a single word about mortgages.

Those toxic derivatives were their own risky ventures and would have been illegal under Glass Steagall.

Banks didn't lose trillions on derivatives, banks lost trillions on mortgages.

Neither HUD nor Fannie Mae had any choice in buying them.

HUD didn't have to force Fannie and Freddie to buy crap, but starting in the early 1990s, HUD forced them to buy at first, 30% crappy mortgages and by 2007, HUD was forcing them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

It is what their legal purpose was

Before Clinton, they only bought high quality, conforming loans

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans, so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.

But the rest make no sense.
Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.

Banks did not lose any money at all.
They created deceptive ARM loans they deceptively sold to Fannie Mae, and then we people could not make the new increased payments, they defaulted and were foreclosed. The banks made a bundle years later when they sold all these foreclosures.
But in the mean time, Obama bailed them out because they did not have enough working assets any more, since there were so many defaults. Obama should not have done that. He should have either bailed out the home buyers, or let the banks go under.
It was all the fault of the banks, so they did not deserve being bailed out.

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.
HUD has nothing to do with it.
It is Congress that set up the rules.
And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.
That is the whole point of the toxic derivatives, in that they hid the details in bundles.
And no one had the authority to refuse to buy the bundles once Glass Steagall had been repealled.

Yes, before Clinton signed the bill past by Congress, to repeal Glass Steagall, banks only made high quality, conforming mortgage loans

Is there a nicer way to say you're full of shit? Let me know.

so Fannie Mae only bought up high quality, conforming loans.​

You're lying. In the early 90s HUD mandated the GSEs buy 30% subprime mortgages.
While Glass-Steagall was still in place.
​

Fannie Mae never bought up individual mortgages, but bundles called derivatives.​

Could you be more clueless?
​

Banks did not lose any money at all.​

What are you smoking? Is it legal in your state?
​

You are wrong about Fannie Mae. Their whole purpose is to buy up mortgages from banks, so that banks can move on to new mortgages.​

HUD has nothing to do with it.​

It is Congress that set up the rules.​

And neither HUD nor Fannie Mae knew they were getting crap.​

​

Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.​

​

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis​

​

Wow! Don't you feel like an idiot now?​

​

​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT in the budget.

Liar.

The deficit was irrelevant.

But some moron said,

"When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business."

You don't think the debt increases without annual deficits, do you?

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

You seem very uninformed.
The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.
It was additional emergency funding at irregular intervals.
That is always how wars are funded.
Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

It is obvious to anyone Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

Prove it.

Annual deficits are NOT the only way you can add to the national debt.

You're wrong.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt. I already showed you the graph. It is documented general knowledge. Are you saying you do not believe Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt? If so, then I can just start ignoring you.

I already did prove it. Clearly Bush added over $5 trillion to the national debt.

Clearly, no one denied he added $4.9 trillion to the total public debt.

View attachment 240066

View attachment 240067

And no one denied that Obama added $9.3 trillion.

View attachment 240068
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Now, if you can prove your claim...…

The $5 trillion Bush added to the national debt was NOT at all part of any annual budget.

We can continue.

This is not as clear as I would like it, but does indicate that previous was funding was done in a supplemental way and not through the annual budget.

Updated - The Obameter: End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war

{...
Money in budgets, but supplementals aren't going away
By Lukas Pleva on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

At the time, we rated the promise In the Works, since Obama's budget for 2010 included the price tag for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were curious to see how things have unfolded since then.

As we said, the president's budget for 2010 included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. On December 16, 2009, Obama signed a law which provided $101.1 billion "for operations and maintenance and military personnel requirements for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support preparations to continue withdrawal from Iraq."

Earlier, however, in June, 2009, Obama had also signed a $105.9 billion supplemental spending bill to fund escalating military operations in the Middle East. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the time that "this [was] the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll cut the president some slack on this one. Because of the way the budget process works, the only way for Obama to step up military efforts in his first year was via supplemental funding. The 2009 budget was approved in 2008, when Bush was still President.

Alas, it was not the last supplemental. On February 1, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged Congress to pass a $33 billion emergency legislation to fund a 30,000 troop-surge in Afghanistan. After repeated requests from Gates and months of debate, the House finally passed the measure on July 27, 2010, sending the bill to President Obama for signature.

We should also note that the White House has already released its budget for 2011. The administration is asking for $159.3 billion in war funding.

We consulted two budget experts, both of whom told us that there is nothing mischievous about using supplementals to fund an unforeseen change in military strategy. Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank, said that supplemental funding becomes a problem when you use it to fund initiatives that you can anticipate far in advance. By the time Obama announced the 30,000-troop surge in December 2009, he had already submitted the 2010 budget.

The final ruling is a bit tricky. Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse, and his criticism centered on using them for year-to-year funding. The 2009 supplemental was an inevitable result of the budget process, and this year's supplemental pays for the 30,000 troop-surge that Obama announced after the 2010 budget had already been submitted. Most important, funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is now included in annual budgets. We'll keep a close eye on this one going forward, but for now, this is a Promise Kept.
...}

After that, I found this one which is likely better:

{...
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.

More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
...}

Thanks for the source.
I love it when someone posts a source that refutes their stupid claim

Military war spending is never part of the budget.

It's been a while since we last reviewed President Obama's campaign pledge to end the use of supplemental budgets for funding wars. Supplementals provide money that comes on top of funds from annual budgets. During the campaign, Obama criticized this method of funding and promised to include war costs in the budget proposals that the White House submits to Congress at the beginning of every year.

See the phrase "supplemental budget"? That means it is part of a budget submitted to and approved by Congress. The expense is on the books, adds to the deficit and adds to the debt.

Maybe you'll make more accurate claims in the future?

 

[Andylusion]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

 

[danielpalos]

Kinda interesting, so many seem to feel Ocasio Cortez’s tax plan will ONLY affect those making $10 million or more. Bunch of fricken suckers.

increasing the minimum wage is more cost effective.

 

[danielpalos]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

how about a tax wall for expatriates? no tax breaks for US holdings if You are not in the US.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why wait, go now!

I'm waiting to watch CNN again when Trump wins re election....

Why don't you and the rest of the Russian trolls just hold your breath until that happens.

 

[Thinker101]

Foolish, uninformed statement. Not surprising coming from a radical Progressive.

Specifically, who do you suggest take our place as the leader of the free world?

The tax cuts have stimulated what had been a lagging economy. Have you looked at the jobs market lately?

The rescued by the bank bailout was repaid early, with interest. Not so with the bailout of the American auto manufacturers.

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

Worker poverty in this country is caused by corporations moving employee salaries lower to fund investor returns. In the 70's, investor returns were 5% to 10% of net profits. Today it's 50% or more.

Reasonably priced healthcare was lost when Reagan reversed the HMO act. Today, healthcare insurance owns or derives profit from 95% of providers. It's a company store.

50% or more? Smells like BS, gotta link?

Look it up, I've posted it many times.

So that would be a NO?

 

[Thinker101]

Kinda interesting, so many seem to feel Ocasio Cortez’s tax plan will ONLY affect those making $10 million or more. Bunch of fricken suckers.

increasing the minimum wage is more cost effective.

Sure, increase the minimum wage so Ocasio Cortez can take 50%, sounds like a great plan...for idiots.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I voted yes.

Obviously I do not make that kind of money but everyone with a brain knows that if you oppress one segment of our economy in the manner this twit is proposing, it will affect everyone. Hence they YES vote

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What so Congress can continue to get rich like Nancy pelosi?


No one ever paid 70% in tax.


.

That's debatable. The rich have in the recent past paid a top federal rate of 40% all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

all evidence points to the fact that they could pay a lot more without it hurting the economy.

You're lying.

Even if they could, it's still immoral to suggest that they should.

Yes, and even if the top 5% was taxed at 100% it would not create enough revenue to balance the budget. The libs just don't understand basic economics and math.

The point is to maximize revenue collection without hurting economic growth. A top federal tax rate of just 40% does not achieve that. The top federal rate can and needs to be raised to maximize revenue collection without hurting economic growth.

Starving the country to preserve the income of the rich few is not smart when it comes to national policy.

I just heard, "We want more money, so it's ours to take!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Except

40% of American middle class face poverty by the time they reach age 65: Study

Working-Class Families Are Getting Hit From All Sides - Center for American Progress

Seems that the trump/Putin plan is working.

Do you know why 40% of US citizens face poverty by the time they reach age 65, is because Unions over promise and then underpay, high taxes in certain states, and a healthcare system that is going up even after Obama promised to save them $2,500..
Of course back in the 1990's when the scare of the left was that Social Security was going to run out of money(but welfare never does, go figure) I am my good friends really starting throwing a lot of money into McDonnell Douglas stock. After it went to $300 a share and split 3 for 1, then went back up to $200 a share and split 2 for 1, it was then bought out by Boeing and those shares are up over $350 a share. You can rely on someone else to take care of you and be disappointed or you can plan your own retirement and then if something bad happens to your pension or Social Security, at least you have another source of income....That is why 40% end up in poverty at age 65..

Worker poverty in this country is caused by corporations moving employee salaries lower to fund investor returns. In the 70's, investor returns were 5% to 10% of net profits. Today it's 50% or more.

Reasonably priced healthcare was lost when Reagan reversed the HMO act. Today, healthcare insurance owns or derives profit from 95% of providers. It's a company store.

50% or more? Smells like BS, gotta link?

Look it up, I've posted it many times.

So that would be a NO?

He constantly makes ridiculous claims and runs away when asked for evidence.

 

[danielpalos]

Kinda interesting, so many seem to feel Ocasio Cortez’s tax plan will ONLY affect those making $10 million or more. Bunch of fricken suckers.

increasing the minimum wage is more cost effective.

Sure, increase the minimum wage so Ocasio Cortez can take 50%, sounds like a great plan...for idiots.

it depends; a fifty dollar an hour minimum wage could make it worth it.

 

[Thinker101]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

What? Vegetable pickers, people mowing lawns and toilet bowl cleaners are getting raises?

 

[Thinker101]

Kinda interesting, so many seem to feel Ocasio Cortez’s tax plan will ONLY affect those making $10 million or more. Bunch of fricken suckers.

increasing the minimum wage is more cost effective.

Sure, increase the minimum wage so Ocasio Cortez can take 50%, sounds like a great plan...for idiots.

it depends; a fifty dollar an hour minimum wage could make it worth it.

It sure would, hopefully your not holding your breath.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

What? Vegetable pickers, people mowing lawns and toilet bowl cleaners are getting raises?

Just make a point, dope.

 

[Andylusion]

Not directly.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

So I might be out of a job, thanks to this idiotic tax scheme. And last I checked, $0 income, is less than a full pay check. So yes, AOC's dumb tax policy could very much affect my income.

But since most of my customers are rich people, if you take 70% of their income, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that they will purchase less stuff.

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

 

[Thinker101]

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

What? Vegetable pickers, people mowing lawns and toilet bowl cleaners are getting raises?

Just make a point, dope.

Looks like I did make a point...dumbass.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL
That's not obvious at all. What is obvious is they are still rich after. Just as they were rich before they received the latest tax cuts.

Really? It isn't obvious that if you take more of someone's money, that they buy less stuff? Really? That's is the argument you wish to make?

Well yes it is obvious that the rich are still rich. Think about it..... an income tax, is a tax on getting rich... not being rich.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

Well obviously that tax is going to harm the person who isn't wealth, more than the person who already is.

Again, just think about it. If I have a $1 Billion dollars. I could buy a small island, and live there with bikini babes serving me martinis for the rest of my life. I could quit my job, close my business, lay off thousands of workers, and still live in luxury until the day I die. And if I did that, I would never pay one single penny of your 70% tax.

Who would pay that 70% tax? It would be the people trying to get rich. Not the people who already are rich.

An income tax is really a tax on people trying to become wealthy. Not a tax on people who already are wealthy.

If you doubt that, look at Mark Zuckerberg.
Tax-Smart Billionaires Who Work For $1

Zuckerberg earns a salary of $1. That's one dollar. You could raise even the lowest income bracket to 70%, and Mark wouldn't pay 1 penny more in taxes. (standard deduction elminates taxing that $1 of income).

Look at Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet's salary is only $100,000 a year. You could raise the top marginal rate to 100%, and he wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Even if he did pay more...

Let's pretend for a moment, that you raised taxes, and he did pay more tax on that $100,000 income. He's worth $80 Billion, with zero income.

Are you seeing the problem? A tax on income, is a tax on becoming wealthy. Not a tax on being wealthy. Like I said before, all these people could close their companies, lay off all the workers, and still live a life of luxury until they die, and have billions left over for their kids.

In effect, what an income tax really is, is a wealthy protection tax. It prevents the lower and middle class from moving up to the rich.

Regardless, those two points are not contradictory.
Whether someone is rich, or poor, the reality is, if they have more money, they'll spend more, invest more, and save more. If they have less money, whether rich or poor, they will spend less, invest less, and save less.

Just because a rich person is still rich with higher taxes, doesn't change the fact they will still spend, invest, and save less money if they have less money.

You have two people. One person has a net worth of $1 Billion. The other person has a net worth of $100,000.

You put in place a 70% tax on income. Who does this hurt more? The person who already has a net worth of $1 Billion? Or the person who has a net worth of $100K?

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

Left-winger: "your evidence and citations are nothing more than you saying 'nuh-uh', and just because you cite facts, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about!"

Stupid is believing that tax cuts actually increase revenues while tax increases reduce them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The OP stipulated that the tax would be on those making over $10m, dope.

Not $100k.

Er...... duh? That's my point stupid.

The super elite, are not taking $10 Million in salary.

And as several people have pointed out before, few people are going to pay that tax anyway. If you change the tax rate to 70%, and I'm earning $11 Million a year, I'll simply donate enough money to go under that tax. Why earn a $1 Million dollars, to lose $700k?

https://seekingalpha.com/article/14...re-taxes-arent-the-solution-to-state-deficits

​

People change how they act to adapt to high taxes.

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.
​

Let me recap that for you sparky......

Even with the much higher tax rate.... the result was *LESS TAX REVENUE* than before the higher taxes.

You do know that people have renounced their US citizenship to avoid taxes, right?

More Americans are considering cutting their ties with the US — here's why

Remember, a rich person can move out of the country, as quickly as a poor person can move to a different apartment across the street.

You have no point. You have a long winded, rambling, nuh-uh.
You have no idea what additional revenues would be gained and on what income.

What? Vegetable pickers, people mowing lawns and toilet bowl cleaners are getting raises?

Just make a point, dope.

Looks like I did make a point...dumbass.

You posted to me, dope.

Explain your point or go away.