How to solve the economic crisis: Tax all income over a million dollars at 95%.

[rateyes]

The marginal tax rate on incomes over $400,000 during the Eisenhower administration was 92%. We need to go back to those days.

Here's what would happen. There would be no more $20 million dollar bonuses. There would be no more salaries over a million dollars (including for pro athletes).

CEO's would NOT pay that tax. Instead, they would do things with the money to avoid paying tax that is very attractive. You would see charitable giving in this country skyrocket. You would see people being hired, and you would see wages go significantly higher. You would also see the deficit, within very few years, erased.

There is precedent for such a tax rate, and the economy of the country was in great shape when the top tax rate was that high. And, no poor CEO went hungry.

Why should they pay such a high rate? Because, they have been the prime beneficiaries of government's rules. It's time for them to pay the piper.

[onehandle]

1. I only made $999,999.99 this year, so I fully approve. nt

[rateyes]

2. I hope all who made what you made, or less, fully approves. nt

[Cal33]

33. I think you misunderstand. I believe what is meant with this

suggestion is that, up to $1 million you pay the regular taxes, but you'd collect only 5% of
anything above $1 million.

By the way, at one time they taxed at 90% of anything above $100,000 (if I'm correct). Joe
Louis was in that income bracket. Big business people, of course, could and did find
all kinds of loop-holes. Those on straight salaries were the ones who got socked. Not
many people on straight salaries were in that income tax bracket.

[onehandle]

58. I was just making a dumb joke. nt

[Yupster]

105. It is interesting that those calling for tax increases always seemk to set the

limit of those to be increased above what they themselves make.

I think it's called, "we need to pay more3 taxes. Not me. The other we."

[Political Heretic]

136. That's right. It's called Rich People. Not Poor People. Works for me.

[onehandle]

144. delete

delete

[MadBadger]

3. So what would the owner of a football franchise do with all that extra money?

he doesnt have a salary.

[rateyes]

4. Perhaps, instead of public financing, he would build a new stadium

and put construction folk to work. Think about the fact that it would only cost him a nickel on the dollar to do it.

[MadBadger]

5. You cant always build new stadiums

Eventually, year after year the owner is just raking in the money when in reality he doesnt do all that much to deserve it.

[rateyes]

6. Maybe he'll give it away to charity. Anything to keep the government

from getting it! Right?

[Oregone]

17. Burger joints, steak knife franchise, etc

He will knock himself out I bet with all the cool businesses he will start

[rateyes]

19. And, put a lot of people to work with decent wages.

[mainer]

59. but then it might lead to extra income. Which is a bad thing.

A businessman won't make any investments that might bump up his income. He'll be far less inclined to invest.

[Yupster]

107. Of course

Small businessmen would downsize their businesses to only make whatever the maximum was.

Why work 80 hours a week and run three different businesses when you don't make any more money than you'd make with one.

These small business guys are hard chargers and risk takers. Many times they're 75 years old. They're willing to take a giant risk and start a third business even though the other two are paying them plenty.

Unless you piss them off.

Then they retire, close two of their three businesses, lay off 16 of their 23 workers and run their easiest business from their home part-time.

PS -- I work with small business people all day. They are on the whole and amazing group of people with wives who are very worried about them.

[dysfunctional press]

90. he may not have a 'salary'- but he does have 'income'...

the poster called for a tax on 'income', not 'salary'.

[Yupster]

106. He would just leave it in the company

so then it wouldn't be taxed until he sold the team someday.

[The Doctor.]

7. It's easy to take that position....

Given that the vast majority of multi-millionaires perform very little constructive functions with their money.

I have business models that, if I had the capital to get them running, could easily net myself and investors a million a month (no joke). With that I could do a lot for people with new programs and models.

I have a model that would put a certain industry out of business practically overnight, and it would increase the general prosperity of Americans. After that, I have models for other industries that would drive prices down, improve energy independence, and create more general prosperity.

Maybe I'm just crazy though.

Thing is, I could act on those much faster if I were being taxed at 50% rather than 95%

In my case, I would definitely be spending money towards better ends than the Federal Government ever would.

[Oregone]

8. The rich wouldn't pay. They would reinvest it into the economy and write-off business expenses

And that, my friends, is why high marginal rates drive economic activity.

[rateyes]

13. Exactly. nt

[Odin2005]

55. Exactly. That's what happened back in the 50s

[Yupster]

108. They would just buy tax free bonds in their corporate accounts

Which is not a bad thing since states and cities need to borrow so much.

They would not invest back into business as much as they do today because there would be no payoff for them to do such.

[pampango]

9. Great idea. Don't think you would have to ban salaries or bonuses over $1 million, though.

With that tax rate if someone gets a $10 million salary or bonus, the IRS gets 95% of the last $9 million (leaving Mr. Rich Guy with $450,000). I doubt that too many will hold out for that last million or two, but if they want to, fine with me.

Not only would you see more charitable giving, increased hiring, and higher wages, as you point out, but businesses would focus more on customer and employee loyalty and marketing for the long run. Now businesses focus on maximizing short term profit to meet next quarter's earnings expectations to keep Wall Street happy, even if that means they are hurting long term future of the business, by alienating employees and customers.

[rateyes]

15. That's exactly right. nt

[Yupster]

109. I don't get it

Why would you see more charitable giving, increased hiring, etc?

You would certainly see less concerts by the Who or Greenday.

I'm not sure what would happen in sports.

Would Kobe just play four games a year? Or would he just play three years with a deferred salary of $ 1 a year for 50 years? That one I'm not sure of.

As far as corporate guys, they'd just take $ 1 million salaries and the rest in deferred comp or stock which wouldn't be taxable until sold many years from now.

I'm convinced tax revenues would be a disaster.

In fact, if the government ever wants a quick tax shot in the arm, just announce that for one month only the capital gains on stocks will go down to 10 %. There are millions of people who have huge stock holdings they'd love to sell, but they don't want to pay the capital gains tax. Most never will sell and they get the stepped up basis at death. Reduce the tax to 10 % and they'll sell and the government will get huge short term revenues.

I don't know many corporate types but I know small business owners very well. You won't get any of them to report over $ 1 million in income. They'll just leave the money in the company and if they get pissed off enough, they'll retire. Most of them could retire any time they want to.

[femrap]

10. Bring back Ike....

We like Ike.

Do a tax Hike.

Rich say Yikes!

Workers do like!

See what Xmas nog can do to people?

[rateyes]

16. Share some?

:toast:

[femrap]

35. White Russians!

YUMMY! I haven't had one in years. Made my own Kahlua and tastes just like the expensive store bought stuff!:party: :toast:

edited because I can't spell nor type.

[BR_Parkway]

11. That's one of the biggest lies the conservatives repeat -

during our most prosperous years, taxes were always highest and we developed a lot of infrastructure. But they want to claim that low taxes will boost economies - and it's not like we don't have plenty of history to look back on. Even more infuriating are the conservaDems who repeat the same BS - they really just need to take a look back to realize how wrong they are

[rateyes]

21. True, that. nt

[BR_Parkway]

49. It amazes me that they call in all these economists for expert advice - half

of which completely disagree with the other half. And all the time, they've got the road map right in front of them. Even down to the fact that if the biggest number of voters are prosperous and happy with them, they wouldn't even need to raise all that money to stay re-elected. Hell, they had to change the Constitution to finally get FDR out of office and a generation who wouldn't have even wasted a second thinking about voting for the other side.

[Thickasabrick]

12. I personally would like to see a higher tax rate but reducing a millionaire's

net income to $50,000 a year? Maybe 90%.

[Oregone]

14. You don't understand marginal rates, do you?

Tax all income OVER $1 million @....

The first $1 million would be taxed as normal.

[Thickasabrick]

26. Thanks....that clears it up. Ok..I'm in for 95 nt

[dysfunctional press]

97. a LOT, if not most, people don't seem to fully understand marginal rates...

there should be some type of mandatory 'civics' curriculum for students beginning in the 7th grade.

but, it won't happen- because an informed electorate would be BAD news for rethuglicans.

[rateyes]

18. The first million is taxed at the rate it is now. The next million

is taxed at 95%. Believe me, they wouldn't suffer.

[phleshdef]

20. I'm all for higher taxes for the wealthiest but fuck 95%, thats crazy.

[rateyes]

22. As I said, it was 92% during Eisenhower on everything over $400,000.00

Not crazy. Sane.

[phleshdef]

24. I know Ike did it and I still find it to be oppressive.

[dysfunctional press]

100. it's a matter of getting the bills paid.

the uber-richest among us have benefited by far the most from being citizens of the united states, and therefore bear a larger responsibility in assuring that the country is able to meet its financial obligations related to the costs of maintaining the society that provided the protections and environment for that wealth to be acquired and accrued.

ronbo raygun SLASHED the tax rates of the wealthiest, and we've been living on credit as a nation ever since. it's long past time to pay the bills, and the money can only come from where the money is.

however- the dirty little not-so-secret about why the national debt can NEVER be retired, is that a chunk of it is owed to a lot of americans as well- especially the very RICHEST americans, in the form of t-bills. every respectable portfolio has them, and generally- the larger the portfolio, the more t-bills it contains.

[Yupster]

111. But the uber rich don't make much income

The uber rich (Kennedys, Rockefellers) have much wealth but make little income.

Your plan wouldn't touch them. It would hit the recent rich -- the small business guy who has a thriving business.

Is that who you're aiming for? You'll hit the hard working small business guy and miss the idle rich.

[dysfunctional press]

119. "Your plan wouldn't touch them."..?

which plan would that be? :shrug:

btw- capital gains are income too- and should be taxed at the same rates as earned wages. it's immoral that they aren't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

129. Exactly.

[backwoodsbob]

83. it was that but....

they got to write off damned near everything.

They didn't pay anywhere near 94%..I'd be surprised if they payed over 45%

[Yupster]

104. Correct

No one ever paid 90 % tax on any income.

Back then you could write off everything. Car loans, credit card interest.

There were things called limited poartnerships and tax credit programs. One tax credit program I was in (Liberty) allowed you to write off three times your investment over 10 years.

All those loopholes were eliminated in 86 by the TEFRA ACT. Tefra reduced the tax rates and eliminated the loopholes. It was supposed to be deficit neutral. I don't know whether it was or5 not.

Anyway, those saying the tax rate was 92 % is fine. If those people think anyone actually ever paid 92 % on any money they made, they are either very young, or didn't make very much during the 70's.

[Oregone]

23. Why crazy?

In a recession, shouldn't the government decentivize savings, in favor of private economic investment?

What economic benefit is there to allow masses of wealth to accumulate out of the economic cycle and sit unused?

Obama has illustrated that no amount of charisma can coaxed the investor class into investing. Im not sure why this "suggestion" for necessary economic activity is "crazy".

[phleshdef]

25. Its not necessary and its class warfare reversed. Class warfare is wrong regardless of direction.

[Romulox]

27. Do you think you could define "class warfare"? I'm suspicious of buzz words and talking points.

Also, I remind you the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans is at least implicit in the concept of an "ordered democracy". :hi:

[phleshdef]

32. If you are suspicious of buzzwords and talking points, you are at the wrong site.

[Romulox]

103. Typing "thought so" is almost redundant, huh? nt

[Oregone]

28. Its not warfare. Its essentially an investment mandate, and mandates are all the rage now

No one would be punished if the investor class invests and stimulates economic growth (which will make such investments profitable).

[phleshdef]

31. "Give it to us or we will take it from you" is no way to govern.

[Oregone]

34. "keep it all locked away from us while we suck your cock" isn't either

Relying on the magic free market to always produce the best result for the most people is pure nonesense. Sometimes the government must intervene when demand is deficient (by either direct stimulus, or by creating incentives for private stimulus--which is what this is).

[EOTE]

38. Class warfare has been engaged for centuries.

Guess which side always comes out on top? The government doing what it can to decrease the incredible disparity of wealth in this country is not a bad thing.

[Selatius]

95. You're basically making an argument against the current health care bill when you say that. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Why would someone invest when they can't get a premium on their return?

[rateyes]

29. "Class warfare is wrong regardless of direction." Really?

The rich don't seem to think so. We're in this war, and it's that attitude that keeps the poor on the losing end of it.

[phleshdef]

30. The fact that you make such blanket statements regarding all rich people exposes you.

You want to punish those who have more than you because of some chip you have on your shoulder. I get it.

[rateyes]

36. Punish?

You talk to me about "punishing the rich" but don't have a damn thing to say about how the rich have been punishing the poor?

That exposes YOU, and it isn't pretty.

On edit: You really think that a marginal tax rate of 35% on the first million is "punishment?"

[Political Heretic]

138. It's not punishment - its responsibility.

The people with the most ability to pay need to shoulder more of the burden and pay the most.. its the responsibility that comes with the privileges of wealth created by using the public commons.

If you're specially blessed, its also necessary to specially give back because you can afford to, and because its necessary to keep society healthy and functional.

I know that many wealthy individuals work hard for their success. But many poor people work just as hard or harder. It's not about working hard or not working hard, its about the responsibility that comes with wealth.

Very simple, and has nothing to do with some sort of class resentment. I'd be right at the front of the line to pay more in taxes if I made more money because I do believe that it is a responsibility, one that I'd be happy to accept.

[Raineyb]

125. It's not class warfare it's called paying one's fair share.

Why is it acceptable to put the burden on those who can least afford it but not make those who can most afford to pay do so? The rich benefit most from their citizenship in this country they ought to pay more for the privilege.

And that use of the term "class warfare" is a right wing talking point by the way.

[Political Heretic]

139. It's not even "fair share." It's simply a responsibility necessary for society to work.

The wealthy need to pay more than their "fair share" for society to function as well as it should. The need to be asked to shoulder greater cost because of their greater ability to pay - and the need to pay for social investment that benefits all of us and themselves by maintaining a much healthier, more stable and productive society with strong infrastructure and excellent education and quality health care - all of which helps maintain a healthy and productive citizenry which consumes products and whose labor creates more wealth.

I don't like saying "fair share" because I feel like it sets up rich people to be defensive or claim that I'm somehow out to get them out of spite. I'm aware that we have to ask the wealthiest in our society to pay more than an "equal" share back into our society - but that's what we have to ask in order to keep a healthy society functioning and stable.

[Political Heretic]

137. "Reverse Class warefare" is about as meaningful as "reverse racism"

[FLDCVADem]

122. Exactly.

I've never understood the mindset of people that are so jealous of what others have that they want to take it from them.

95%? Almost dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Raineyb]

124. It would be 95% after a certain threshold. Leading up to that threshold it would be taxed at the

lower rates of course. That's how marginal tax rates are supposed to work. 95% over a certain percent is quite reasonable and it won't leave the person poor. And if they should reinvest in their businesses instead of pulling the money out of the business to speculate on the stock market that's good for the economy. It's a win win either way.

[kctim]

37. I don't get it

why work to make more than a million when you would have to turn around and give it to govt?

[rateyes]

39. Because, as I said, they WOULDN'T be giving it to the govt.

They would be finding ways to spend it without it being taxed--in ways that are good for the working class and the poor.

I'll tell you something else. Most people in this country would love to work a year for a wage that equals 5% of a million dollars.

[gmoney]

53. No, they would just find a way to offshore it.

Shit, companies are threatening to move operations overseas based on the 3% bump Obama proposed.

95% would cause a wealth flight so fast it would make your head spin.

By the way, giving that money to charity costs you 100% of the money you donate.

[rateyes]

60. That's why you would add a HEAVY import tax on goods produced

by companies owned by American citizens.

[kctim]

68. How would they spend it without it being taxed?

If its a tax, it goes to the govt. and the only way it would not be taxed is if it was given as charity or something. Giving to charity or govt approved programs is not "spending" money, so why work for three million if you are only getting to keep one million?

"Most people in this country would love to work a year for a wage that equals 5% of a million dollars"

True, but most people in this country are not millionaires and no smart millionaire is going to work like a millionaire and get paid $50 grand. Some may, but if it was me, I would make my million and that would be it. I wouldn't work for free.

[Yupster]

112. Why would they take a risk investing their money

if their potential retuirn would be taxed at 95 % ?

Wouldn't they just buy tax free bonds iun their corporate accounts?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. So you really have no idea how income and spending work.

Income that is spent isn't magically not counted by the IRS.

[mainer]

42. If it were me, I'd just retire sooner. And let the government support me...

with the taxes sucked up from all those other millionaires.

Limiting all possibility of accumulating wealth is pretty much a formula for people to give up and stop achieving. (Communism worked really well for the old Russia, didn't it? Made it into a true economic powerhouse!)

[Yupster]

113. Many would retire

and take $ 1 million per year from their corporate account for the rest of their lives.

Business owners are way too savvy to pay 95 % of their income as taxes. They can choose eaqch year how much they pay themselves. The rest of their profitr just stays in the company. They can invest it there in cd's or tax free munis and take it little bit at a time in retirement.

[Taitertots]

152. Do you think that would really be a problem?

How many people do we have to worry about giving up after $1,000,000?

So all we have to worry about is prima donna sports stars, rock stars, and executives. I'm not concerned if spoiled brats who leach off society refuse to work. They can easily be replaced by people who will work.

[dawg]

40. If 5% appears too small ....

be thankful I don't take it all.

[FollowTheCash]

41. Where to Begin?

My goodness, I don't think I have ever seen so many misconceptions packed into so few words.

Let's follow the money, shall we? Rich people keep their money in a variety of places: banks, stock market, bond market, treasury securities, real estate, etc. This money circulates around in the economy which results jobs, business loans, car loans, mortgages, rental dwellings, a loan to a farmer to plant the food you will eat next year, etc.

Taking virtually all of a person's income over $1.0 million per year means that this pool of capital will dry up. In other words, it will be incumbent upon the government to allocate resources for virtually everything.

Sorry, but forgive my lack of enthusiasm for signing up for the East German economic model.

[rateyes]

47. You have one misconception. "This money circulates..."

No, it doesn't. And, that's the problem. Cash is like water---if it doesn't flow, it becomes stagnant. And, that is what is happening right now. The rich are hoarding their wealth. You started following the money, and then got ahead of it.

History is with me.

[Oregone]

56. They are also valuing capital circulating into stocks above direct business investment

Is not investing into new business (yes, the actual tangible business) more valuable to the economy than purchasing a financial instrument?

[anigbrowl]

61. Evidence for this assertion please

The rich are hoarding their wealth.

This is not the case for any of the people I know. If it were true, why aren't bond prices much higher? I understand your sentiment but think it rather naive.

[rateyes]

89. Did you not understand the TARP bill?

Do you see unemployment rates in this country, not to mention underemployment rates?

[anigbrowl]

102. That doesn't address the questions I asked.

Of course I am aware of those things. Mentioning them doesn't substantiate your argument. If you say the wealthy are hoarding their money, I'd like to hear where you think they are hoarding it. There is no doubt that a relatively small number of people control much of the nation's wealth, but even that doesn't provide total control over the business cycle. I would remind you that the economic slump of the last couple of years has been global in nature.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. You think that spent income isn't counted by the IRS and you lecture people on history.

[Oregone]

50. "Taking virtually all of a person's income over $1.0 million per year means..."

Wait, you are assuming here that the government would actually be taking anymore than normal. Thats not really what is implied here. There is no greater incentive for the investor class to invest their earnings than a high tax rate, and such a powerful incentive would ensure most people would simply reinvest their taxable income into non-taxable investments (which would greatly stimulate the economy). The pool of capital wouldn't dry up whatsoever, but rather, capital that would otherwise remain idle would be invested directly into circulation.

Its essentially a mandate that demands investment while creating a maximum wage. You are only looking at one side of the equation here. With the proper sunsetting, it could be a boon for the economy.

[Raineyb]

135. You have no understanding of the concept of marginal tax rates do you?

How about you educate yourself on it before spouting off.

[donco6]

43. And then we can genetically engineer wings on pigs!

Yay!

Seriously, we can't even get our own most liberal senators to vote for our interests - what makes you think anyone will even THINK of ATTEMPTING to float something like this?

[Vidar]

44. Too bad it's the millionaire Senators that vote on the proposition. Recommended.

[Yupster]

114. But the millionaire senators don't make large incomes

They have lots of wealth.

There's a big difference.

Senators like Kennedy or Rockefeller would be very willing to raise taxes on income since they don't make much of that.

Now suggest taxing wealth and the Kennedy and Rockefeller families would go nuts.

[Quantess]

45. Lots of people made just one million, so how about

a 95% tax on income over, say, 3 million?

I myself made a poverty level income, but I also realize that 1 million isn't that much in the grand sceme of things.

[pampango]

54. To me, whether it is 95% over $3 million or, say, 80% over $1 million, the more important point

is that the income tax structure has to become much more progressive than it is today.

Any dramatic increase in tax rates probably can't be done quickly. Just like the tax cuts have come gradually, but regularly, over several decades, increasing the progressivity of the rates has to be done gradually, but regularly, over a period of time.

[Quantess]

65. I fully agree!

Thank you for stating my own thoughts so eloquently. :)

[Yupster]

115. Whether it's $ 3 million or $ 1 million, you'd be setting the maximum wage

because no one smart enough to make $ 1 or $ 3 million is going to pay 80 % or 95 % tax.

They'd just structure their compensation to not make over that $ 1 million or $ 3 million limit.

Deferred comp would be the easiest way. Or for a small business owner he's just leave the profit in his business account any buy tax free bonds in that ownership.

And snall business owners would retiure earlier and scale back their businesses.

They'd have fewer heart attacks and divorces so I guiess that's a good thing.

[mainer]

46. Why would anyone strive to be Bill Gates for $450,000 a year max?

No incentives for innovation, for working long hours, or for investment. Because, good god, if your investment pans out, you could be shoved into the next tax bracket. The majority of millionaires are small businessmen who got there through thrifty ways and hard work. Why build your small business if it stands to make more than a million a year?

Which means you wouldn't be hiring additional workers because they just might produce too much product that will sell to too many eager consumers, and then you'll be in trouble. No, better to LIMIT your employees, put out only enough product to earn back a million, and then halt production.

[Celebration]

48. Agreed

Marginal rates for anyone that are higher than 50% would seriously hurt the economy.

[rateyes]

51. Let's put it out there. How many DUers would work hard

for $450,000 a year?

[mainer]

62. Not everyone has talent or ability worth $450,000

We can all work hard. But only some people have the extra "it" factor of genius or innovation. And for that particular group of people, to stifle their work ethic would be disastrous for the country.

[Oregone]

66. Does anyone have talent or ability worth $450,000 objectively? Or is this price arbitrary?

Is it merely relative to this system, a system that has manifested in the world by producing throngs of starving children, struggling families, and unhappy people? If it is only relative, than why is such a system the correct one to continually pursue?

Sometimes its worth asking.

[mainer]

69. Why is anyone paid more than anyone else, then? Is it arbitrary?

Perhaps you would like to determine who's worth more than anyone else?

Is a neurosurgeon worth more than a bail bondsman? Should we all just shift to a communist system where we all get the same amount of money, no matter how much we achieve or what our native abilities are?

This experiment has already been tried, in other countries. What ends up happening is that capitalism always finds a way to survive -- even in communist China.

[Oregone]

71. Capitalism and wage disparity are not the same concepts. Do not confuse them

"What ends up happening is that capitalism always finds a way to survive"

Silly statement. Capitalism refers to private owners obtaining capital without laboring. Wage disparity refers to the difference in wages between two different laborers.

"Why is anyone paid more than anyone else, then?"

Essentially, the market determines the price, but the authority of the "market" to objectively determine such a price per labor is arbitrary in itself, and should only be as important as the priority to preserve the system itself. If one loses the motivation to preserve the system that creates massive disparity and suffering, then this no longer becomes a valid issue whatsoever. Hence, I give 3 shits if anyone isn't earning enough to be motivated to become Bill Gates.

[Yupster]

116. I have one guy I work with who enjoys starting companies

He's exasperating because every time I meet with him he has more and different ones.

His wife is worried sick about him because he's always flying around the world, works 100 hours a week and she never knows what kind of shape they're in. She just wants him to scale back. They have all they'll ever need.

He flew to Bermuda recently to see about relocating his corporation there because he's mad at the retirement plan regulations that keep biting him in the ass. Howe many of his companies are affiliated companies? It depends on the date but each time he needs to redo his plan documents and hope he's got it right -- until he has to redo it again two months from now.

He employs about 40 people. Some of them have been with him since the beginning and they make way over $ 100 k .

Raise his tax to 95 % on over $ 1 million?

You'll never get another dime in taxes from him and 40 people will lose their jobs.

At least you'll make his wife happy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. Yes someone who employs thousands of people at a good wage and benefits does.

[rateyes]

70. So, you are saying that those with the "it factor" do it just for the money?

Let's take someone making $100 million a year. They still take home 6 million dollars under my proposal.

Poor babies.

[Oregone]

73. Wrong

Someone with the "it factor" churning in $100 million a year wouldn't be a stupid fuck, and would use their spare change to open lingerie shops so they would pay no taxes at all.

[mainer]

77. Why open lingerie shops that might make money?

Your income goes up and then you're screwed.

This tax-it-all system leaves people with absolutely NO REASON TO INVEST because the whole purpose of investment is the promise of positive returns and higher income. You've just taken away the whole reason for anyone to invest in anything.

[Oregone]

80. LOL. You think liquid returns are the only reason to invest?

Seriously, do you know anything about the way the economy works?

You can amass quite a fortune for generations by business ownership alone, even if a business affords no dividends at all.

[mainer]

87. How do you amass a fortune for generations?

Since I'm sure you also support a draconian inheritance tax.

[Oregone]

99. Wealth doesn't have to be liquid

Ask anyone who invested in GE 75 years ago. And by the way, selling off stock at a 15% capital gains rate ain't so punitive at all.

[rateyes]

86. And, put people to work.

There you go.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. As if Bill Gates hasn't put anyone to work.

[Yupster]

117. My guess is they'd leave their money in their corporate account

and buy munis there.

Why take the risk if there's no reward. Easier to just start amassing tax free income for retirement.

Not bad though. Cities and states need the money sdo the munis will perform a function too.

[mainer]

74. How many people are making 100 million a year?

You use a stratospheric example. The vast majority of this "millionaire" class you so despise are making at the most a few million, and they might not be too happy about working 70 hour weeks as small businessmen, or coming up with radically innovative products that sell around the world, if they can never make more than $450,000.

[Selatius]

98. FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter all had higher tax rates than GWB, and...

those administrations had tax rates at least as high as 70% on the top 1% of income earners if not higher. The 1950s and 1960s were incredible boom years for the economy despite those high tax rates, so I don't see what you're getting at.

[Oregone]

64. Fuck Bill Gates. Why would anyone strive to be that cock suck anyway?

People maybe should strive to have a car paid down, a modest home, kids with college funds (optional), etc. People should strive to have a good job with a living wage, good health care, and a nice retirement in their future.

Why the fuck does someone need to strive to live like a king so millions can grovel at your expense? Not only is it virtually impossible for almost everyone to pull off, it has no great value beyond what I laid out to the society at large (or even on the individual level). Its a fantasy distraction to keep you happy while you are poor because of fucks like Bill Gates accumulating all the wealth. I don't care what he "gives". A whole lotta of people had to lose at the casino of life for him to come out with a smile on his face, and thats nothing to strive for.

Aside from that, weve had these rates before, and there was plenty of innovation. You know, some people create because they love it. Some people succeed because it pleases them. Its a crazy notion. For the ones that want to do it, simply to have more than the starving masses, fuck them.



Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.

You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks
They really found you.

A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy
Insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.

Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.

Dylan (Its Alright, Ma)

[Mudoria]

110. Perhaps the dumbest post I've ever read here

and that's saying something..

[FollowTheCash]

52. Try Economics 101

At the risk of sounding snarky or preachy... may I suggest that you invest more time in understanding the basics of economics and less time venting your jealousy in a public place? Your proposition exposes your profound ignorance of the subject at hand. Go study then get back to us.

[Odin2005]

57. Typical Libertardian pablum.

Enjoy your (short) stay.

[leftstreet]

63. Oops. You used the 'jealousy' talking point - FAIL

LOL

[rateyes]

67. I took Economics 101. Sounds like you did, too--probably from

the Neal Boortz's of the world. He talks out of both sides of his mouth on taxes. First he says that "cutting taxes" raises government revenue. But, then he says we have to cut taxes to keep the government from gaining revenue, because revenue is just "fuel to the fire." Well, which is it? Because if he believed the latter, he would be for higher taxes.


I know all about the "curve." No one would work if ALL of their income was taxed at 95%. But, that's not what I'm proposing. There is a tax rate that maximizes revenue without killing incentive to work.

Economics 101 is also about studying the HISTORY of economics. So, do some research and find out what the economy looked like under Eisenhower with it's so-called "regressive" tax rate on those making over--not a million---but over $400,000.00

After you learn a few economic lessons, then you can get back to me.

[FollowTheCash]

91. Arbitrary Points in History

There was a time in US history when the income tax rate was 0%. It wouldn't be practical to go back to that today, just think of how many lawyers, accountants, estate planners, lobbyists, Turbo Tax software programmers, and IRS employees would be unemployed.

OK, so you have nostalgia for the 50's. Doo wop music, big tail fins, and tax shelters. You don't think rich people actually paid those high marginal rates do you? Also, who would you appoint as today's "Supreme Allocator of Capital and Determiner of Acceptable Tax Deductions"?

[rateyes]

94. Thanks for making my point when you said,

"You don't think rich people actually paid those high marginal rates do you?"

No, I don't. I think that they (in fact, I know that they) used the extra money to build business.

Did you actually read what I wrote in the OP, or did you just knee-jerk to the title of the post??

[racaulk]

76. Did you call for a pizza delivery?

Don't worry, it will arrive soon enough.

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

140. Our economy was doing quite well when taxes on the top bracket were 75% and higher

Try studying a little history yourself.

[Wardoc]

72. The rich would then locate their residency in less punative places.

[Oregone]

75. Go Galt? Good riddence

Yes, asking the rich to invest into the economy (which isn't taxable) is just too damn much for them to be bothered with, as Rand would suggest.

[Wardoc]

84. I'm just saying, if they have the option to keep more money by changing residency to the Caimans...

that is obviously what they are going to do.

[Oregone]

85. They can keep more wealth by opening a store

And if that is too much to ask those leeching out of the economy, fuck em. The country probably doesn't need their ilk.

[Political Heretic]

141. Except that historically, they did not and have not.

:shrug:

But by all means, go join the go galt movement! You and the three other people.... :rofl:

[snooper2]

78. I see you keep throwing the $400,000 number out there...

FYI, in 1955...

House: $22,000
Average income: $4,137
Ford car: $1606-$2944
Milk: $.92
Gas: $.23
Bread $.18
Postage stamp: $.03
Sirloin chops: $ .69 lb.
Pot Roast: $.43 lb.
Eggs, doz.: $.61
Coffee: $.93 lb.
Milk, ½ gal. $.43
Potatoes, 10 lb. bag: $.53
Starkist Tuna, 6 ½ oz. can: $.25 lb.
Oreo cookies, 11¾ .oz pkg: $.39
Potato Salad, pint: $.29
Cracker Jack, 24 pac: $1.49
Apple cider,½ gal.: $.49
Gum Drops, 1½ lb. pkg: $.29
Ivory Soap, 2 bars: $.29
Mickey Mouse lunchbox: $.88
Slinky: $.88
Nylons, pair: $1.00
Home permanent: $1.50
Baseball Glove: $9.95

[mainer]

79. Today's millionaire only gets to take home about $500,000

The first million gets taxed at around 50% for combined state/federal
From there on out, you only get to keep 5%.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Depends on what state you live in

Some states have no income tax at all and some have a very low one.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. There were a lot more loopholes back then, realistically it was about 50%

And I would be all for a return to that rate for the wealthiest people. But you have to tax capital gains at a higher rate as well as income since capital gains are where the wealthiest people actually make most of their money.

[rateyes]

88. Yep. Capital Gains should be taxed to the hilt.

[pampango]

92. I think there can be a distinction between capital gains that occur over a number of years

and the buy-and-sell get-rich-quick type of capital gains that have caused so much trouble without contributing to the economy.

[rateyes]

93. I agree. Capital gains on a home that is sold

or on IRAs should not be taxed at the same rate as those made with those damned credit-default-swaps, for example. Those things should be outlawed. If not, at least tax them at 99%.

[Yupster]

118. Let me guess

You have a home and an IRA, but you don't have a credit default swap?

I find that most people have an iron clad belief that whatever they don't have should be taxed more and whatever they do have should be taxed less.

[rateyes]

121. Not a home that I'm selling. And, I have quite a few investments

that aren't IRAs.

Want to guess again?

[Yupster]

126. My point was that people are always willing to raise taxes, but

it's always taxes that they don't pay themselves.

I'd like to see a thread devoted to people saying "I should pay higher income taxes," or "I live on dividends, and want the dividend tax rate raised."

Instead what you always hear is "I make $ 80,000 a year and I think we should raise taxes on people who make $ 100,000 a year," or "I have a house worth $ 150,000 and I believe capital gains taxes should be high on homes worth $ 250,000."

[dysfunctional press]

145. not 'always'.

it would seem that rateyes has already invalidated your theory. :shrug:

[Yupster]

147. How so?

I don't see it.

[rateyes]

148. Some of my income is from dividends. And, the more I make

the more the marginal tax rate should increase. When I said "homes" and "IRAs" I was thinking about middle-class working families who busted their butts for the corporations to have a modest home and a modest retirement.

Guess what? I stand with the poor and working class. I stand against the rich shits who (and, I quote some rich shit friends) say, "I don't want to see what I make go to pay more welfare for 'deadbeats.'" (Anyone who is on welfare is a "deadbeat" in their eyes.)

[Raineyb]

134. There already is.

Short term Capital gains is taxed at the same tax rate as your income. It's the long term capital gains that's taxed at the lower rate depending on what form the capital gains take.

[dysfunctional press]

146. they should definitely be taxed as regular income.

it's just not right that earned wages are taxed at twice the rate.

[TxRider]

154. All that does is keep money locked up.

If cap gains tax was 80% I would have to talk people into selling assets, getting taxed at 80%, for the opportunity of investing in my new startup company.. Tough sell.

The rich invest money, much of that investment goes into companies to fund their startup, their expansion and hiring new workers.

If it is invested in things like municipal bonds it is funding municipal projects.

If it is just kept in a bank on deposit, it adds to the banks capital and is loaned out for homes and businesses etc.

Tax it all away and the money that drives all that activity dries up.

[Political Heretic]

142. It's true few to none paid full 95%, but I believe the average effective rate was still higher

I might be wrong though, now I can't remember without going and pulling down some books again. I guess there's no need to quibble... given that 50% is still much more (and much more reasonable) than what is being paid now.

[roamer65]

96. One million dollars is not what it used to be...

The dollar is woth 1/10 of what it was just after WW2. I think 90% in incomes over $10M is just fine, but the rate on $1M should be around 65-70%.

[gravity]

101. That is just stupid

I don't believe the laffer curve that much, but when you go to the 95% income tax rate, it will hold water. That money is not going to go to the government because no one will be making over a million dollars. Businesses have no incentive to pay the government 19 dollars to raise the employees salary by a dollar.

I am for raising the marginal tax rate for millionaires, but doing something reasonable like 50% which I think is fair. For each dollar they earn, they give the government back one. That in itself would fix our budget problems.

[Political Heretic]

143. I didn't hold water. This is historical precident, not some radical new idea.

The 95% rate was because there are so many loopholes. As was pointed out above, the effective rate paid on average was more like 50%.

If you set it for 50% you can expect to have an effective rate that is about half that 25%. That's not enough.

Today, I don't have the number for individual incomes in my head right now, but I can tell you that the current effective rate for corporations is 11%, not the listed 35%. So its usually safe to estimate that people will actually pay about half of whatever the listed tax percentage is.

Well I should say... rich people will pay about half. Poor people don't have as many creative loopholes to use when paying taxes. Which is why its common for someone in the mid-middle class area to pay more taxes than a multi-billionaire. And that's really messed up.

[Usrename]

120. just tax income on investments at the normal rate

the top tax rate could even be reduced to something less than 10% if you taxed income on investments

why should workers have to carry all the load for deadbeats that don't do anything but collect money from us

[Doctor_J]

123. Make it 10 million, and you would still solve the crisis

and there wouldn't be as much whining

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Just taxing income in that manner is a horrible idea.

People who already have wealth will shield it and have their income set a just below the marginal tax rate.

[sendero]

149. Taxes should be higher..

.. on the wealthy, but everyone knows or should know that at a certain point games to shield/hide/obfuscate income take over and the tax rates are unproductive.

These sorts of ideas are why liberals get laughed at. It is impossible to make something like this work in today's world.

[FreeJoe]

150. Goodbye

Why would someone capable of earning tens of millions of dollars do it in the US if they didn't get to keep it?

The movie industry, along with all of it's union wage earners would move out of the US because the stars would all rather make movies in Canada or Europe rather than the US. There is a lot of prestige in playing in the NFL, but I'm betting that most top players would rather player in the CFL and make a lot more money than play in the NFL and work the government. The only really rich people that would stay in the US would be those that sheltered their money in trusts or other techniques for preventing their money from being taxed. Lower tax countries would love to have the ultra-rich pay taxes in their countries.

Even if you managed to get the whole world to use confiscatory tax rates on the rich, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. A lot of economic activity occurs because people risk large amounts of capital to get high returns. How many people would gamble in Vegas if they lost all their losses but only kept 5% of their winnings? The same thing would happen in capital markets. Why start or expand a business if you only get to keep a trivial amount of the profits?

[hack89]

151. Limit should be 3.5 million

that's what $400k in 1950 is worth today.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

[Karmadillo]

153. But, but, but a lot of the rich people who've helped gut America would leave!!!! Oh no!!!!

What would we do without them?