A 70% tax on income above $10 million; what do we think of this idea?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Would you support a 70% marginal income tax rate on income about $10 million / year?


  • Total voters
    82

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
94,329
14,713
126
I'm not anywhere ever having to worry about this, but I don't agree with it. I think what they need to do is eliminate all the loopholes. The issue here is that no amount will ever be enough. Whatever the government gets, they will over spend, then want more later. No one regardless of social stature should be for 'more' taxes. This country was founded on people not wanting to pay more taxes. What NEEDS to happen is more regulation and oversight on how budgets are used, and do away with the 'if you don't use it you don't get it next year' rules.


Err no. USA was founded because of taxation without representation. The without representation was the sticking point.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,104
14,738
136
I'm not anywhere ever having to worry about this, but I don't agree with it. I think what they need to do is eliminate all the loopholes. The issue here is that no amount will ever be enough. Whatever the government gets, they will over spend, then want more later. No one regardless of social stature should be for 'more' taxes. This country was founded on people not wanting to pay more taxes. What NEEDS to happen is more regulation and oversight on how budgets are used, and do away with the 'if you don't use it you don't get it next year' rules.

I suggest you go back to school. This country wasn't founded on not wanting to pay more in taxes. It was founded on paying taxes and not getting representation (I'm sure you've heard the phrase, no taxation without representation).
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
I'm not anywhere ever having to worry about this, but I don't agree with it. I think what they need to do is eliminate all the loopholes. The issue here is that no amount will ever be enough. Whatever the government gets, they will over spend, then want more later. No one regardless of social stature should be for 'more' taxes. This country was founded on people not wanting to pay more taxes.

The biggest loophole of all is taxing all LTCG's above $450K/yr or so at a flat rate of 20%, even if you make $450K/day.

What happens, of course, is that enormous incomes simply can't be spent but are rather re-invested to create more gains. It drives the price of real assets like housing out of range of ordinary Americans more & more every day. It's what the ownership society is all about- owning the plebes.

It's also what Trumpsters are really upset about, anyway. They look at what they have vs what it takes to retire above the poverty level & it pisses them off, rightfully so. They've done all the things they were supposed to do to avoid that- hard work, frugality & all the rest of honest conservative values but they're still fucked & they know it. Must be the Libs, the blacks, the browns, the moochers, & the illegals dragging them down. It couldn't be the greed of the powerful pushing them down. That's unthinkable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,855
12,536
136
If I said "I'll spare the first 10 million people on welfare but will kill 70% of the rest" would you be focusing on the "wow that's great that 10MM people are safe from harm" or the 70% of the rest that will be dead?
I think I've identified the problem here... I am sorry to say this but I think you have a severe case of FYGM syndrome... Good thing is we have a vaccine and a cure : Stop watching Fox. Your life will start improving from day one. (much like if you quit smoking..)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Yeh, society should offer no barriers to hoarding & greed.

I mean, greed is good, right?

Wanting to accumulate wealth does not equal greed. Are you saving money right now? Do you have a retirement account? By your thinking youre greedy! Its asinine.

The problem with the consensus of taxing wealth and/or increasing taxes on income is the fairy tale that it will help close the wealth gap. Thats bullshit. If that were true, the money collected by the wealthy would then go directly to lower income families, which will not happen. What WILL happen is we could see an increase of aid for low income families. This does nothing to build their wealth. A family with a net worth of $1000 receiving $12,000/year in benefits/ assistance programs will still be worth $1000. All that will do is create MORE dependence on the government, which is a terrible idea.

Also contrary to popular belief is the more the rich have, the less the middle class/lower income has. BULLSHIT. Money is NOT a finite thing. The rich profit from the middle class/lower class by fruits of their labor, which they also enjoy (whether or not they make enough is a separate thread). But the fact remains, the wealthy being wealthy does not reduce wealth in the middle/lower class.

To wrap this up, and to repeat what Ive said earlier, Id be willing to look at raising taxes. But its not a solution to the wealth gap. Its simply a way for the government to provide more assistance too those that may need it. And a wealth tax is a terrible idea.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,570
4,006
136
If I said "I'll spare the first 10 million people on welfare but will kill 70% of the rest" would you be focusing on the "wow that's great that 10MM people are safe from harm" or the 70% of the rest that will be dead?

A response unworthy of discussion.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I suggest you go back to school. This country wasn't founded on not wanting to pay more in taxes. It was founded on paying taxes and not getting representation (I'm sure you've heard the phrase, no taxation without representation).

Fair enough, you and sdifox are correct. I mispoke.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,439
28,989
146
So Bill Gates is saying "give me all your money for Windows or starve"? Zombie Steve Jobs saying "give me all your money for an iPhone or starve"? Zuck saying "give me all your money for Facebook or starve"? Hmm, I must be in a very different customer segment where they don't force me to use their products at gunpoint and withhold food from me if I don't.

ah so you're that guy that shits in the woods, walks to work on the dirt trail, defends himself from roving packs of bandits, and bathes in the stream every day!
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Without consumers, workers do not exist.

Think with your head for once. Capitalism 101 - supply and demand.

Zuck, for example, made that shit in his dorm room by himself. The extra workers might help build the product, but if people do not consume then there is nothing to pay the workers.

Clearly a lot of you need to understand some basics, you sound like these kids that were camping out for Occupy

No shit workers don't exist without consumers. That has nothing to do with my point. Yes, Zuck made that shit in his dorm room by himself, but if he had limited himself to what he earned only from his own productivity, he would not be a multi-billionaire today. He made the majority of his fortune by paying wages to employees with less bargaining leverage than he. I'm not saying his employees should make the same as he does. I'm not saying he shouldn't have made millions. But to pretend that he earned every dollar through his own labor is ludicrous. Clearly you don't even understand what the topic is.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,439
28,989
146
If I said "I'll spare the first 10 million people on welfare but will kill 70% of the rest" would you be focusing on the "wow that's great that 10MM people are safe from harm" or the 70% of the rest that will be dead?

Yes because a national genocide policy is the same as a national tax policy.

lol at this guy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
Wanting to accumulate wealth does not equal greed. Are you saving money right now? Do you have a retirement account? By your thinking youre greedy! Its asinine.

The problem with the consensus of taxing wealth and/or increasing taxes on income is the fairy tale that it will help close the wealth gap. Thats bullshit. If that were true, the money collected by the wealthy would then go directly to lower income families, which will not happen. What WILL happen is we could see an increase of aid for low income families. This does nothing to build their wealth. A family with a net worth of $1000 receiving $12,000/year in benefits/ assistance programs will still be worth $1000. All that will do is create MORE dependence on the government, which is a terrible idea.

Also contrary to popular belief is the more the rich have, the less the middle class/lower income has. BULLSHIT. Money is NOT a finite thing. The rich profit from the middle class/lower class by fruits of their labor, which they also enjoy (whether or not they make enough is a separate thread). But the fact remains, the wealthy being wealthy does not reduce wealth in the middle/lower class.

To wrap this up, and to repeat what Ive said earlier, Id be willing to look at raising taxes. But its not a solution to the wealth gap. Its simply a way for the government to provide more assistance too those that may need it. And a wealth tax is a terrible idea.

Don't be ridiculous, OK? This is America. The only way working people don't live in poverty in old age is to have assets like free title to a home & income generating assets of some sort to supplement SS. That's beyond obvious. It's not greed. It's self defense.

The sad truth is that an increasing number of people are unable to do that so we need to find ways to compensate & letting the rich have it all obviously won't do it.

Conservatives really don't get it at all. I mean, why is the Rust Belt Rusty? Because it's been automated & offshored w/o regard for the people who live there. Labor isn't people, isn't our fellow Americans. It's just a commodity of the free market. The guys at the top don't owe the rest of us a damned thing so they'll treat us accordingly so long as we let them.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,570
4,006
136
Why is the $10M/70% the desired target for taxation?

Are you worried we should lower it to $100k/70%? I have a feeling someone making over 10M/year is not going to suffer in the slighest if you take 70% of everything after 10M. I do agree 70% seems a tad high assuming no deductions/write offs. Maybe 50-60%. It worked before and we boomed as a country. I thought conservatives were the ones who liked tradition and the old ways that works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Fair enough, you and sdifox are correct. I mispoke.
I think another major aspect that was considered during the formation of the United States was that no king - or kings - should ever rule it. It's a bit of an exaggeration but you do appear to be inching the wrong way as a country right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Wanting to accumulate wealth does not equal greed. Are you saving money right now? Do you have a retirement account? By your thinking youre greedy! Its asinine.

The problem with the consensus of taxing wealth and/or increasing taxes on income is the fairy tale that it will help close the wealth gap. Thats bullshit. If that were true, the money collected by the wealthy would then go directly to lower income families, which will not happen. What WILL happen is we could see an increase of aid for low income families. This does nothing to build their wealth. A family with a net worth of $1000 receiving $12,000/year in benefits/ assistance programs will still be worth $1000. All that will do is create MORE dependence on the government, which is a terrible idea.

Also contrary to popular belief is the more the rich have, the less the middle class/lower income has. BULLSHIT. Money is NOT a finite thing. The rich profit from the middle class/lower class by fruits of their labor, which they also enjoy (whether or not they make enough is a separate thread). But the fact remains, the wealthy being wealthy does not reduce wealth in the middle/lower class.

To wrap this up, and to repeat what Ive said earlier, Id be willing to look at raising taxes. But its not a solution to the wealth gap. Its simply a way for the government to provide more assistance too those that may need it. And a wealth tax is a terrible idea.
It depends on the level of accumulation. Saving money from retirement is different from hoarding more money than a person could spend in 100 lifetimes. When you are accumulating wealth for the purpose of accumulating power rather than to provide yourself with financial security, in my mind that is when you switch from personal responsibility to personal greed.

Before we even begin to worry about closing the wealth gap, we first have to address making sure people have enough for the bare necessities of food, clothing and shelter. A person with a net worth of $1,000 a year receiving $12k in benefits may not be increasing in net worth, but at least they have shelter and are eating. Additionally, for middle class families that are able to meet their basic needs, decreasing their tax burden does free up income for them to begin to accumulate some wealth. But if we want to talk basic income instead of social programs, I'm open for that conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Don't be ridiculous, OK? This is America. The only way working people don't live in poverty in old age is to have assets like free title to a home & income generating assets of some sort to supplement SS. That's beyond obvious. It's not greed. It's self defense.

The sad truth is that an increasing number of people are unable to do that so we need to find ways to compensate & letting the rich have it all obviously won't do it.

Conservatives really don't get it at all. I mean, why is the Rust Belt Rusty? Because it's been automated & offshored w/o regard for the people who live there. Labor isn't people, isn't our fellow Americans. It's just a commodity of the free market. The guys at the top don't owe the rest of us a damned thing so they'll treat us accordingly so long as we let them.

What if we flipped things and prohibited the wealthy from spending over $x /year instead of taxing them at x%? Since your stated goal is to "keep the rich from ruling over us" instead of just pure greed it shouldn't matter as long as we limit their ability to deploy their wealth in ways you feel are inappropriate.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
What if we flipped things and prohibited the wealthy from spending over $x /year instead of taxing them at x%? Since your stated goal is to "keep the rich from ruling over us" instead of just pure greed it shouldn't matter as long as we limit their ability to deploy their wealth in ways you feel are inappropriate.
They don't spend it. They re-invest most of it to make more money, to re-invest it, to make more money & so on ad infinitum. Which isn't to say that it actually creates jobs where America needs jobs, at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
It depends on the level of accumulation. Saving money from retirement is different from hoarding more money than a person could spend in 100 lifetimes. When you are accumulating wealth for the purpose of accumulating power rather than to provide yourself with financial security, in my mind that is when you switch from personal responsibility to personal greed.

And who makes that distinction? There are retired people making $60,000/yr who are perfectly content. There are others whom they would need that monthly to support their retirement (Trips to Monaco, 2nd homes overseas, etc). There are others who would need that amount monthly to give to charity. Who the fuck decides? Oh. And its not against the law to be greedy.

I just dont understand the hatred for wealth.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
No shit workers don't exist without consumers. That has nothing to do with my point. Yes, Zuck made that shit in his dorm room by himself, but if he had limited himself to what he earned only from his own productivity, he would not be a multi-billionaire today. He made the majority of his fortune by paying wages to employees with less bargaining leverage than he. I'm not saying his employees should make the same as he does. I'm not saying he shouldn't have made millions. But to pretend that he earned every dollar through his own labor is ludicrous. Clearly you don't even understand what the topic is.

You're not understanding the overall point - And when you say "No shit workers don't exist without consumers" that directly contradicts your earlier post retard.

Its the employees they building their fortunes on, not the consumers

The consumers consume the product. Without consumption of the product, there will be no workers because no one is buying it. When no one is buying it then inventor has no revenue. Without revenue they can't sustain. Therefore, consumption of the product is what drives their fortune detective dipshit.

All of you are trying throw the innovators and the entrepreneurs under the bus as if they are evil do-ers. The reality of the situation is that they...
1. Made a product that innovated our daily life that previously didn't exist. Hence consumption of the product based on demand.
2. In order to expand consumption to create more supply for the growing demand, additional workers are hired at a market rate to do the daily activities of manufacturing/distribution of the product.

Both of those are not only good for the economy - they are essential. I believe the innovator deserves every dollar they get - ideally so that they can turn that capital around and continue their innovative skills to produce more of #1 and #2.