60% approve of 70% top tax rate - Lets do it !

Good, let them leave. Although they didnt leave when taxed like that from 1935 - 1985. If they leave, someone else will start a business, in fact, 100 people will start businesses to do what that guy did. He must take his business with him.
You guys can come up with any argument you want. Been debating this going back 25 years. I got it all covered. Heard all of the excuses, trickle down, one tax, one man, blah blah...

 

So your Theory is that we have done better since the major tax cuts of mid 1980s ? And we should continue down this road where the working class have lost money since 1995 and the wealthy have more than doubled their income. That system works for you, but if we go back to the system (taxing the rich) as we did from 1935 - 1985 that it would make things worse ? OOOOOOOOOOOOOK !!!!

 

One of the Dumbest things in the old tax law was setting the TOP tax rate at 300K or close to it. Someone making 300k a year is and was NOT rich.
This works:
over 50M 80%
over 20M 70%
over 10M 65%
over 5M 60%
over1M 55%
over 1/2M 45%
over 250k 35%
over 100k 25%
under 100K 15%
CHnage corporate tax back to what it was. DO NOT allow Corps to move overseas if 70% of their business is here.
Remove all tax write offs, and have a 50% capital one time tax on all billionaires to the tune of 20%. That will fix the deficit

 

"60% approve of 70% top tax rate - Lets do it !"

this never should of been changed, it was like 90% in the past under Republican rule

70% for every dollar earned over 10 million in a year, I am ok with that

 

Taxing the rich at 70% in France never happened. I thought it did too, but I couldn't find any evidence of such while searching news articles.

This is the Mandela Effect. Maybe you and I were from a different Universe and suddenly shifted here to this universe where the tax on rich people in France never happened.

 

Well, yes, they are. But the question comes down to "By Whom"?

Income Unfairness in America is rampant, largely due to the fact that Reckless Ronnie back in the 1980s reduced drastically upper-income taxation (already reduced previously by JFK/LBJ to the 70% level down from around 90%). After RR was done with his hacksaw, upper-income taxation was at around 30% - as shown here:


That image above clearly shows how upper-income unfairness skyrocketed from 1980 onward to today!

In such a situation, what's a country to do? The answer seems obvious:
*We need a taxation mechanism that allows individuals to obtain high-levels of net income.
*But those levels are substantially lower than they exist today. Far too much of National Income is going to people who simply aggregate it and then leave it to their offspring who, often, never worked a day in their lives to earn it.
*A far more fair universal taxation system would be progressive up to a level of, say, 70% and then become confiscatory beyond that level.
*It would allow thus government revenues sufficient funding for much needed UNIVERSAL services like National Healthcare and Free Post-secondary Education. These are key components to National Fairness, and exist today in Europe (but not in the US).

Otherwise, we are left with the present situation where far, far too much of Upper-income, because of insufficient taxation, remains with a highly select and small percentage of the American population:


Is the above what we should want for ourselves (our children)? Well, what we got is that half of the American population benefits from a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of National Wealth (barely 1%)! Most of which is held in property-value of a single house in which they live.

And most of the rest (50%) of Family Wealth goes to just 10% of the total population.

Who are getting literally, figuratively and formally shafted - because income-taxation need not be a "gift" to the upper Ten-Percenters.

We should be putting upper-income up to the 95% level for incomes above 10 megabucks - and progressive up to that amount ($10MB)*.

My Point: As a nation, we cannot live with the patent unfairness that incarcerates nearly 13% of American men, women and children below the Poverty Threshold. No country should allow itself to do so - it is humanely unfair ...

*Presuming that Estate Taxation after death allows only a minimum amount to inheritors. Any pre-death transfers within a family would also be taxed at the 95% level.

 

The usual "piffle 'n drivel" - how do you know?

Show the evidence of what you think and not just state baseless inanities. This is a DEBATE FORUM not a Message Board ... !

 

Uhhh.... not aggressive enough. Anything in excess of what it would take for a luxurious standard of living should be taxed at the top level and I suggest 90% for anything above $600,000. HELL! That's more than $10,000 PER WEEK!!!!

Then I would tax income over $200,000 at 45% and add about 3 or 4 more brackets between $200k and $600k to get from 45% to 90%.

And this isn't really about revenue more than it's about a big reduction in income disparity and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a teeny tiny minority, which inevitably leads to plutocracy and broad, deep poverty for the rest.

 

Nothing that you posted attempts to prove how the fruits of my labor are collectively owned.

 

Your comments make the Daily Sport look high powered. Where is the economics? Think before you type.

 

Maybe you could do a survey there to prove it's not a problem.

 

Still no economics. Do you know any?

 

The USSR is calling and they are saying that they already tried it and it didn't work.

 

Reagan liked to play the action-reaction approach to military expenditure, using that to refer to the demise of the USSR. He played down, mind you, that he really just celebrated military keynesianism (essentially standard demand management, but more inefficient). Right wing economics for you...

 

Oh you guys.

You're so cute when you think the government will take money from the rich and give it to you.

They'll take it alright, but you're not going to be the one getting it.

You know, like every socialist regime, ever.

 

I doubt you really understand what socialism entails, particularly as the application of taxation is simply about equity issues within capitalism.

 

Let's see, government makes us buy health insurance and retirement insurance. Can I purchase government insurance? I mean insurance against the government causing me financial loss due their actions. I think I can run up some good claims on that one.

I'd prefer use tax to income tax. I pay for those things I need and choose to use, versus funding everything regardless of impact on me.

 

Have concepts such as public goods passed you by?

 

Then you should take lessons in the English-language/

You don't know how to "think" out of the warm jar of American thought that the basis of any democracy is a market-economy. Wrong!

The key element is a Fair Market-economy that displays Income Fairness. For your edification on the subject: People Don't Actually Want Equality (of Incomes) ...

 

Blah blah blah. "I think I am intellectually superior"... blah blah blah.

The problem is, you are unable to relate income with labor. People earn exactly what they are WORTH i a competitive labor market. The desire to evaluate income, and any level of equality, without acknowledging the labor market and individual value is meaningless feel good BS that serves no purpose in true equality.

 

This was true 40 years ago. Not today, you have to make sense when posting and be a normal person from a normal family living a normal life. If you are long since retired, you have no skin in the game and have lost touch with todays real world. What you write is NOT TRUE today. period !

 

I really wish i had the time to sit around and argue with the paid posters or just plain OBTUSE posters. Amazing what some people put in writing.

 

So to you, the fact that REAL wages have not gone up at all in 18 years means nothing because it doesn't effect you ? That this LABOR market is self regulating and there is fair pay for fair work out there today ? You are seriously out of touch ! And I certainly dont act like of think I am MORE intelligent than any other poster that can make a legit argument on this site. But you can't just say something "IS" because you FEEL that way.

You have to consider all the underlying DATA, the fact the mega wealthy have pocketed billions and the working class has received nothing in 20 years. A response to that statement can't be "I dont think so" and count as "A FACT"

 

That is just a DUMB statement, it doesn't mean that you are dumb, you figure out how to login here, so you are smart enough to learn. Thus, consider it !

 

I'm 39.

I served in the military, went to college, obtained a state license, opened my own firm.

The labor market most certainly still exists and still represents peoples value in that market.