106
195

[–] Thatdrumdude 106 points 195 points (+301|-106) ago 

I can't support a 90% tax, or even a 50% tax.

I believe all people should be taxed with a uniform %. Regardless of income just take 15% of everyones money. The heavier taxes should be against corporations themselves. But people, regardless of their wealth, should not be charged more in taxes simply because they have more money. They work for their income, they earned what they have. Regardless of how they got it, they managed to put themselves in that place. And taking 90% of what they have is totally fucked up. I still like sanders, but I would be vocally against a tax rate that high.

41
190

[–] crab_crouton 41 points 190 points (+231|-41) ago 

When you become rich, the vast majority of your money comes not from your salary but instead comes from gains and incentives, which are not taxed in the same bracket as salary. A 90% tax rate for the rich will hardly impact them.

39
92

[–] veritas23 39 points 92 points (+131|-39) ago 

If your money is coming from gains, and investments. That means you invested your income into it, and it has already been taxed once. Why should you be taxed again from being smart with your money?

10
59

[–] IMakeStuffUp 10 points 59 points (+69|-10) ago 

You may have a good point, but what gives government the right to decide that someone has too much money? Or that someone's life is too easy? The government should not force its standard of morality on its citizens.

1
9

[–] zambeezy 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

A 90% tax rate for the rich will hardly impact them.

That is not the goddamn point. Why do people bring up ability to pay. That has nothing to do with fairness

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 85 points (+85|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

3
24

[–] RandomResponse 3 points 24 points (+27|-3) ago 

Could you explain the difference?

To me, a 90% tax means for every 100 I make, I give away 90.

Which of course is ludicrous.

0
23

[–] WellThatsWeird 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

It blows my mind how few people know how the tax system in the US works. (The basics, of course). That being said, the only reason I at least understand it a bit is because of my BS in business. High schools are really fucking up.

0
1

[–] dregan 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This needs to be the top comment.

1
11

[–] helmetbox 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

They work for their income, they earned what they have.

Are you aware that for several decades productivity and cost of living has gone up but wages have been stagnant? Meanwhile, upper income has skyrocketed.

And taking 90% of what they have is totally fucked up.

This is a total misrepresentation of what he's talking about. Lots of misinformation in these comments.

0
1

[–] jimmiefan48 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Do you care to elaborate on why it is a misrepresentation?

0
10

[–] bob3333 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I believe all people should be taxed with a uniform %. Regardless of income just take 15% of everyones money.

Of course you support that, because it would lower your taxes. There's nothing a wealthy person loves more than the idea of having the poor finance a boost to an already extravagant lifestyle.

They work for their income, they earned what they have. Regardless of how they got it, they managed to put themselves in that place.

And what about people who didn't earn what they have - people who inherit trust funds, or large estates?

And taking 90% of what they have is totally fucked up.

That depends one where "what they have" came from. Did it come from running a business that eliminated American jobs and shipped them over to China? Fuck yes, take 90% of what they "earned" destroying wealth in the United States.

4
141

[–] Tsugumori 4 points 141 points (+145|-4) ago 

Marginal tax. Christ, that's completely different. I would have expected better from thinkprogress.

8
58

[–] BoiseNTheHood 8 points 58 points (+66|-8) ago 

I would have expected better from thinkprogress.

Why? They're another Soros-funded rag.

1
20

[–] Tsugumori 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

Usually they're accurate about things that make the left look good. I guess if it's Soros then they could be shilling for Clinton (and/or her replacement).

4
31

[–] mig2k 4 points 31 points (+35|-4) ago 

You expected something 'better' from thinkprogress?? LOL

0
7

[–] RunsWithScissors 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Almost no one understands what a marginal tax rate is. And the media's inability to explain it doesn't help, either.

0
4

[–] obijuanvaldez 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's really not completely different - in fact it's a rerun. The U.S. has had income tax brackets for a long time and has had top brackets paying 90+%. And Hauser's Law showed it has very little to do with the federal income tax take.

0
4

[–] Tsugumori 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Ah. I think you misunderstood my comment. I didn't mean it's different from what we have, but that it's different from what the headline implies.

102
91

[–] notawhitesupremacist 102 points 91 points (+193|-102) ago 

Bang goes the American economy then. Much as you dislike that minority holding so much money, they use it to keep your economy flowing and if you try taxing them till they bleed they'll just sod off elsewhere. We have seen it happen in the UK and France. Socialists bang up the highest tax rate, the rich leave and the tax revenue falls below the pre tax raise level.

22
187

[–] rurata 22 points 187 points (+209|-22) ago  (edited ago)

That is how it is supposed to work but instead of spending the money, the super rich just hold on to a lot of the money either in assets or offshore bank accounts so it isn't reintroduced into the economy. Read any story about the failure of trickle-down economics, and I'm sure they will talk about this. I'm not sure that I agree with such a high tax rate, but maybe there should be more incentives to spend money rather than hold on to it.

[–] [deleted] 28 points 30 points (+58|-28) ago 

[Deleted]

52
24

[–] Scine 52 points 24 points (+76|-52) ago 

How is it anyone else's business what they do with their money?

Would you prefer it if I went to you and told you that you need to spend your money on something else for people who were poorer than you?

0
4

[–] Agedwithaview 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Adding to rurata's comment, the super rich and giant corps have yet to enter into "job creation" mode when they are given tax breaks.

Further, for the 1981 individual income tax year, the highest rate paid by individuals on "passive" income (primarily interest and dividends) was subject to a rate of 70% on amounts over $108,300 unmarried single taxpayer - from 1981 IRS tax tables.

(In years prior the max rate ran as high as 80%.) Haven't studied Mr. Sanders full proposal but blind rejection without knowing the actual revenue impact seems short sighted to me.

One other tidbit, I would argue that the super wealthy enjoy a disproportionate share of the benefits of government and should pay a higher rate for the privilege.

0
0

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The super simple theory called trickle down economics has been disproven, lowering taxes doesn't automatically mean increased growth. But that doesn't mean that you can just raise taxes to any level without hurting growth. Like most debates the answer is somewhere in the middle. I obviously don't know the exact perfect number but I am confident it is much closer to 40 than it is to 90.

10
73

[–] Jerzeem 10 points 73 points (+83|-10) ago 

We've had a 90% tax rate on the highest bracket before. It didn't destroy the economy then. It did lead to other incentives being offered in place of additional wages. It's why healthcare is tied to employment, for example.

6
33

[–] BoiseNTheHood 6 points 33 points (+39|-6) ago 

We've had a 90% tax rate on the highest bracket before. It didn't destroy the economy then.

Because nobody paid 90%.

0
12

[–] lasercow 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

it also lead to rich people inventing an insane degree of tax shelters......we then lowered tax rates and limited shelters and loopholes......but that was generations ago

0
1

[–] heili 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You would see things like company cars, trips being given out as bonuses, memberships to clubs, access to things like boats, health clubs, and all manner of other things being used to replace that financial compensation that would suddenly be worth nothing.

0
0

[–] CommonSense 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

healthcare is tied to employment because the government imposed wage limits.

0
7

[–] Xer0 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

" Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out. Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average."

From the article. Read before commenting.

1
1

[–] notawhitesupremacist 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Except that the French actually whacked up the tax rate and all their billionaires buggered off to London. And their revenue fell. Real life, not theory.

2
3

[–] mig2k 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

You see this already in US cities. Rich folks leaving the fucking likes of NYC for example.

3
82

[–] NeedleStack 3 points 82 points (+85|-3) ago 

He's talking about MARGINAL TAX.

3
21

[–] obijuanvaldez 3 points 21 points (+24|-3) ago 

Of course he is. We have tax brackets already. In the U.S. we've already had top tier income tax brackets dinged at 90+%. Fun fact: nearly no one paid it. Hauser's Law shows that over a period of great fluctuation in the top tier income tax rate, the government's take changed very little.

0
4

[–] TrivialGravitas 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

That law would seem to have little relationship to the actual data with fluctuations from 14.5 to 20.6%, see your own link.

0
7

[–] Messiadbunny 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Yup, a misleading title and article.

4
-3

[–] zambeezy 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

It's still a SHIT PLAN

[–] [deleted] 5 points 69 points (+74|-5) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 26 points 1 points (+27|-26) ago 

[Deleted]

2
68

[–] Jokka 2 points 68 points (+70|-2) ago 

How the hell is Walmart going to send their business overseas? Lol They're a damn store.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 16 points (+21|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] eagee 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Haha, that's funny - what other civilized country is going to let them get away with as much criminal activity and tax evasion as they do here?? I think these crooks can go, and they can pay their proper share of taxes on the way out.

0
0

[–] austenite12 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The biggest companies don't pay taxes at all currently.

8
-3

[–] brother_tempus 8 points -3 points (+5|-8) ago 

Theft is still theft no matter who the person may be

[–] [deleted] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

10
-9

1
44

[–] DoctorRockso 1 points 44 points (+45|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Just to clarify that's top MARGINAL which is a difference than what the title suggest. Just to clarify in a simple system.

  • 0-10kg: 0%
  • 11-20kg : 10%
  • 21-30kg : 20%
  • 31-40kg: 30%
  • 41-50kg: 40%
  • 51-60kg: 50%
  • 61-70kg: 60%
  • 71-80kg: 70%
  • 81-90kg: 80%
  • 91kg+: 90%

So if my host charged that kind of "tax: for how much cocaine I bring to the party and I bring 100kilos of coke I would not be taxed 90% (90k). I would be taxed 45kilos of coke & keep the other 65. Essentially 45% taxation because ONLY after 91 kilos of coke am I charged a 90% tax rate. Each 10 kilos before that has a smaller rate. Just trying to clarify what they mean.

1
26

[–] sergeantslate 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

You can't expect these armchair economists to pay attention much less actually read the article unfortunately.

0
12

[–] DoctorRockso 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Yeah, but doctor rockso can try baby

0
1

[–] Zorton 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No, we get it, we just don't like the idea of saying "you've made too much money, we're giving it to someone else who hasn't".

0
1

[–] fuckingkike 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Or 68% at 200kg. Or 75% at 300kg. Or 79% at 400kg. And by the time you get to 9000kg it really is about a 90% effective rate.

The calculation doesn't stop just because you like the point you got to.

2
1

[–] lofalexandria 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Because at a certain level of income the numbers get so insane it doesn't even make sense to discuss them within the context of tax rates any longer. It is easier to think of it in terms of effective income.

http://lofalexandria.com/2013/10/rather-than-effective-tax-rate-lets-talk-about-effective-income/

Someone making 10 million dollars a year, at a 70% effective tax rate, is still earning over $1400 an hour.

As far as I am concerned if a person is so dissatisfied that their taxes reduces their income to a meager $1400 an hour, after taxes, that they would rather close up shop and leave the country rather than support it though high taxes they can fuck off and leave and nothing of value will be lost. No persons work, effort, output, or anything is so irreplaceable that they or their time is worth that much money. Market be damned, it does not matter that they can squeeze that much from the system, it doesn't make them worth it. At a certain point a persons net effect is detrimental rather than beneficial.

1
-1

[–] DoctorRockso 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

No it doesn't. Like I said simplified version of it. It does scale well. But at 9 Billion gs of coke... well I couldn't even do that much. BUT I CAN TRY!!

Also remember much of the coke I get at that level is "Narcotics gains" not "Income" taxed at a much lower % which will then be funneled through a puppet company in the caman islands, where I will draw it out through a Super PAC. Pass it through another super PAC & pay 0% income tax on it.

0
1

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

stupid drug dealers and their metric.

4
31

[–] aaronC 4 points 31 points (+35|-4) ago 

I know it seems unreasonable and extreme, but it's not. http://i.imgur.com/lbVy72k.jpg In fact, some of the best times in America were when the income tax was so high. But what is missing from that picture are the tax brackets adjusted for inflation. The last time income tax hit 90%, the highest income bracket, adjusted for inflation, was around 70 to 80 million dollars of income per year. The current highest bracket for 2016 is $464,851 or more for a couple filing jointly. That's a gap of around 70 to 80 million dollars of where income tax used to be, which is staggering.

If you're wondering why the highest bracket jumped from over $80,000,000 to $464,851, it's because the elite wanted lower taxes. And when you are making over $80,000,000 a year, there's not a lot of people on your side. But if you group all the hard working, well off proletariats in with your group, you suddenly have a lot more people on your side.

Sources: current tax rate: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx rates adjusted for inflation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/190500966/Federal-Individual-Individual-Income-Tax-Rate-Adjusted-for-Inflation (see 1936 region). [http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets](http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets) Wikipedia source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Income_tax_rates_in_history

Raising the maximum bracket would be great for everyone, because 99.9% of people's taxes would go down. It's specially help the people in the $400,000 to a few million bracket who are working class, but it would help others as well.

2
3

[–] bulksalty 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Write offs and ways to earn income tax free were much more common in that era as well, we collect a higher percentage of GDP via income taxes today than we did when the top rate was 90% (meaning no one was actually paying 90%).

1
1

[–] aaronC 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Yeah, but the differences between brackets was much larger. The current highest bracket is only around 0.5% of what it was at the peak.

1
0

[–] sirgallium 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

What I don't understand is how conservatives will say that even though this policy would help 99.9% of people financially, they say they still don't like it even though they are benefiting from it, they don't like the idea of it. It violates their "freedom" and "ideals" even though it helps them and everybody else. They care more about concepts than actually what helps apparently.

4
21

[–] TheBrokenWorld 4 points 21 points (+25|-4) ago 

Hell yeah. the '50s and '60s seem like they were pretty nice for Americans.

5
13

[–] Upvoats_McGoats 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

The 50's were so great because all other industrial powers were still reeling from being bombed into rubble. Everybody bought our goods and everything boomed because of it. It took several decades for everyone else to catch up to us. America became complacent and started producing shit quality. Industry moved to Europe and China, especially, where it has largely remained. Things have even out a bit but really the only reason we had a boom was because we had no real competition for 20 years.

3
13

[–] TheBrokenWorld 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

That's likely part of the reason, but not the reason that Americans lived so well in the '50s and '60s.

3
-3

[–] 0x4F 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

So I guess instead of bombing Syria we should be bombing England. /s

5
5

[–] BoiseNTheHood 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

The '50s and '60s also had a lot more loopholes and tax shelters than today, so nobody paid anywhere near 90%.

1
2

[–] bulksalty 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yep, for example you could write off all forms of interest, all medical and dental expenses or use annuities to avoid taxes.

1
0

[–] A_Fringe_Element 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We were financing multiple wars, a cold war with a nuclear superpower and trying to win a space race. We also didn't have a massive welfare state and an ethnic invasion on our southern border.

0
2

[–] 0x4F 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Don't forget college. We weren't spending more than $1T on student loan subsidies so that everyone could get a worthless degree in Tumblr Studies. Most people either didn't finish high school or went to trade school afterwards. College was really only a rich kid's dream, but it didn't matter because you could still get a decent-paying job at the Ford factory or some other assembly line and live a comfortable middle-class life. And actually, it was better then, because you didn't have these Marcusian troublemakers filling kids' heads with dangerous, irrational SJW indoctrination about the intersectionality of privilege and gender fluidity.

I wish Reagan hadn't closed the mental hospitals. A floor of padded rooms should be the only "department" these psychotic traitors are allowed to occupy.

1
0

[–] brother_tempus 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

That's because the dollar was tied to gold and all that New Deal Programs, rationing, nationalized industries, war-time embargoes and price control legislation was repealed

If they had lowered taxes as welll ... it would have been an epic surge of growth ion par with the Gilded Age, alas is was just a faint echo

load more comments ▼ (116 remaining)