Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23133
    16 Jan '19 12:22
    This brief video explains the 70% marginal tax rate being suggested by progressives in the U.S. Excellent concept!
    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1085225777346609153
  2. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    16 Jan '19 13:05
    @phranny said
    This brief video explains the 70% marginal tax rate being suggested by progressives in the U.S. Excellent concept!
    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1085225777346609153
    It is excellent if your goal is to stunt investment and destroy the economy.
  3. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35850
    16 Jan '19 13:231 edit
    @quackquack said
    It is excellent if your goal is to stunt investment and destroy the economy.
    Keep drinking that conservative kool-aid.

    Was investment stunted and the economy destroyed in 1955 with 90+% top marginal tax rate? Nope, both GDP and job growth were higher than they've been in the last few decades since.
  4. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22171
    16 Jan '19 13:23
    @phranny said
    This brief video explains the 70% marginal tax rate being suggested by progressives in the U.S. Excellent concept!
    https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1085225777346609153
    After 40 years of conservative/corporate media propaganda we've had: Myriad tax cuts for the wealthy and unfair program cuts for the poor.

    Now we have:
    - An economy dependent upon the whims of Wall Street gamblers.
    - Corporations taking money to shelter overseas.
    - Executives absconding with unearned bonuses.
    - Outsourcing of millions of jobs to China.
    - Crumbling infrastructure.
    - Flagging global environment.
    - Donald Trump.

    A 70% tax rate on the hyper-wealthy cannot fix all of these now "baked-in" ills... but I doubt that it'd make them worse. Of course, every billionaire who owns a politician will kick and scream a different tune.

    It's not too late: Something's got to change.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    16 Jan '19 13:27
    @quackquack said
    It is excellent if your goal is to stunt investment and destroy the economy.
    Like the economy was destroyed during the Eisenhower admin when it was larger. The history books talk at length about those dark ages when the US descended into chaos and lost half its population to famine
  6. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35850
    16 Jan '19 13:29
    @wolfe63 said
    After 40 years of conservative/corporate media propaganda we've had: Myriad tax cuts for the wealthy and unfair program cuts for the poor.

    Now we have:
    - An economy dependent upon the whims of Wall Street gamblers.
    - Corporations taking money to shelter overseas.
    - Executives absconding with unearned bonuses.
    - Outsourcing of millions of jobs to China.
    - Crumbling in ...[text shortened]... a politician will kick and scream a different tune.

    It's not too late: Something's got to change.
    A higher tax rate on the rich actually causes those with higher incomes to spend the extra re-investing into their businesses in order to reduce their income on paper, instead of just hanging onto it. The hysterical part is that Reagan's "trickle-down" actually works better with a higher marginal tax rate in effect.
  7. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    16 Jan '19 14:47
    If you want the economy to flourish don't make taxes so burdensome that those who have the ability to invest have no incentive to do so. The selfishness of those who continually ask for more from only those who already pay the most (in actual dollar terms and percent terms) is shocking.
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    16 Jan '19 15:05
    @quackquack said
    If you want the economy to flourish don't make taxes so burdensome that those who have the ability to invest have no incentive to do so. The selfishness of those who continually ask for more from only those who already pay the most (in actual dollar terms and percent terms) is shocking.
    This analysis of incentives to investment depends on the capital gains tax rate relative to the ordinary income tax rate, doesn’t it?
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    16 Jan '19 15:07
    @quackquack said
    If you want the economy to flourish don't make taxes so burdensome that those who have the ability to invest have no incentive to do so. The selfishness of those who continually ask for more from only those who already pay the most (in actual dollar terms and percent terms) is shocking.
    yes, because millionaires making more than 10 million per year would be so burdened having to pay 70% of that 11th and upwards million. What would they have left to feed themselves? Could it be the first 10 millions taxed lower than 70%?

    Who else is burdened i wonder? Could it be the nurse working 2 jobs living paycheck to paycheck? Could it be the florist employing one or two other people and barely keeping their businesses afloat? Could it be the 26 year old who cannot afford insulin for his diabetes and could use money from that 70% marginal tax on the uber wealthy?

    Nonsense. Fuk those guys, who cares about them. The real victims are the people making more than 10 million
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    16 Jan '19 15:181 edit
    @js357 said
    This analysis of incentives to investment depends on the capital gains tax rate relative to the ordinary income tax rate, doesn’t it?
    Not really; virtually all of what is affected by the capital gains giveaway isn't Investment in the Economic sense; it's merely paper for paper and/or rent seeking.

    EDIT: Here's a good article: 10 Reasons to Eliminate the Tax Break for Capital Gains https://tcf.org/content/commentary/10-reasons-to-eliminate-the-tax-break-for-capital-gains/?agreed=1
  11. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55416
    16 Jan '19 15:29
    @zahlanzi said
    yes, because millionaires making more than 10 million per year would be so burdened having to pay 70% of that 11th and upwards million. What would they have left to feed themselves? Could it be the first 10 millions taxed lower than 70%?

    Who else is burdened i wonder? Could it be the nurse working 2 jobs living paycheck to paycheck? Could it be the florist employing one ...[text shortened]... e. Fuk those guys, who cares about them. The real victims are the people making more than 10 million
    Your rambling has nothing to do with reality and has more to do with the fact that you want others to pay for things that they should pay for.
    People will investment, despite the effort and risks, when they believe they have the ability to make profit. If you continually jack up taxes (on those who already paid the most) then investment will be curtailed. That means fewer jobs for everyone, fewer new products for everyone, less tax money for everyone. There is a reason why people move from high tax states to low tax states. It is because crushing taxes make it unbearable to live.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    16 Jan '19 15:45
    @quackquack said
    Your rambling has nothing to do with reality and has more to do with the fact that you want others to pay for things that they should pay for.
    People will investment, despite the effort and risks, when they believe they have the ability to make profit. If you continually jack up taxes (on those who already paid the most) then investment will be curtailed. That means ...[text shortened]... ve from high tax states to low tax states. It is because crushing taxes make it unbearable to live.
    Actually the exact opposite is true; increased inequality leads to weaker aggregate demand and less Investment:

    A second argument centres on the popular misconception that those at the top are the job creators, and giving more money to them will thus create more jobs. Industrialised countries are full of creative entrepreneurial people throughout the income distribution. What creates jobs is demand: when there is demand, firms will create the jobs to satisfy that demand (especially if we can get the financial system to work in the way it should, providing credit to small and medium-sized enterprises).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    inequality leads to weak aggregate demand. The reason is easy to understand: those at the bottom spend a larger fraction of their income than those at the top.

    http://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    16 Jan '19 15:46
    https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/ford-doubles-minimum-wage/
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    16 Jan '19 15:52
    @quackquack said
    It is excellent if your goal is to stunt investment and destroy the economy.
    What percentage of economic Investment is done by those with over $10 million in personal income?
  15. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22171
    16 Jan '19 16:041 edit
    @quackquack said
    Your rambling has nothing to do with reality and has more to do with the fact that you want others to pay for things that they should pay for.
    People will investment, despite the effort and risks, when they believe they have the ability to make profit. If you continually jack up taxes (on those who already paid the most) then investment will be curtailed. That means ...[text shortened]... ve from high tax states to low tax states. It is because crushing taxes make it unbearable to live.
    40 years...
    I repeat...40 years!

    For 40 years, since the lame-duck period of Jimmy Carter's one-term Presidency, we've been hearing these same, lame conservative rationalizations.

    And what do we have to show for it?
    Have the many tax cuts for corporations and wealthy resulted in the promised "trickle-down" prosperity?
    No!
    They were supplanted by the "greed is good" fallacy. The, "let the rich get richer and this will lift all boats" lie.

    Honestly, just ask yourself: Has this method of governance panned-out as advertised?

    I think you know the answer.
Back to Top