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

Page 3 - 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

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,448
29,011
146
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?

ergot provided more value to this country than you do.







my apologies to ergot....
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,578
1,622
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.

I don't think you understand that the level of axation you are talking about only applies to the amount a person makes that is OVER their first ten million bucks. You'll have to excuse my lack of fucks to give for those who would have a 70% tax applied to everything they make over $10 mil since I believe that there are very few people who deserve to earn that much.

Productivity and wages became decoupled when tax rates dropped. When the rates were high companies rolled their excess profits back in to the company rather than paying taxes on it. Employees were given better wages and benefits, more money was rolled in to R&D for updated/new products, facilities expanded and/or updated and so on. The Big Guys couldn't pay themselves ungodly amounts of money because Uncle Sam taxed the shit out of them if they took too much for themselves. Taxation was used to modify behavior to achieve a goal and it worked. The government still got their money through increased payroll taxes so it worked for them. They had so much money they put a man in space and then went to the moon. Increasing tax revenues led to more government spending which further bolstered the economy.

Once the tax rates dropped, it was time for the Big Guys to extract that wealth for themselves. Look at the chart posted above and look at what happened right after 1980 and the election of St. Ronaldus of Reaganomica. What happened is as plain as day to anyone with half a brain.

Which explains why conservatives defend rich people.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,325
4,356
136
That is not very nice.

I favor less government and less taxation across the board.

If you want to tax people at 70%, then you go first. Set the example.


Thread Title:
Would you support a 70% marginal income tax rate on income about $10 million / year?
What part of that were you too drunk to read?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I don't think you understand that the level of axation you are talking about only applies to the amount a person makes that is OVER their first ten million bucks. You'll have to excuse my lack of fucks to give for those who would have a 70% tax applied to everything they make over $10 mil since I believe that there are very few people who deserve to earn that much.

Productivity and wages became decoupled when tax rates dropped. When the rates were high companies rolled their excess profits back in to the company rather than paying taxes on it. Employees were given better wages and benefits, more money was rolled in to R&D for updated/new products, facilities expanded and/or updated and so on. The Big Guys couldn't pay themselves ungodly amounts of money because Uncle Sam taxed the shit out of them if they took too much for themselves. Taxation was used to modify behavior to achieve a goal and it worked. The government still got their money through increased payroll taxes so it worked for them. They had so much money they put a man in space and then went to the moon. Increasing tax revenues led to more government spending which further bolstered the economy.

Once the tax rates dropped, it was time for the Big Guys to extract that wealth for themselves. Look at the chart posted above and look at what happened right after 1980 and the election of St. Ronaldus of Reaganomica. What happened is as plain as day to anyone with half a brain.

Which explains why conservatives defend rich people.

this is who/what you're debating

1
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Thread Title:
Would you support a 70% marginal income tax rate on income about $10 million / year?
What part of that were you too drunk to read?

So you’re gauging support for a partisan wet dream fantasy which won’t happen? Why not gauge support for completely criminalizing abortion while you’re at it so we can have both a left wing fantasy and right wing fantasy to ponder.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
So you’re gauging support for a partisan wet dream fantasy which won’t happen? Why not gauge support for completely criminalizing abortion while you’re at it so we can have both a left wing fantasy and right wing fantasy to ponder.

I think we all agree it’s probably smart tax policy. If anything the research shows that rate is a little low.

Why are you angry about people discussing smart policies?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I think we all agree it’s probably smart tax policy. If anything the research shows that rate is a little low.

Why are you angry about people discussing smart policies?

Lol when Obama was prez and Dems owned both houses they raised top marginal rate by like what, 3 points? Thinking they’ll seek a 30% plus increase is like thinking GOP will start 10 Iraq wars at once at some future point.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
Lol when Obama was prez and Dems owned both houses they raised top marginal rate by like what, 3 points? Thinking they’ll seek a 30% plus increase is like thinking GOP will start 10 Iraq wars at once at some future point.

Who cares? Much like with your global warming ranting something is either right or it is not. If it’s right we should move towards it.

It doesn’t matter if we get all the way there or not, proposals like this can shift the window of what is possible and we all agree that much higher taxes on the rich is a smart idea, right?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,545
31,972
136

uh

A potential candidate who's chief interest is apparently ensuring that his wealth/income, and that of his rich brethren, won't be taxed any more than presently seems like a not horribly attractive idea to most or even maybe all Dem voters. Low tax fiscal conservatives have a party, its over there headed up by the orange haired grifter.

The absolute terror of the wealthy at these kind of ideas (high taxes on high income, wealth tax, etc) is really warming me up to the concept.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Who cares? Much like with your global warming ranting something is either right or it is not. If it’s right we should move towards it.

It doesn’t matter if we get all the way there or not, proposals like this can shift the window of what is possible and we all agree that much higher taxes on the rich is a smart idea, right?

Raising taxes on the rich is for you what Trumps wall is for the right, a shiny trinket to keep the gullible rubes in line. The top of marginal tax rate has vacillated in a ~11 percentage point range (28% - 39%) for 2 generations and that won’t change anytime soon. And for the same reason that the amount of illegal aliens we deport every year stays in a relatively narrow range, promising large change of the baseline number is just one more way to motivate base voters but will never be delivered on.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
Raising taxes on the rich is for you what Trumps wall is for the right, a shiny trinket to keep the gullible rubes in line. The top of marginal tax rate has vacillated in a ~11 percentage point range (28% - 39%) for 2 generations and that won’t change anytime soon. And for the same reason that the amount of illegal aliens we deport every year stays in a relatively narrow range, promising large change of the baseline number is just one more way to motivate base voters but will never be delivered on.

Nope, it’s common sense economics. Your argument is that people shouldn’t argue for common sense economics because you believe people won’t enact common sense economics.

This is just feelings based silliness for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,342
3,414
126
I think it won't matter much without tax code reform beyond personal taxes. If you make the tax that high in the current environment they'll just get around it. Dividends instead of salary. Incorporation. Etc.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,545
31,972
136
I think it won't matter much without tax code reform beyond personal taxes. If you make the tax that high in the current environment they'll just get around it. Dividends instead of salary. Incorporation. Etc.

Treat everything as ordinary income and limit the ability of corporate structuring to shield income from taxation. There are a few things to think about but none of the solutions are overly complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
I think it won't matter much without tax code reform beyond personal taxes. If you make the tax that high in the current environment they'll just get around it. Dividends instead of salary. Incorporation. Etc.

Who is arguing for that though? Nobody is saying ‘jack the top marginal tax rate up to 70% and change nothing else’.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,576
4,020
136
Why do you conservatards even care? You'll never make more than $10/m a year, and even if someone said we will give you $15/m a year but you must pay 70% tax rate on the $5/m over, you would jump on it in a heart beat. Stop worrying about multi millionaires you'll never be a part of, and start voting for the government to get their share. After all its what they do. Vote to get their share..err i mean bribe/lobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
Treat everything as ordinary income and limit the ability of corporate structuring to shield income from taxation. There are a few things to think about but none of the solutions are overly complicated.

Yes, not saying that Exterous is doing that here but I frequently see arguments against higher taxes that presume rich people are some sort of magical, unreadable chimeras who can avoid any attempts to raise their taxes.

They can’t. There will always be some tax avoidance but broadly speaking if you raise taxes on the rich...the rich pay more in taxes.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Nope, it’s common sense economics. Your argument is that people shouldn’t argue for common sense economics because you believe people won’t enact common sense economics.

This is just feelings based silliness for you.

Sure thing, for a true believer like you the reality on the ground doesn’t matter and you swallow at face value when told “the war with Eastasia May be in measurable distance of its end.” Just keep waiting for the news bulletin from Malabar front that progressive forces have won a glorious victory and 70% rates are right around the corner.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,245
46,831
136
Sure thing, for a true believer like you the reality on the ground doesn’t matter and you swallow at face value when told “the war with Eastasia May be in measurable distance of its end.” Just keep waiting for the news bulletin from Malabar front that progressive forces have won a glorious victory and 70% rates are right around the corner.

Meh, it has nothing to do with what someone believes, it just has to do with what the science says.

If to you returning to a tax rate that this country has literally had in the past is magically impossible because we haven’t had it recently makes sense that’s fine, there’s no convincing you otherwise because your position is based on what you want emotionally, not logic.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,266
7,323
136
There is fairly strong consensus amongst economists that the idea taxation scheme for government is relatively high income taxes and relatively low corporate taxes.

This is my plan as well - although it has a catch.

1: I'd probably cap the tax at 50%, and I desire a constitutional amendment to prohibit anything higher except in times of extreme national crisis. But that is my initial assessment, and I view it as a flat tax. Last time I looked at the subject of brackets for high income, there simply was not enough money there to offset reductions on the lower brackets.

I'd love to reexamine the issue with better numbers for how many people / how much wealth is in each bracket. But we need enough in taxation to fund a considerable expansion of our budget / safety net.

2: As automation expands, there will be fewer workers and more corporate wealth. Therefore, income taxes will do nothing to help us in the future. Taxes are necessarily derived from productivity, a reflection of our GDP. It just happens to be that our consumers are almost all workers today, that will largely not be true "tomorrow". So there must be a plan to sustain taxation without income being involved.

Sorry, but we have no choice but to pursue corporate taxes in the future. We must be prepared to enact that changeover as quickly as automation takes jobs. Any delay would cripple our budget / safety net. We need to learn how to deal with their potential flight to avoid our laws and our taxation. They still want to do business with America, we have the leverage we need to ensure they don't get to do it for "free". They pay workers today, tomorrow they can pay the government who - in turn - will give it to the "workers" tomorrow.

The basic concept is thus: When workers are replaced by robots, income taxes are replaced by corporate taxes.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,448
29,011
146
Lol when Obama was prez and Dems owned both houses they raised top marginal rate by like what, 3 points? Thinking they’ll seek a 30% plus increase is like thinking GOP will start 10 Iraq wars at once at some future point.

...so you're saying that this is very likely to happen?
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
The tax situation would be solved really quickly if we had a balanced budget amendment. You may get your high tax rates on the rich as there is just no other reasonable way to balance the budget other than maybe making cuts in government programs. Special projects can have separate funding which could get around the balanced budget requirement with the expectation that you catch up in x number of years. Which is more or less in business the capital vs expense planning.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,342
3,414
126
Treat everything as ordinary income and limit the ability of corporate structuring to shield income from taxation. There are a few things to think about but none of the solutions are overly complicated.

I don't disagree that there are ways around these issues but requires our elected officials to address them properly. And I am highly skeptical of their ability to do so

Who is arguing for that though? Nobody is saying ‘jack the top marginal tax rate up to 70% and change nothing else’.

Granted I've not ready everything about
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's or Warren's suggestions/plans but I haven't seen any additional changes suggested. Previous plan proposals have left plenty of loopholes open which often seem strangely correlated to loopholes that elected officials also take advantage of.

Yes, not saying that Exterous is doing that here but I frequently see arguments against higher taxes that presume rich people are some sort of magical, unreadable chimeras who can avoid any attempts to raise their taxes.

They can’t. There will always be some tax avoidance but broadly speaking if you raise taxes on the rich...the rich pay more in taxes.

And I agree they will pay more in taxes but I question how much. A study 2 years ago in Switzerland found that for every 0.1% rise in taxes the wealthy reported 3.5% less wealth to be taxed. Obviously we are not Switzerland but we go back to it needing to be well crafted and my skepticism of that possibility. And a lot of effort is expended exploiting unintended consequences. I doubt the original intention of the the charitable lead trust was to shield billions from taxation but here we are

None of this is to say we shouldn't try, just that I don't expect it to be very successful (perhaps it would be more so with subsequent legislation assuming the political will is still there)