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

Page 2 - 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

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Are you also going to force the inner city junior high school dropouts to work unpaid in the factories and the Appalachian toothless meth addicts to toil in the salt mines to extract the same level of value to society you'll be extracting from those paying 70%? Seems a little one sided that one side gets to risk their life savings and work 100 hours a week for years to have Uncle Sam take most of their earnings once they've built a company employing thousands in order to give it to Cleetus so he no longer needs to fake an injury for workman's comp so he can sit around all day in his doublewide watching Jerry Springer.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
In other words, you are not willing to stand up for minority groups?

As long as it benefits you, you are willing to throw any group under the bus?
Wait, are you suggesting that the 0.1 percenters making more than 1.7 million in taxable income a year are a minority group that needs protection by the law?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,770
27,365
136
I'm in favor of having the discussion.

Interesting when marginal rates were as high as 90%. Rich people had no problem getting richer and the middle class did far better? Not saying we should go back to 90.

BTW - When was the last time raising top marginal tax rates had a detrimental effect on our economy??
 
  • Like
Reactions: wirelessenabled

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In other words, you are not willing to stand up for minority groups?

As long as it benefits you, you are willing to throw any group under the bus?

I somehow don't find it necessary to defend people whose recent tax cut is a lot more than most American families earn in a year. They can obviously defend themselves, particularly given that the top .001% ($60M+/yr) pay basically the same rate as families earning $85K/yr. They own the GOP & the propaganda think tanks that bent your poor fucking mind. They owned the businesses that maintained the economy in your little neck of the woods before they dumped you & took their capital elsewhere, too.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Wait, are you suggesting that the 0.1 percenters making more than 1.7 million in taxable income a year are a minority group that needs protection by the law?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I somehow don't find it necessary to defend people whose recent tax cut is a lot more than most American families earn in a year. They can obviously defend themselves, particularly given that the top .001% ($60M+/yr) pay basically the same rate as families earning $85K/yr. They own the GOP & the propaganda think tanks that bent your poor fucking mind. They owned the businesses that maintained the economy in your little neck of the woods before they dumped you & took their capital elsewhere, too.

This is an example of what I have been saying over the past few days about democracies - they are nothing more than mob rules. In short, the majority can take from the minority.

It does not matter of the minorities are rich, jewish, black, native americans... etc. In a democracy the weak minded are easily tricked into marginalizing certain groups.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
This is an example of what I have been saying over the past few days about democracies - they are nothing more than mob rules. In short, the majority can take from the minority.

It does not matter of the imiortires are rich, jewish, black, native americans... etc. In a democray the weak minded are easily tricked into magnetizing certain groups.

So are the recipients of the government loot going to evolve into the morlocks or eloi?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,494
2,687
136
C'mon people! You have no right to send people to jail for murder if you're not willing to go to jail right now yourselves! No "ifs" about it! Why are you so tyrannical against the minority that commit murder?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
So are the recipients of the government loot going to evolve into the morlocks or eloi?
Not very likely as very few people actually want to consume human flesh. This however may change if we manage to vat grow adult humans...
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Not very likely as very few people actually want to consume human flesh. This however may change we manage to vat grow adult humans...

Nah, that was the morlocks who ate flesh; they were the ones who actually worked and knew how to operate machinery. The eloi were the vegetarians who sat around all day with no ambition in life doing nothing like a feminist studies major or much of the Democratic base and waiting to be fed via a higher tax rate on the Morlocks.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,586
13,228
146
When the government spends that money they will look for new sources of income. Then the limit will be dropped to 1 million, then to $100,000 a year... etc until the government hits the middle class.

Thus is the result of democracy, the many taking from the few.

We already have too many taxes. If anything certain taxes need to be abolished.
Lol. It’s more like the few taking from the many.

robert-b-reich-pay-vs-productivity.png


But TH I will always support your freedom to give away your labor for subsistence wages.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Nah, that was the morlocks who ate flesh; they were the ones who actually worked and knew how to operate machinery. The eloi were the vegetarians who sat around all day with no ambition in life doing nothing like a feminist studies major or much of the Democratic base and waiting to be fed via a higher tax rate on the Morlocks.
Maybe a I'm a bit of a sadist, but unlike the Eloi these would be vat grown young good looking adult women who are very much aware of what is going on. And no, they very much don't want to be eaten.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Are you also going to force the inner city junior high school dropouts to work unpaid in the factories and the Appalachian toothless meth addicts to toil in the salt mines to extract the same level of value to society you'll be extracting from those paying 70%? Seems a little one sided that one side gets to risk their life savings and work 100 hours a week for years to have Uncle Sam take most of their earnings once they've built a company employing thousands in order to give it to Cleetus so he no longer needs to fake an injury for workman's comp so he can sit around all day in his doublewide watching Jerry Springer.

You completely ignore the massive shift of income to the tippy top that has occurred since 1980. The bottom 50% share of national income fell by 1/3 & the 50-75% by 1/5, and it all went to the 1%, whose share doubled at the same time. the share of the top .1% is greater today than the share of the 1% in 1980. See table 5-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

I didn't notice Rich people having trouble being Rich back in 1980, did you?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Lol. It’s more like the few taking from the many.

robert-b-reich-pay-vs-productivity.png


But TH I will always support your freedom to give away your labor for subsistence wages.

Only tax rates has never been shown to be related to growth. Maybe it was the Jim Crow laws in place during the 1947-1979 period that drove that wage growth, or the existing laws criminalizing homosexuality at the time.

4-20-16tax-testimony-f8.png
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Nah, that was the morlocks who ate flesh; they were the ones who actually worked and knew how to operate machinery. The eloi were the vegetarians who sat around all day with no ambition in life doing nothing like a feminist studies major or much of the Democratic base and waiting to be fed via a higher tax rate on the Morlocks.

Careful, don't drown in all that straw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,787
8,966
136
In other words, you are not willing to stand up for minority groups?

As long as it benefits you, you are willing to throw any group under the bus?

I give up. Billionaire conservatives win. They have derped almost 40% of the population (up to 2/3 factoring electoral college) to make these arguments for them, regardless of their own income level or socio economic class, all under the guise of a unified Republican Party.

I don’t think these people can be saved...and they certainly don’t want to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Only tax rates has never been shown to be related to growth. Maybe it was the Jim Crow laws in place during the 1947-1979 period that drove that wage growth, or the existing laws criminalizing homosexuality at the time.

4-20-16tax-testimony-f8.png

So, if there's no correlation between productivity growth & top marginal rates we can easily & safely raise those rates to help finance the govt. Good to know.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
People have already have paid 70% before Reagan. LOL!

Where were you then?

Didn't complain then but complaining now?
Tax the rich, tax the rich where have we heard this bullshit feel good politics before, oh yeah long before that devil Reagan that all you low information liberal types like to blame and as usual the middle class ended up paying for it

The Alternative Minimum Tax and its predecessor in 1969 wasn't passed (long before Reagan was president) because the rich were paying their fair share like many liberal democrats like to shout from their socialist mountaintops,

because the 70% tax rate was a farce that many of the rich didn't pay and quite a few paid zero taxes because of the loopholes.

Democrats are as much in bed today with Wall Street as any corporatist republican but somehow these elected puppet politicians are going to pass laws that will harm their puppet master big business owners.

You might as well believe that you can fix the economic disparity by believing that the basic income unicorn will lead you to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax
"
A predecessor "minimum tax" was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[19] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[20] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that they had reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[21] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer's regular tax liability.[22]

The explanation of the 1969 Act prepared by Congress's Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation described the reason for the AMT as follows:


The prior treatment imposed no limit on the amount of income which an individual or corporation could exclude from tax as the result of various tax preferences. As a result, there were large variations in the tax burdens placed on individuals or corporations with similar economic incomes, depending upon the size of their preference income. In general, those individual or corporate taxpayers who received the bulk of their income from personal services or manufacturing were taxed at relatively higher tax rates than others. On the other hand, individuals or corporations which received the bulk of their income from such sources as capital gains or were in a position to benefit from net lease arrangements, from accelerated depreciation on real estate, from percentage depletion, or from other tax-preferred activities tended to pay relatively low rates of tax. In fact, many individuals with high incomes who could benefit from these provisions paid lower effective rates of tax than many individuals with modest incomes. In extreme cases, individuals enjoyed large economic incomes without paying any tax at all. This was true for example in the case of 154 returns in 1966 with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 a year (apart from those with income exclusions which do not show on the returns filed). Similarly, a number of large corporations paid either no tax at all or taxes which represented very low effective rates.[23]
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,494
2,687
136
Hey now guys, I think it makes perfect sense that changing tax rates are no more likely to be the cause of income inequality than the decline of racism or anti-gay hate crimes.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
Folks, overall if you can't understand the concept that you are advocating for every $10 you must give $7 of it up I don't know what to tell you. No investor with half a brain will go for that. They will simply pack up their shit and invest in another country. It's as simple as that.

You can doubt it all you want, but you're also too stupid to understand world economics so... Not surprising.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,896
12,568
136
In other words, you are not willing to stand up for minority groups?

As long as it benefits you, you are willing to throw any group under the bus?
You dont know how big money works.. When you have gotten to a certain level it gets easier, way easier.. the second million after the first is peanuts compared to the first..
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,896
12,568
136
Folks, overall if you can't understand the concept that you are advocating for every $10 you must give $7 of it up I don't know what to tell you. No investor with half a brain will go for that. They will simply pack up their shit and invest in another country. It's as simple as that.

You can doubt it all you want, but you're also too stupid to understand world economics so... Not surprising.
Just not true.. google ted talk and where it is easiest to live the american dream..... it aint america...
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
Lol. It’s more like the few taking from the many.

robert-b-reich-pay-vs-productivity.png


But TH I will always support your freedom to give away your labor for subsistence wages.

According to Harvard Economist David Graeber, supply and demand only accounts for 30% of the how much wages are determined and 70% is due to bargaining power. If that's the case that rules out top tax rates being the primary casual factor of wage stagnation, rather the weakening of unions and no existing substitute (i.e. a national collective bargaining board) being more likely the primary casual factor of wage stagnation. I would note there are many countries in the West where fast food workers make somewhere in the ballpark of $20-25/hour and the top tax rates aren't higher than 40 or 50%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,448
29,011
146
When the government spends that money they will look for new sources of income. Then the limit will be dropped to 1 million, then to $100,000 a year... etc until the government hits the middle class.

Thus is the result of democracy, the many taking from the few.

We already have too many taxes. If anything certain taxes need to be abolished.

so, let's just start at whatever rate you pay, in the $40k region, and sign the law into "whatever income TH pays, because the dude is dumb and would happily spend it on meth anyway. because we are watching this guy. He knows it, so why pretend?"

Yeah I'm cool with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie