It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I say do it, the rich would not go homeless nor hungry!


America has been doing income taxes wrong for more than 50 years.



All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania. The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is “somewhere between 85 and 90 percent,” Krueger told The Huffington Post. Currently, the top rate of 39.6 percent is paid on income above $406,750 for individuals and $457,600 for couples.

Fewer than 1 percent of Americans, or about 1.3 million people, reach that top bracket.


source



+21 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I'm a 10%er. Ten percent across the board, no deductions, no exceptions. The rich would of course contribute more, due to the huge amount they have in assets. The more you profit, the more you pay, but never more than 10%. Seems fair and equatable to me and would increase tax revenue considerably.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist

Our government currently spends over 20% of the economic activity of our country. A 10% tax would either require crushing levels of debt accrual, which would inevitably bankrupt us as a nation or the dissolution of about 60% of our government. I'm a 20%er. I think we should nationalize the federal reserve and roll back the tax level so it is fair across the board (including capital gains), but beyond that our government should spend within its means.

As to taxing the rich at 90%, it really doesn't matter. The rich do as they may, the rest do as they must. Oftentimes, countries with higher tax rates for the rich end up getting less of their money because this incentivizes tax evasion to a very high degree. I'd rather have a sane law that is fair to all people than an unfair one that encourages crime. Would you want to be taxed at 90%? Why would you want to do that to someone else?


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist

I say tax the 1% at 90% Soros, Gates, Kochs have to much money and it's ruining our political system!

Tax em, they'll not go homeless, nor will they go hungry!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   



originally posted by: AlaskanDad





I love that chart - it makes it so clear. Progressive tax rates were initially put into place to avoid the excesses of wealth that we see all around us today. It certainly didn't stop anyone from chasing the almightly dollar and I it didn't discourage inovation in any manner as so many claim.

An article on the subject:

www.alternet.org...

...with history and reasoning behind the progressive tax system of yesteryear....



Today, we are supposed to hate paying taxes. They are our “tax burden.” We vote for politicians who will reduce our taxes, even if that means destroying the welfare state. Conservatives’ century-long war against taxes has paid off by convincing everyday Americans to think taxes are a horrible thing that pays for government waste.

Our ancestors knew this was not true. The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. That’s right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldn’t overturn it.



Must be cold AlaskaDaddo, you've been posting a lot of good stuff the last bit. Thanks.

I think it's time for taxation to be based on NET WORTH rather then income.
edit on 23-11-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I'm a 90-%.
Put 90 percent of the rich in jail!

Starting with the politicians.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Iamschist

Our government currently spends over 20% of the economic activity of our country. A 10% tax would either require crushing levels of debt accrual, which would inevitably bankrupt us as a nation or the dissolution of about 60% of our government. I'm a 20%er. I think we should nationalize the federal reserve and roll back the tax level so it is fair across the board (including capital gains), but beyond that our government should spend within its means.

As to taxing the rich at 90%, it really doesn't matter. The rich do as they may, the rest do as they must. Oftentimes, countries with higher tax rates for the rich end up getting less of their money because this incentivizes tax evasion to a very high degree. I'd rather have a sane law that is fair to all people than an unfair one that encourages crime. Would you want to be taxed at 90%? Why would you want to do that to someone else?


I don't think you understand how a progressive tax works.

The first $xxx,xxx is taxed at the lowest rate,
The next $xxx,xxx is taxed at the next higher rate,
and so on
until you reach the highest threshold which would be taxed at 90%

The whole amount of income is not taxed at 90%



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Iamschist

I say tax the 1% at 90% Soros, Gates, Kochs have to much money and it's ruining our political system!

Tax em, they'll not go homeless, nor will they go hungry!




WOW! And some folk screech about the greed of the corporations! Seems that some folks think that greed in government is okay, not ever stopping to think that if they can take 90% of what Soros, Gates and Kochs have, they can take 90% of what THEY own as well.
But this attitude does answer the question I've asked of politicians many times without getting an answer: How much is enough?
So you would be willing to give up 90% of your income to be redistributed by government beauracrazies? Perhaps you would feel more at home in North Korea or China?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The damage super rich folks cause isn't because they have a lot of money, it's because they don't spend that money in ways that contribute to our domestic economy. A poor person will not hoard, will not invest in harmful ventures, nor will that person squeeze out small businesses with unethical monopolies. A poor person throws nearly everything right back into the economy.

We've seen what the super rich do with their money. It's essentially allowing money to be taken off the table so we have to keep printing off more and damaging our own economy. Consolidated wealth is not an effective way to create jobs or societal stability. You want jobs? You want stability? You want independence from debt? Rise the lowest denominator up and they will save the nation and create jobs.

So making the marginal tax rate at 90% sounds decent but I'd rather see that money go to a separate program that is specifically geared towards creating wealth among the lowest-income demographics. And, it's worth mentioning, that most people don't understand what a "marginal tax" actually is. It's not a straight-up tax rate on all income made by that person. A person needs to make over 400K just to even see the difference.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.


Taxes have caused the poor to go hungry and lose their homes, thats harsh!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Exactly this kind of thinking is bringing the USA down, right now!

What will happen if the 1% is taxed up to 90% (well, that seems a bit harsh, even I would admit)?
The accepted theory in economics is that the rich would start to invest their profits into their companies, again.

Again?

Yes, again. The tax HAS ALREADY BEEN as high as 90% - in the fifties, look at the chart. And that is no fake, it really was like that. Did it hinder the economic progress in the USA?

Nope. Golden times, right? Yes.


But nooooo, it must be North Korea and China - go play this tune to someone else! It is wrong and just throwing around a deceitful label.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

You are free to your opinions. Entrepreneurs and wealthy people spend their money on investments. Government spends money on consumption. While both stimulate the economy one of these things causes an increase in the means of production directly, encourages efficiency and add jobs to the country, which leads to wage increases and either price deflation or the increase in quality of goods and services, the other merely encourages inflation, which does eventually lead to job creation, but not through an efficient mechanism.

If you are all for bloated bureaucracies, totalitarian governments and inefficient and turbulent economies, go for your 90% progressive taxes. I'm for keeping as little power out of the hands of central planners as is humanly possible.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

The link to the "paper" itself is charging money to see it.

Does anybody have a free link to read?

Without the paper for reference, how can we determine how much money this would bring in?

How big a difference is there?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

Our government would not be the disaster it is, if not for the billions the rich have flooded into our politicians coffers!

We need a a government for the people, not one that is for corporate profits!







edit on 23-11-2014 by AlaskanDad because: sp correction


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Never understood the Robin Hood mindset.

How about leaving your neighbor alone and focusing your attention on making your situation better?

Forcing others to pay for your shortfalls seems un-american.

Just my two round shiney copper peices...



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Taxes go toward helping the poor, with housing, food and jobs, even job training. Losing ones house can be from an unexpected cause, which is tragic and has nothing to do with taxes. Losing ones house because you thought you could get a mansion on a regular person's salary is just extremely poor judgement. Banks encouraged this for a time, even so blood has never come from a turnip. Again taxes have nothing to do with it. If one purchases a house with ignorance of the exact taxes they will have to pay, shame on them.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad
I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you.


I would want this done to me. The marginal tax rate only applies to the amount over the margin (a bit over 400K). Who wouldn't want that problem?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Iamschist

I say tax the 1% at 90% Soros, Gates, Kochs have to much money and it's ruining our political system!

Tax em, they'll not go homeless, nor will they go hungry!





Gates has promised to give 95% to worthwhile causes iirc!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamschist

Taxes are not just income tax and many good people have lost their homes to property taxes. Many of them are elderly who were able to buy and own their homes, only to have their property taxes skyrocket as land values soared in the area they live.

How does one see into the future and know that their $12,000 home will someday be a 100,000 dollar property?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join