So, how much should we tax the rich? 70%? 90%?

drummerboy

AOC has managed to get the issue of higher marginal rates on the very wealthy into the public discourse in a big way. The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.

The issue of taxing the wealthy is more complicated than just raising marginal rates though. Capital gains should be taxed like earned income, and the carried interest loophole should be closed, to say nothing about revising the tax code to eliminate at least the more egregious loopholes given to the wealthy.

Not an easy task, but nothing will ever happen until it's at least being talked about.


tjohn
drummerboy said:
The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.

Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters won't be affected by a tax increase on the rich.  It would be nice if this point could be developed in the discussion AOC has started.


ml1
tjohn said:


drummerboy said:
The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters won't be affected by a tax increase on the rich.  It would be nice if this point could be developed in the discussion AOC has started.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans seems to harbor the fantasy that they WILL one day be super wealthy. 


Basil
ml1 said:


tjohn said:

drummerboy said:
The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters won't be affected by a tax increase on the rich.  It would be nice if this point could be developed in the discussion AOC has started.
Unfortunately the majority of Americans seems to harbor the fantasy that they WILL one day be super wealthy. 

Is that also why Trump is against it?


drummerboy
tjohn said:


drummerboy said:
The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters won't be affected by a tax increase on the rich.  It would be nice if this point could be developed in the discussion AOC has started.

Yes, they need to develop some very short sound bites which make it clear who's affected and who is not. Of course, the Dems kinda suck at sound bites.

Also, as an aside, AOC is being interviewed on 60 minutes tonight.


Philip
ml1 said:


tjohn said:

drummerboy said:
The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters won't be affected by a tax increase on the rich.  It would be nice if this point could be developed in the discussion AOC has started.
Unfortunately the majority of Americans seems to harbor the fantasy that they WILL one day be super wealthy. 

 As the quote I've seen attributed to Truman has it, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."


terp

Would someone please define "super-wealthy"?


FilmCarp

Of course that is subject to debate.  But try this:. If 70% of your income over 2 million is taxed that high, is it a hardship?


terp

I think the line is a rather critical point.


drummerboy
terp said:
I think the line is a rather critical point.

 Will anyone actually suffer if anything over 2 million was the margin?


terp

So, it's 2 million then?


FilmCarp

What should it be, terp?  


Philip

terp said:

So, it's 2 million then?
 

Since we're talking about the top marginal rate, I imagine it's based on the existing brackets (though in fairness, I haven't followed this closely and don't know if Ocasio-Cortez is also talking about changing brackets) --- what's the cut off for the current top bracket?


nohero
terp said:
I think the line is a rather critical point.

 Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's remarks put the 70% marginal tax rate at $10 million and above.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ocasio-cortez-suggests-individual-tax-rates-as-high-as-70-2019-01-04


Philip
nohero said:


terp said:
I think the line is a rather critical point.
 Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's remarks put the 70% marginal tax rate at $10 million and above.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ocasio-cortez-suggests-individual-tax-rates-as-high-as-70-2019-01-04

 Thanks for the details.


Tom R
drummerboy said:
AOC has managed to get the issue of higher marginal rates on the very wealthy into the public discourse in a big way. The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
The issue of taxing the wealthy is more complicated than just raising marginal rates though. Capital gains should be taxed like earned income, and the carried interest loophole should be closed, to say nothing about revising the tax code to eliminate at least the more egregious loopholes given to the wealthy.
Not an easy task, but nothing will ever happen until it's at least being talked about.

 Before I address the substance of your latest screed; some clarity is needed.

The title of this thread mentions the "rich", whilst the first and third sentences use the term "wealthy".

Are you suggesting that we tax people based on their assets (as we do, in part, with property taxes) or was you selection of terms an inexact euphemism for "high income earners"?

Thanks for any help in better understanding your point.

TomR


nohero
Tom_R said:


drummerboy said:
AOC has managed to get the issue of higher marginal rates on the very wealthy into the public discourse in a big way. The right is panicking and predictably using scare tactics as a defense.
The issue of taxing the wealthy is more complicated than just raising marginal rates though. Capital gains should be taxed like earned income, and the carried interest loophole should be closed, to say nothing about revising the tax code to eliminate at least the more egregious loopholes given to the wealthy.
Not an easy task, but nothing will ever happen until it's at least being talked about.
 Before I address the substance of your latest screed; some clarity is needed.
The title of this thread mentions the "rich", whilst the first and third sentences use the term "wealthy".
Are you suggesting that we tax people based on their assets (as we do, in part, with property taxes) or was you selection of terms an inexact euphemism for "high income earners"?
Thanks for any help in better understanding your point.
TomR

Everything in Mr. Drummerboy's post points to taxation of income.  Emphasis added above for, well, emphasis.


Tom R

nohero,

Well, everything except the explicit terms "rich" and "wealthy".

There are people who believe we should tax assets, and there are States which tax assets beyond realty.

Why don't you let the drummerboy speak, when, and if, they so chose.

TomR


drummerboy

I'm talking about income, earned and unearned. I'm not sure how a "wealth" tax would actually work, so I'll leave that be for now.



drummerboy

and geez, if you think this is a screed.....


Tom

A high bracket like that isn't unreasonable. If you make $11 million, you would only take home $300,000 of that last million. Think about that -- $300,000 take-home pay. 

And that's after your take-home pay from the first $10 million (let's say, $6 million). 


tjohn
tom said:
A high bracket like that isn't unreasonable. If you make $11 million, you would only take home $300,000 of that last million. Think about that -- $300,000 take-home pay. 
And that's after your take-home pay from the first $10 million (let's say, $6 million). 

In another words, why would I even want to even want to earn 11M/year if I have to give it all to the gub'mint.


ml1
tjohn said:


tom said:
A high bracket like that isn't unreasonable. If you make $11 million, you would only take home $300,000 of that last million. Think about that -- $300,000 take-home pay. 
And that's after your take-home pay from the first $10 million (let's say, $6 million). 
In another words, why would I even want to even want to earn 11M/year if I have to give it all to the gub'mint.

who would ever want to be CEO of Apple or Disney if you only got to take home 30% of that last $20 million a year?


author
ml1 said:


tjohn said:

tom said:
A high bracket like that isn't unreasonable. If you make $11 million, you would only take home $300,000 of that last million. Think about that -- $300,000 take-home pay. 
And that's after your take-home pay from the first $10 million (let's say, $6 million). 
In another words, why would I even want to even want to earn 11M/year if I have to give it all to the gub'mint.
who would ever want to be CEO of Apple or Disney if you only got to take home 30% of that last $20 million a year?

 Yep.............seven million dollars a year just doesn't buy much anymore.


Stanley
ml1 said:


who would ever want to be CEO of Apple or Disney if you only got to take home 30% of that last $20 million a year?

 Where do I send my resume?



Jamie

The 70% and 90% marks have been done in the past.  

Reagan's tax cut in 1981 reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%.

A great read in reference to this subject is: The Benefit and the Burden - Tax Reform - Why We Need It and What Will It Take.  By Bruce Bartlett.


ml1

and Alan Greenspan weighs in.

Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan thinks the Ocasio-Cortez 70% tax plan is 'a terrible idea'

Of course he does.  But he cites absolutely zero evidence why he comes to that conclusion.  I guess he figures "I'm Alan Greenspan" is convincing enough evidence.


yahooyahoo
ml1 said:
and Alan Greenspan weighs in.
Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan thinks the Ocasio-Cortez 70% tax plan is 'a terrible idea'
Of course he does.  But he cites absolutely zero evidence why he comes to that conclusion.  I guess he figures "I'm Alan Greenspan" is convincing enough evidence.

He's also a Republican.  Now that he's retired, he's free to bash opposing political ideology.


FilmCarp

I hate links with no explanation.  Give us a summary, please.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.