Page 71 of 75 FirstFirst ... 21616970717273 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 742

Thread: Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

  1. #701
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by gcstomp View Post
    Progressive tax with some larger numbers than we have seen since Reagan days on super wealthy seems solidly rational. When country worked at its best, with not just greatest economic growth but less extreme disparity, from 1981 and prior, around 70% as top marginal rate was in force. Why wasnt it madness then, all thru 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, and before all thru then but now its unthinkable? And this isnt resulting in the mega wealthy ending up on soup lines, those making only 10 mill a year and below would be taxed at same is it 35%ish, with deductions/creative accounting closer to 15% for many as now.

    We are only talking about 2000 people in our country, many pro athletes, musicians and actors making up bulk, with some mega wealthy like Buffett and Gates who have publicly said for decades they believe uber rich should be taxed more. I explained why in prior post for the snarky response why the dont simply voluntarily pay more. Thats not how taxes work, though they give vast amounts to various charities, that is separate to this not unreasonable progressive tax on this small amount of people that has proven to work not only around the world but in our own country for many decades.

    Kardashians, Justin Bieber, and Christina Aguilera arent going to decides to earn less because of the 70% tax on 10 mill and above annual earnings, and that is typical profile for the person who makes that much.
    We have had this discussion before in here about the myth of the 1950s higher tax rates, but here’s a brief summary:
    https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
    Additionally, the Tax reform Act of 1986 closed many loopholes, which makes comparing the tax rates prior to that to today’s wrong.
    The other thing the isn’t mentioned is that if the rate on 10M+ is raised from 38 to 70%, the rate on incomes between X and 9.999M are going to be raised as well.
    Finally, while some folks like Bieber and Aguilera might not be able to shift their earnings to capital gains, most of the big earners will able to.

  2. #702
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,005
    nots, its ok that we disagree. but yes, we disagree all over. the tax rates were, in fact higher, not just a myth. And while you say most earners wont be able to shift earnings, as I said we are talking about maybe 2000 people in a county of 325 million, and of those 2000, most are athletes, musicians, and actors. a simple survey from the people who would actually be paying higher rates, would be pro higher taxes on themselves as these are not 9 to 5ers grinding out higher wages, these are a fortunate handful of people who know they are blessed to be in their position an would welcome paying their share. and just becuase you say it would be a lifting of all percentages, its just not what the argument is.

    the AOC suggestion is exactly same rates, except for that number above 10 mill a year. Weird, I knew before you posted, that it would be almost word for word what you said, but again, all good we disagree.

  3. #703
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,005
    If commenting about AOC suggestion, then its same brackets as now, until 10 mill annual earnings and that amount at 70%. Again, your link is about top 1%, while AOC suggestion would touch only 2000 people of 325 million means its a smaller fraction, top 1 of 160,000ish. Does it make sense that people who are actually in this bracket agree it would be fair, while those outside, or every 159,999 out of 160,000 people, or put another way, every person you know, have known, or will ever know, will have various other arguments despite this having nothing to do with them.

  4. #704
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by gcstomp View Post
    nots, its ok that we disagree. but yes, we disagree all over. the tax rates were, in fact higher, not just a myth. And while you say most earners wont be able to shift earnings, as I said we are talking about maybe 2000 people in a county of 325 million, and of those 2000, most are athletes, musicians, and actors. a simple survey from the people who would actually be paying higher rates, would be pro higher taxes on themselves as these are not 9 to 5ers grinding out higher wages, these are a fortunate handful of people who know they are blessed to be in their position an would welcome paying their share. and just becuase you say it would be a lifting of all percentages, its just not what the argument is.

    the AOC suggestion is exactly same rates, except for that number above 10 mill a year. Weird, I knew before you posted, that it would be almost word for word what you said, but again, all good we disagree.
    The myth isn’t that the rates were as high as 91%, the myth is that anyone paid near that. You can see from the chart in the previous link, the effective tax rate is slightly lower than back then but more or less the average of where it’s been the last 60+ years.
    Also, according to IRS tables (https://www.quora.com/How-many-peopl...dollars-a-year), 18061 people filed an AGI over $10M in 2016, a lot more than the 2000 you quoted. Additionally, I have my doubts that those higher earners would ‘welcome paying their share’. Most, if not all, pay tax accountants to specifically and aggressively find deductions and loopholes (as they should).
    Last edited by nots; 01-09-2019 at 09:53 AM. Reason: Poor math

  5. #705
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,164
    In order to pay for these new programs, the rates are going to have to increase for everyone, especially the middle class. I read (but can not find the link) that we have the lowest middle class tax rates of the countries most similar to ours (UK, NZ, Aus, Canada) and that we have the highest % of people paying no Federal Income tax. I thought I read it on Bloomberg or RCP, but I can’t find it. If anyone has a link, please forward.

  6. #706
    "a simple survey from the people who would actually be paying higher rates, would be pro higher taxes on themselves as these are not 9 to 5ers grinding out higher wages, these are a fortunate handful of people who know they are blessed to be in their position an would welcome paying their share."

    that's just weird. iirc, people already can voluntarily pass as much tax as they like. why do they need a law to mandate it, if they are "pro higher taxes on themselves"?

    "Gee, if only Congress would pass a law to let me pay as much as I want. maybe I'll lobby them or something."
    just finished my 35th year in 12-team NL 5x5
    AVG collapse in Sept left us finishing 4th
    won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84

    UPDATED! 2019 keeper candidates (can keep up to 11)
    SP Kershaw 42, AWood 5, CSmith 1
    RP Jeffress 1, Dominguez 10, Knebel 2
    C Realmuto 13, 3B Longoria 15, 2B Kendrick 8, 2S Hanson 10
    OF Harper 41, Eaton 18, CarGo 14, FCordero 10

  7. #707
    Big Leaguer Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Posts
    4,739
    I don't think most of the 18K elites making over 10 mil would welcome a 70% tax rate. However, I do think some of those folks would be more likely to accept it if everyone of their peers had to do it too. That is different than expecting them to volunteer to pay extra on their own, when no one else is. As in any arena, uber elites are a competitive bunch. I doubt they'd be happy paying at that high a rate (and personally, anything over a 50% effective tax rate on even the uber rich seems unfair to me--the federal government getting more than a 50/50 split of earned money is my psychological red line in terms of a fair split on the whole social contract we make as a society). However, as long as they keep their relative rankings and prestige among the other elites, I think they'd be less a bit less pissed. Although, I suspect even the few who genuinely are about society and want to use their wealth to help it, rather than donate to charities as a tax write off, probably feel they know how to do that better than the government does.

    ETA: I am continually surprised by how some hard working middle class folks are not angrier at how much and often extremely wealthy folks can game the tax system to pay lower effective ta rates than them. It really is an outrage and unfair. But I've talked to folks who dream of one day being rich enough to game the system and pay lower taxes. It will never happen for them, but they aren't mad about being screwed over by the system, and being much more greatly impacted by taxes than the wealthy.
    Last edited by Sour Masher; 01-09-2019 at 01:17 PM.

  8. #708
    oh, I think there should be an adjustment in the tax rate.

    the political AND legitimate explanation should be that by all accounts, the 1 pct or so have gotten virtually all of the economic benefits of the last 20 years. now that the deficit is so high and the money has to come from somewhere, they have to give a portion of their excess benefits back.

    there are times when tax hikes on the rich may have been sought with less justification. but in the current environment, it is inevitable. as more and more Baby Boomers retire with little to no assets. was that really stupid of them in many cases (exempting unavoidable medical and other hardships)? absolutely.

    but here we are. they will demand - and get - more government assistance. guess where the money will come from?
    just finished my 35th year in 12-team NL 5x5
    AVG collapse in Sept left us finishing 4th
    won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84

    UPDATED! 2019 keeper candidates (can keep up to 11)
    SP Kershaw 42, AWood 5, CSmith 1
    RP Jeffress 1, Dominguez 10, Knebel 2
    C Realmuto 13, 3B Longoria 15, 2B Kendrick 8, 2S Hanson 10
    OF Harper 41, Eaton 18, CarGo 14, FCordero 10

  9. #709
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,005
    jude, you really think i posted that wealthy want to solely single themselves out to pay more taxes? I have previously explained what I think is an easy distinction when someone posted about AOC getting yelled at in a hallway if she would be giving her salary away during shutdown.

    "To decide what she really meant was she, solely, was volunteering to surrender her salary, this freshman who has never drawn a buck, to the exclusion of these politicians who have held office for decades and are multi multi millionaires for doing nothing but voting lock step with their marching orders. She would be for codified legislation that as a body, all of congress should have pay withheld during shutdowns, not that, hey, while I am yelling at you in hall, are in you going to give back your 1st paycheck.

    This reminds me when a number of the US most wealthy billionaires, including Buffett, volunteered that really the super rich should pay more in taxes than they do... When pressed, Mr. Buffett will you be giving more to taxes, Buffett pointed out to the imbecile that is not how taxes work, they are not a pay what you want exercise, that is not what he was putting forth, and that he was stating as a body super rich should pay more. Is this a hard distinction to understand? No, of course not, but this was a Post article, so it is not a newspaper of the news variety, but of the tabloid kind."

    Again, as Buffet has called for higher taxes for the class of uber rich, he is not saying hey, I want to just give more as a singular dude, I am saying as a class it would make sense. https://www.theguardian.com/business...xes-super-rich I think I have point out this distinction enough times that I am either being trolled, or its just so easy to spit out a 1 second effort snark that requires a 10 minute response, it is inevitable that the snark wins at some point.

    I read figure was roughly 2000 individuals who made that 10 mill annual, the 18k number is counting households with some cap gains? In any case, we have generalizations of hollywood elites being liberals, this means its likely they are democrats who would support higher taxes on the uber rich class as a group, not that they want to as an individual give more, thats not how taxes work. In any case, the Trump tax giveaway hyper accelerated wealth in the hands of the mega wealthy and the largest corps who had big stock buybacks in the largest wealth transfer of money from the 99% to the 1%.

  10. #710
    Big Leaguer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,005
    yes, i am sure that chart showing 18k households (not individuals) with AGI of 10mill+ is different than 2k number for individuals, as one is counting LT cap gains which would not be taxed at 70% even with AOC suggestion, the 2k with 10 mill+ income is basically celebrities. In any case, we as a country have gone entirely opposite direction than raising tax on the absurdly well to do you will never meet them handful of 10+ mill annual income peeps but nevertheless have opponents with lots to say in their defense.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •