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

Page 9 - 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

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
136
People can agree in good faith about whether 70% of your income is a fair tradeoff for having someone else build previously "systems" (like roads and schools) that the person never agreed to and can't opt out of. Then we can recursively demand the people who get welfare from those we tax at 70% should give 70% of their welfare checks back to the government since they also benefit from those systems and people who support the system. If we're going to make that argument then everyone supporting the 70% tax rate should be forced to pay 70% of their income to their parents for their role in the person ever being born. The idea that your wealth and income belong to society and you only get to "keep" a certain amount is horrific.
It isn't 70% of your income, and continuing to frame it as such is highly dishonest. It is 70% of your income after the first $10 million.

If you managed to make over $10 million in one year then you benefited way more than most from all kinds of services, not the least of which is a government that prevents people from torturing you and your family until you cough up that $10 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
It isn't 70% of your income, and continuing to frame it as such is highly dishonest. It is 70% of your income after the first $10 million.

If you managed to make over $10 million in one year then you benefited way more than most from all kinds of services, not the least of which is a government that prevents people from torturing you and your family until you cough up that $10 million.

So you want to cut out the middleman and use the government instead to get them to cough up most of their money to protect that from unspecified "people" getting them to cough up most of their money? Wow that sounds like quite a deal. Honestly I'd rather just take the risk of you attempting to break into my house and steal my stuff.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
If only we could determine how much it costs to build and maintain the infrastructure and services that broadly support everyone relatively equally without exclusion (like roads) and tax at that rate so without adding a large amount of additional of taxation atop that for punitive reasons under the reasoning "billionaires shouldn't exist" which attempts to ensure they don't.
From a moral standpoint, I'd say I agree with the concept that billionaires shouldn't exist. Millionaires are okay, but billionaires go too far. Not in terms of absolute wealth, but relative to the wealth of the rest of the nation. People argue that its immoral to take someone's property by means of force, however I would argue that the only way these individuals accumulated so much wealth was by means of force. When two people are entering into a contract, and for one person the options are to accept the contract or starve, that is not a moral contract. The wealthy have accumulated their wealth not by their own labor, but by leveraging the labor of others. They use their wealth to write legislation that maintains their position of power over the lower classes. There isn't an individual on earth that works 100x as much as a typical doctor, but there are individuals making 100x as much as a typical doctor.

No one is arguing that everyone should earn the same. No one is arguing their should be no poor and no wealthy. No one is arguing that a person shouldn't have the chance to make it big in America. We're just arguing that at some point, a person's made it big. To take it to the extreme that a lot of conservatives do, would you support a system where a single individual controlled 100% of the wealth in a country? I hope the answer is obviously not. Neither would I support all of the wealth being equally distributed to everyone. But somewhere in between those is a middle ground that hopefully most Americans can agree is reasonable. I and a significant portion of America believe we have moved way too far in the direction of the wealth all accumulating among too few.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Wow you guys have really spent a lot of time thinking this through. I'm not talking just like a "casually stalking your ex girlfriend for a couple weeks" but rather a Unabomber manifesto level of thinking about how you'll tell those evil billionaires "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too." Do you have a wall plotting out the daily activities of billionaires?

Silence_of_the_Lambs-1991-MSS-028.jpg
You sound like the high school jock trying to mock the "nerds" getting good grades. Before implementing tax policy, it seems like its a good idea to think things through. Otherwise you end up with comments like, "Who knew health care could be so hard?"
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
From a moral standpoint, I'd say I agree with the concept that billionaires shouldn't exist. Millionaires are okay, but billionaires go too far. Not in terms of absolute wealth, but relative to the wealth of the rest of the nation. People argue that its immoral to take someone's property by means of force, however I would argue that the only way these individuals accumulated so much wealth was by means of force. When two people are entering into a contract, and for one person the options are to accept the contract or starve, that is not a moral contract. The wealthy have accumulated their wealth not by their own labor, but by leveraging the labor of others. They use their wealth to write legislation that maintains their position of power over the lower classes. There isn't an individual on earth that works 100x as much as a typical doctor, but there are individuals making 100x as much as a typical doctor.

No one is arguing that everyone should earn the same. No one is arguing their should be no poor and no wealthy. No one is arguing that a person shouldn't have the chance to make it big in America. We're just arguing that at some point, a person's made it big. To take it to the extreme that a lot of conservatives do, would you support a system where a single individual controlled 100% of the wealth in a country? I hope the answer is obviously not. Neither would I support all of the wealth being equally distributed to everyone. But somewhere in between those is a middle ground that hopefully most Americans can agree is reasonable. I and a significant portion of America believe we have moved way too far in the direction of the wealth all accumulating among too few.

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.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,570
4,006
136
It isn't 70% of your income, and continuing to frame it as such is highly dishonest. It is 70% of your income after the first $10 million.

If you managed to make over $10 million in one year then you benefited way more than most from all kinds of services, not the least of which is a government that prevents people from torturing you and your family until you cough up that $10 million.

This is why its hard to discuss this with tards. They dont understand how taxes actually work and argue in bad faith.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,854
12,534
136
So basically a list of "every exception which might conceivably apply to me and still excludes those I don't ever expect to happen to me like founding a Fortune 500 company."
No.. non of those apply to me...
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,854
12,534
136
So you want to cut out the middleman and use the government instead to get them to cough up most of their money to protect that from unspecified "people" getting them to cough up most of their money? Wow that sounds like quite a deal. Honestly I'd rather just take the risk of you attempting to break into my house and steal my stuff.
Now you are retreating into lala land...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
This is why its hard to discuss this with tards. They dont understand how taxes actually work and argue in bad faith.

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?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
136
So you want to cut out the middleman and use the government instead to get them to cough up most of their money to protect that from unspecified "people" getting them to cough up most of their money? Wow that sounds like quite a deal. Honestly I'd rather just take the risk of you attempting to break into my house and steal my stuff.
No most people are rational enough to realize that that $10 million didn't materialize from some sort of magic. They are rational enough to realize that their taxes are the cost of doing business and keeping society from descending back into the stone age. A lot of people are not rational at all though. They can't think beyond the one or two steps before the stimulus hits their diseased, rotting brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
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.
No, Bill Gates didn't program Windows himself nor does Zuck run facebook all by himself. Its the employees they building their fortunes on, not the consumers. If Bill Gates ran Windows all by himself, he never would have had a product that anyone would buy. He never could have supported all the users. He never would have accumulated nearly $100 billion in wealth. He built his wealth on the backs of his employees. As did Zuck. As did Bezos. Bezos would have had to work 11,000 hours a day making $2,000 an hour in order to make (not acculuate, just make) his networth over a period of 20 years. Do you think he actually worked that hard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,110
46,655
136
The studies would have to be based on drastically HIGH marginal tax rates since they (AoC, etc.) aren't talking 5, 10, or even 20% hikes. They are talking going from the 30's to 70's - or as much as 90's... That is a substantial difference.

They would not need to be as effects are effects. That’s why large sample sizes are needed because what each person considers large is different so you can measure the gradient.

Marginal tax rates simply don’t have big effects on propensity to earn.

Also, moving around is much easier than previously.

There’s also studies on that with things like that. High earners, much more than mid or low earners are often strongly geographically constrained. You have a successful business you can’t just move across the country and abandon it. If you are a hedge fund billionaire you’re likely making a lot of your money in the NYC area. Things like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yllus

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
No most people are rational enough to realize that that $10 million didn't materialize from some sort of magic. They are rational enough to realize that their taxes are the cost of doing business and keeping society from descending back into the stone age. A lot of people are not rational at all though. They can't think beyond the one or two steps before the stimulus hits their diseased, rotting brain.

Society won't "descend into the Stone Age" if we have less welfare than now or the same amount rather than more.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
136
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.
Good luck getting your money if Bill Gates, Zombie Steve Jobs and a few other tech moguls built a kill switch in their operating systems that deleted all data from all systems at a specific time. You think your money isn't bouncing off a bunch of electronic devices every single day?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Good luck getting your money if Bill Gates, Zombie Steve Jobs and a few other tech moguls built a kill switch in their operating systems that deleted all data from all systems at a specific time. You think your money isn't bouncing off a bunch of electronic devices every single day?

Ahh I see so having a 70% top marginal tax rate will prevent that conspiracy to build in a "kill switch." Only billionaires could be diabolical enough to do such a thing, if via tax policy we turn them into millionaires instead then the evil spirits will leave them.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
136
Society won't "descend into the Stone Age" if we have less welfare than now or the same amount rather than more.
What do you think would happen if we had zero taxes? How do you imagine that world?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
136
Ahh I see so having a 70% top marginal tax rate will prevent that conspiracy to build in a "kill switch." Only billionaires could be evil and diabolical enough to do such a thing, if via tax policy we turn them into millionaires instead then the evil spirits will leave them.
This is not related to the 70% tax it was merely a reply to your specific point. You like to think you don't depend on technology because you don't have the latest iPhone like the rest of the stupid people not as smart as glenn1 but the fact is you depend on electronic devices exactly the same as all of us save the 1 out of billions that happens to be in my pocket.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,776
146
No, Bill Gates didn't program Windows himself nor does Zuck run facebook all by himself. Its the employees they building their fortunes on, not the consumers. If Bill Gates ran Windows all by himself, he never would have had a product that anyone would buy. He never could have supported all the users. He never would have accumulated nearly $100 billion in wealth. He built his wealth on the backs of his employees. As did Zuck. As did Bezos. Bezos would have had to work 11,000 hours a day making $2,000 an hour in order to make (not acculuate, just make) his networth over a period of 20 years. Do you think he actually worked that hard?

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

 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,835
2,039
126
Understand this clip.

Also, what do you think is best for America, a few donzen uber billionaries running slave factories in China or tens, hundreds, of thousands 10-million millionaires running innovation and new job opportunities?

Thanks for that link, good talk. Hope others view it as well.
And totally agreed, it would be more beneficial to have more multi-millionaires than a few billionaires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
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

You should spend your energy yelling at Republicans because they are the only people that still believe in supply side economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
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.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,892
27,658
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.
You forgot to add rainbows and unicorns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,104
14,738
136
I'm not sure what your point is except to say we should keep trying to make the same mistakes. Because we had a 91% top rate at one point that didn't work we should do it again? If the issue is people don't believe 1.7 trillion in non-FICA tax revenue is enough to fund this bloated carcass of a govt we have. Then close the loopholes and raise the effective rates. Jerking off about 70% over 10 million when we all know anybody making 10 million or more is venturing into capital gains territory is a wast of time. They wont be paying the tax anyways. But then 70% over 10 million tickles down to the middle class who don't take capital gains. You know, like the 1950s when the lowest bracket paid 22-24.6% of their income in federal taxes. Or at least were supposed to. And then we all wonder what happened as the desired result of wealth distribution down failed to materialize, again.

That's a pretty dishonest reply if I ever saw one. You claim it was a failure when it clearly was not. What was a failure was when we deviated from the high tax rates, that's when wealth inequality started expanding. The whole premise of your post is bullshit, no wonder you missed the point of my original post.