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

Page 11 - 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

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
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.
Society makes that distinction. Personally, I don't have an issue with people living off either $60k/yr or $60k/month. $60k/month is only $720,000 a year, well below any of the incomes that have been discussed for the 70% tax bracket. Both of those incomes seem reasonable. However, I do think that the person making $60k/month could pay a higher percentage in taxes than the person making $60k/yr with a lower impact on their lifestyle, let alone a person making $1 million/month. People can decide what to do with their own money after taxes used to improve our society, where the tax rates are established by society. As a member of society, I think we could significantly improve the lives of those at the bottom while having almost no impact on the quality of life of those at the top by progressive taxation. I don't hate wealth. I hate severe inequality of wealth. Would you be happy living in a country where a single individual possessed all the wealth? Who the fuck decides? Society. No, its not against the law to be greedy. But when people's greed begins to have severe, negative impacts on society, I think society should take actions to protect society against people's greed.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
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.



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.
Consumption is a completely different part of the equation. However, since you seem hell bent on discussing it, lets talk about it. Are you in favor of monopolies? Because that is the same principle applied to the consumption side of the equation. You have one party with significantly more bargaining leverage compared to the consuming party. Do you support allowing monopolies in our economy?

No one is hating on innovators. We are just saying people will innovate to make 3 million a year just as much as they would to make 10 million a year. There is no significant difference in the lifestyle that person can lead. Note that an innovator taking their money and investing it into the company to pay workers would not be taxed as income, which is one of the reasons a high tax rate is ideal, so that people use the money instead of hoarding the money. Otherwise, they begin to accumulate assets. Would you be fine if an innovator took control of all the wealth in America? and everyone else owned nothing and worked pay check to paycheck to simply earn the right to live from that individual? Sounds peachy.

Additionally, market rate is determined by the power disparity between the individuals doing the negotiating, not just the value added by each individual. The one with greater power receives greater benefits not because he is adding more value, but because he has more freedom in the choice. If one person has a backhoe and another has a shovel, the person with the backhoe can pay the person with the shovel to run his backhoe, and do no work whatsoever beyond providing resources for those that work. The person working the backhoe has the option to either run the backhoe for that individual or use his own shovel. Yes, he can make more running the backhoe than the shovel, but he isn't going to receive the value he adds because he doesn't have the same bargaining power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,566
26,867
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.
The problem is that they don't spend it. The wealth is extracted from our economy. This isn't good for the economy.
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,432
142
106
I feel like every time we have a presidential election, the candidates talk about taxes, balancing the budget, etc, and then when they get into office, they just spend more than the last guy. We're the richest country in the world and we're constantly having to borrow more money.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Society makes that distinction. Personally, I don't have an issue with people living off either $60k/yr or $60k/month. $60k/month is only $720,000 a year, well below any of the incomes that have been discussed for the 70% tax bracket. Both of those incomes seem reasonable. However, I do think that the person making $60k/month could pay a higher percentage in taxes than the person making $60k/yr with a lower impact on their lifestyle, let alone a person making $1 million/month. People can decide what to do with their own money after taxes used to improve our society, where the tax rates are established by society. As a member of society, I think we could significantly improve the lives of those at the bottom while having almost no impact on the quality of life of those at the top by progressive taxation. I don't hate wealth. I hate severe inequality of wealth. Would you be happy living in a country where a single individual possessed all the wealth? Who the fuck decides? Society. No, its not against the law to be greedy. But when people's greed begins to have severe, negative impacts on society, I think society should take actions to protect society against people's greed.

For the most part I agree with you. But you have to remember when you say " we could significantly improve the lives of those at the bottom while having almost no impact on the quality of life of those at the top by progressive taxation" I really dont see how government programs will make a huge difference in their lives. *shrug* just me

Oh. And maybe youre OK with it, but I dont want society dictating how much is enough for me.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Do you know why that is? It is because your corporate overlords are not paying enough for those jobs.

Thats a very, very generalized statement. And its ALWAYS been true. With that said, in many sectors, wages being offered ar 30-50% more NOW than they were just 4 years ago.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,566
26,867
136
I feel like every time we have a presidential election, the candidates talk about taxes, balancing the budget, etc, and then when they get into office, they just spend more than the last guy. We're the richest country in the world and we're constantly having to borrow more money.
In case you were wondering, the only time Democrats had enough control to do anything about it was in the middle of a recession when you can't do anything about it other than spend on stimulus. Hopefully you at least acknowledge that it was the right thing to do at the time, but they were fucking punished for it at the polls in 2010 and have been blocked from doing ANYTHING since. The last President to do anything right with respect to the deficit before that was another Democrat, by the way.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
Thats a very, very generalized statement. And its ALWAYS been true. With that said, in many sectors, wages being offered ar 30-50% more NOW than they were just 4 years ago.

Many sectors... like what? Links please.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,566
26,867
136
For the most part I agree with you. But you have to remember when you say " we could significantly improve the lives of those at the bottom while having almost no impact on the quality of life of those at the top by progressive taxation" I really dont see how government programs will make a huge difference in their lives. *shrug* just me

Oh. And maybe youre OK with it, but I dont want society dictating how much is enough for me.
You don't see how it could make the difference between someone say ... eating from garbage cans and stealing diapers for their baby who hasn't seen a doctor since they were booted out of the ER and instead buying buying stuff with a government issued debit card and having single payer healthcare? That seems like a significant improvement to me and then multiply it by millions of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,566
26,867
136
Thats a very, very generalized statement. And its ALWAYS been true. With that said, in many sectors, wages being offered ar 30-50% more NOW than they were just 4 years ago.
That's great because wages 4 years ago were dogshit. Now with 30% less dogshit.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
Consumption is a completely different part of the equation. However, since you seem hell bent on discussing it, lets talk about it. Are you in favor of monopolies? Because that is the same principle applied to the consumption side of the equation. You have one party with significantly more bargaining leverage compared to the consuming party. Do you support allowing monopolies in our economy?

No, I don't - however it's hard to claim a monopoly - and we are more prone to oligopolies IMO. To that I agree with you overall - that one of the very basic foundations of our government is to maintain competition by not allowing monopolies. There is no doubt the guilty party on that is government. Government shouldn't allow the #1 company in an industry to gobble up and buy out #3. They shouldn't allow big company #3 to buy out #4 and become the new #1.

And it's funny - because whomever is in power (right, left, democrat, republicans) both sides seem to universally allow just about any buy-outs these days.

Furthermore, do you know how monopolies (or oligopolies in our case) typically form? FROM GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that make it unbearable and affordable for any sensical competition to enter the market.

Cable - Through the powers of regulation, no new companies have the capital or leverage to break through barriers to lay cable competition in any areas. They (the competition) will fight you tooth and nail in the court until you are exhausted of all funds - add on top of that local bureaucracy of getting local approvals

Airlines - Self explanatory.

Banks - Aside from the big bailouts of the great rescission being the primary example - Dodd Frank has done nothing but drive up the costs for the little banks. What does that mean? None of the small banks can keep up with it and they close their doors and the big ones buy them up. Now the big original offenders are bigger than ever because they can afford to put up with the regulations - smaller banks can't.

Every single one of those are PRIME fucking examples of where government interference was the ultimate corrupter and the elimination of the free market. And the one topic that government SHOULD HAVE interfered (M&A) they didn't.


No one is hating on innovators. We are just saying people will innovate to make 3 million a year just as much as they would to make 10 million a year. There is no significant difference in the lifestyle that person can lead. Note that an innovator taking their money and investing it into the company to pay workers would not be taxed as income, which is one of the reasons a high tax rate is ideal, so that people use the money instead of hoarding the money. Otherwise, they begin to accumulate assets. Would you be fine if an innovator took control of all the wealth in America? and everyone else owned nothing and worked pay check to paycheck to simply earn the right to live from that individual? Sounds peachy.

Why even care what innovators have in assets? At the end of the day - their money is likely in a bank account (or even an investment account). It ultimately isn't sitting there... Even if it is in a Bank savings account - the bank doesn't have that money. They are lending that money out to potential future innovators, home buyers, etc..
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Many sectors... like what? Links please.

Here's one

Average hourly earnings increased 7.7 percent in the District of Columbia from December 2017 to December 2018. Earnings rose 7.5 percent in Nevada, the highest percentage increase among the 50 states. No state had a decrease in average hourly earnings over this period.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
82,198
44,960
136
Thats a very, very generalized statement. And its ALWAYS been true. With that said, in many sectors, wages being offered ar 30-50% more NOW than they were just 4 years ago.

Real wages overall exhibited growth in the low single digits under Obama and, at least as of last time I checked, had overall declined under Trump. This is the sign of a serious problem.

The increase in real national income since the 1970’s has been captured almost entirely by the top couple of percent. Unless you believe they were responsible for all productivity growth in this period this points to a market or regulatory failure. A tax on the rich is a good way to fix that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
82,198
44,960
136
Here's one

Average hourly earnings increased 7.7 percent in the District of Columbia from December 2017 to December 2018. Earnings rose 7.5 percent in Nevada, the highest percentage increase among the 50 states. No state had a decrease in average hourly earnings over this period.

Here’s a good chart that shows just how bad wage growth has been over the last decade.

fredgraph.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,960
7,020
136
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.

And if they're multinational, it might not even be an investment in the United States.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
No, I don't - however it's hard to claim a monopoly - and we are more prone to oligopolies IMO. To that I agree with you overall - that one of the very basic foundations of our government is to maintain competition by not allowing monopolies. There is no doubt the guilty party on that is government. Government shouldn't allow the #1 company in an industry to gobble up and buy out #3. They shouldn't allow big company #3 to buy out #4 and become the new #1.

And it's funny - because whomever is in power (right, left, democrat, republicans) both sides seem to universally allow just about any buy-outs these days.

Furthermore, do you know how monopolies (or oligopolies in our case) typically form? FROM GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that make it unbearable and affordable for any sensical competition to enter the market.

Cable - Through the powers of regulation, no new companies have the capital or leverage to break through barriers to lay cable competition in any areas. They (the competition) will fight you tooth and nail in the court until you are exhausted of all funds - add on top of that local bureaucracy of getting local approvals

Airlines - Self explanatory.

Banks - Aside from the big bailouts of the great rescission being the primary example - Dodd Frank has done nothing but drive up the costs for the little banks. What does that mean? None of the small banks can keep up with it and they close their doors and the big ones buy them up. Now the big original offenders are bigger than ever because they can afford to put up with the regulations - smaller banks can't.

Every single one of those are PRIME fucking examples of where government interference was the ultimate corrupter and the elimination of the free market. And the one topic that government SHOULD HAVE interfered (M&A) they didn't.
Wow, you are off your rocker. You think its government regulations that prevent a new company from laying cable to compete? How fucking stupid is it to expect duplication of all the infrastructure for our basic utilities. Man you are dense. This isn't due to regulation. This is due to individual companies owning the infrastructure instead of government owning the infrastructure and then allowing individual companies to use it to compete. How wasteful would it be to have ten sets of coax, ten sets of fiber, ten sets of sewer lines, ten sets of phone lines, ten sets of water lines, ten sets of electric lines all running to every house so there can be competition. Jesus Christ.

For Dodd Frank, there were some aspects that could have been improved. They should have made most of the provisions apply specifically to larger banks. But that doesn't mean the concept was flawed. Almost everyone agrees the severity of the recession was significantly influenced by the lack of regulations on the banks. As for the bailouts, you do reallize the alternative was the collapse of the entire economy, right? The appropriate regulation for banks is if its to big to fail, its to big to exist, but government is owned by wealthy right now, so that's not going to happen because of people like you that want to deregulate everything.

You are opposed to monopolies and oligopolies, and yet you neglect to recognize why the government is there to interfere in those examples (and even that it typically is not government regulation that creates them). You don't understand the mechanism. Its because both monopolies and oligopolies create an unfair balance for negotiating parties. That is the exact issue that is also in play when an employer negotiates with an employee. To assume that there's this magical market force that ensures everything will be fairly negotiated is naive in the extreme. So we have a choice. Do we establish government protections to enhance the power differential or to negate it.


Why even care what innovators have in assets? At the end of the day - their money is likely in a bank account (or even an investment account). It ultimately isn't sitting there... Even if it is in a Bank savings account - the bank doesn't have that money. They are lending that money out to potential future innovators, home buyers, etc..
Because assets that are simply accumulating are serving to increase the wealth of those that already have it, magnifying the difference between the haves and the have nots. The person operating the backhoe for the owner just keeps creating more wealth for the owner who in turn buys more backhoes and hires more operators. With progressive taxation, you aim to allow the backhoe owner to still buy more backhoes, but the operator also takes home a larger cut so that he can also afford to buy a backhoe one day. There are multiple mechanisms to accomplish this, but currently America is trying to erode all of these. We're killing unions and collective bargaining along with progressive taxation. Right now, we are setting up the rules to keep all the power with those that have the assets.

Note that this doesn't mean that I hate these extremely wealthy individuals. I don't think they should be reduced to live at the same level as their janitors. But there's a world of room between just letting them write all the rules and throw their power around unchecked while accumulating all the wealth in the country and subjecting them to poverty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
Here's one

Average hourly earnings increased 7.7 percent in the District of Columbia from December 2017 to December 2018. Earnings rose 7.5 percent in Nevada, the highest percentage increase among the 50 states. No state had a decrease in average hourly earnings over this period.

That does not confirm your earlier bullshit assertion of 30-50% increases in many sectors over the last 4 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
You obviously cant put 2 and 2 together, as this was a direct reply to another post.

I put it together just fine. The chances of you or any of us ever being subjected to a marginal tax rate of 70% above $10M/yr are negligible.

You're just a solid defender of the greed of the ultra wealthy.