Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is what happened when Maryland had the same idea ...

Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Better work on your code, most of your quote is missing.

You should read what Xtrozero wrote do a little math, he is talking about taxing the one percent a 100%. If not his 650 million is wrong.


A little fact checking shows:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I appreciate your finally citing an article that supports your opinion.

Though to move to another state in our country and moving to another country are not the same, so those figures do not pertain to the situation we are discussing.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Better work on your code, most of your quote is missing.

You should read what Xtrozero wrote do a little math, he is talking about taxing the one percent a 100%. If not his 650 million is wrong.


A little fact checking shows:

Federal Income Tax Data, 2011

1,042,571 Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

No, my side is just fine. He is talking about taxing INDIVIDUALS making $1 mil or more at 100%. His quote has literally nothing to do with businesses and business tax.

Do you know that if we taxed everyone 100% over 1 million that would only generate 650 billion, or about 1/3 the deficit for the year.

As to changing states is not the same as changing countries ... yes it is. Two thirds, 66%, of all millionaires left Britain within 2 years of them raising the tax to 50%.

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.



This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Of those who stayed, about 25% may still leave, and 41% cite high taxes as a concern.

Nearly a quarter of Britons worth £1million or more are considering leaving the country in the next two years, a survey by Lloyds TSB International found.

Nearly two thirds said the British climate was the main reason why they wished to emigrate, whilst only 41 per cent mentioned taxes.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Then what happened when taxes were lowered again in 2012?

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

That was only a 50% tax rate. Imagine a 90% tax rate. It would be catastrophic, and our nation would probably never recover.

a reply to: FyreByrd

This web site has a list of countries based on quality of life index. It is for mid year 2014. This also includes purchasing power, safety, health care, consumer price index, property price to income ratio, traffic commute time index and pollution index.
www.numbeo.com...

The US is 2nd, after Switzerland.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Wow. Now that's pretty fascinating. I never knew that back in the "good old days" the very rich were taxed so highly. Yet despite the higher tax rate, the country did pretty damned well for almost 4 decades. So much for the claims that taxing the rich is bad for the economy. In fact, from the looks of it, it seems the opposite. For example:

1. Notice taxes were lower than today in the 1920's. And a few years after the taxes for the rich were dropped? Stock Market Crash of 29. Interesting.

2. Kennedy, the Patron Saint of the left, gave the rich a 20% tax break. Wow. Compare to Eisenhower, a Republican, who kept the rates at 90%.

3. Regan was responsible for slashing the taxes on the rich by over 40%. And it was about then that the current trend of economic decline for the rest of America began. Also, despite these massive cuts, Reagan went crazy with the defense spending, putting us in massive debt.

4. in the 90's, taxes went up again, though no where near old levels. Interestingly, in the 90's, was the last economic "boom" this country experienced, and the 90's were generally an economically positive time for the majority of people, compared to now.

5. Later tax cuts for the rich=economic downturn for the rest of the country.


Definitely something to think about. I've often thought that trickle down economics provided little benefit to those getting "trickled down" upon, but this article puts it in a whole new light.

Thanks for sharing. First time I've actually seen an article in the Huff worth reading.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The debt would need to be resolved I agree. How well, leave that to the experts. maybe a combination of write off and pay off, by whatever means.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Did you disappear when I sourced everything I had been claiming?

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The debt would need to be resolved I agree. How well, leave that to the experts. maybe a combination of write off and pay off, by whatever means.

The debt is not even the biggest problem. The deficit is. If I owe $100,000 I am in bad shape. Assuming I am making money I can work out how to pay it back. If I am losing $10,000 every year because I am overspending still then I am done for, if I do not curb that spending I will reach the point I can never repay my debt. Ever. That is where America is headed. We need to curb our spending addiction before we can even consider working overtime to pay back what we owe.

Although many of the very rich are also people of very poor moral integrity, a tax proposal like this is much better understood by learning first the intent and the demeanor of the ones proposing it. This sounds more like it is intended as a punishment for being "rich" while others who do nothing except hold out their pathetic lazy mitt expecting handouts because they think the world owes them that only because they have so much less than those terrible rich people.

I personally despise certain rich people, but I don't use that as an excuse to become a proponent of their punishment just because they have more, even a lot more.

A 90% tax is the most idiotic and stupid thing any freedom liking American would support since it contradicts the entire founding principles of America still today. It is par for the course though, and does in fact mirror today's "double standard" where people tell you to go pursue the American dream and become successful.

But now, if you succeed at this in a big way like many wealthy people, you should be punished because so many others think they should get some of that simply because they are not successful, or motivated to be inventive enough to do likewise, so that means that the ones that are rich have what should really be yours. America is now a large herd of lazy self Entitled swine the current leadership is patronizing with ALL OF THE ABOVE, and they are easy prey only because of their own self interests. (Actually not all Americans, just those who buy into Bull's hit like this), which is usually peddled by Obama and his kind of vermin that currently infest American politics which includes most republicans as well, based upon them not putting a firm stop to this kind of lie, and even supporting so many obscene taxes. Taxes for what?? For services or for paying self entitled scum sucking worthless lazy pigs who would just squander it all anyway and still be poor?

Soon everyone will become property of the state and all your belongings will be a 3d printed copy exactly like what everyone else has, and the state gives you as a privilege.

The entire idea of INCOME TAX is illegal but ignored because the government knew that it's own people who didn't have a lot of money would support taxing rich people with the income tax, and even though that is what was sold to them was subtly changed to put the heaviest burden on the average semi poor to poor person so that those very rich would actually have loopholes and not really have to pay a dime, the self entitled remain incredibly stupid enough to continue to be blind and willing to support a tax like this 90% hogwash..

Keep living the American dream people, because it really is a dream. Reality doesn't come close to what America is sold to poor people as being, and they only keep believing the lies politicians tell them because they have that hand out like beggars instead of a people with dignity or integrity.

originally posted by: Cuervo
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.

Rise the lowest denominator up.....artificially......and make the government the primary benefactor. Yea right.

This is not going to assure you a job, stabilize the economy, or free you from debt. You will become a ward, a slave of the state economy. We already have test beds for this to observe. Its been tried and doesn't work.

They will take everything from the rich one day and then be rationing your rice and bread the next.

Today we have celebrities like Geldorf and Bono living in the UK and paying no tax here but they and their families use the roads, and every facility here. Where is the fairness of this behaviour especially when you champion the rights of the poor in other countries? These men suck in my opinion of pious self-rightness when you think about it.

I think that the rich who have the money to own homes abroad should be taxed by the different countries they stay in for the time that they have stayed within that country's boundary. Its a disgusting fiddle when you get out of paying tax when you have the money with which to do so. We should remember that honest people have committed suicide over their tax bills and many are killing themselves over corporation's fiddles such as Monsanto in India because they cannot afford their overheads - which wouldn't be so high were the rich to pay their fair share.

I also noticed that many so-called 'government advisers from other countries, who have lived here and interfere within our politics and law making, don't pay tax here and that is another thing that the government should be cracking down on immediately. Its time ordinary people stood up for themselves on this issue as the gap between the poor and the rich is getting bigger and the tax breaks certainly are a part of this as well as unfair wages for the work done.
have never paid tax to the countries they flit between should be charged a percentage.

All the off-shore tax break country's should be shut down especially the Virgin Islands where many including queenie tuck their money away. In fact if you keep money abroad from the country you live in, you should be made to declare it and pay tax on it at the rate your domicile fixes tax.

I heard mutterings that public services in the UK are to be cut deeper into yet again and this is an issue I would get on the streets to protest about as the fairness of this insults my sense of right and wrong.

a reply to: Nechash

If you're going to tax evade at 90%, chances are pretty high for tax evading at 40%.

As far the second post about 10% across the board, the rich save far more money than anyone, so it's not like it's an income/capital gains tax at all.

a reply to: AlaskanDad
So we should give the government more money they don't know how to spend. We could put some more shrimp on a treadmill. Im in.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Nevermind I have provided real world examples of tax hikes causing exodus of millionaires, both from state to state, and from country to country. The tax hike had the reverse effect of lowering the amount actually collected.

a reply to: Iamschist

You of course are for the simple screwing instead of a complex screwing.

Your constantly refrained, retained and refuted proposal from the Libertarians (if they don't object to any tax) and the right wingnuts is wholly unacceptable due to this one fact.

If the churn is spurned the economy stagnates into retro South American democracies. That is, the American Dream will be cancelled due to structural non-participation.

I do not defend THIS tax code. It is essentially what you propose, further elevating the income of the wealthy while the workers dive deeper into the hole.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Every time I see that you are a Flyerfan, I try to moderate my views of yours.

You are one of those folks who should never sit in judgement, sorry. You can not identify that the world is a statistical model, that it has infinite shades of grey. To declare that taxes are theft is a complete refutation of democracy. That a people should not band together for the common good. That every expenditure must be approved by the individuals involved or they don't participate in payment or subsequent usage. (Like clean air.)

That every individual is able to make proper determinations. Like slave holders as a fr'instance. Or the bottom half of the intelligence pool will learn the intricacies of derivatives and how to avoid unlicensed, unbonded counselors. Because you know they ARE individuals. That they should have expertise in EVERY endeavor because y'know, they just should!

It is an unsustainable fantasy that Libertarians occupy intellectually. They remind me of Heinlein saying every person, should be able to build a house, fly a plane and pilot a boat. Really? They demand that the rest of a society, which is fine with public assistance and regulations, to then conform to an impossible ideal where we are ALL equal in motivations, talents and resources.

How can this be considered realistic? Because of a profound wish they, WANT IT TO BE TRUE? That is religious in nature because nothing supports the fabrication of that DIsney Land in this real world. Licensing the sociopathy that underlies those conceptions will result in the absolute decline of every standard that civilization holds dear.

A child born in a public hospital is a thief. Public education is thievery. The protective aspects of government is thievery?

WTF is wrong with that ilk? Social benefits which actually increase social goods (Health, education, safety) are considered by them to be some form of parasitic invention. They are tools that even the inheritors of BILLIONS are allowed to use and they do regularly to their advantage.

The concept of pay-as-you-go for services is to most of us progressives fine as long as you aren't speaking of fundamental needs. The Coast Guard should save lives at the public expense. Building beach houses and insuring them, NO.

I am not fond of every public expenditure. I realize that the stink of politics results in inappropriate favoritism. I KNOW this. It does not sway me to the drum beat of more for me and to the dumpster with my 'inferiors'. This odious conflation of freedom and unleashed greed does not warm the cockles of my heart or many of my FELLOW citizens.

Go Flyers!

Slightly different topic...

If EVERY millionaire left the country, so what? It's not that we need millionaires to run the country (US Senate, maybe?) and their money is already international. We need to focus on taxing corpserations (sic) and their incomes that are generated HERE. I do not care where the holders of the stocks live. Tax the money at the source, heavily.

If you do decide to reside here, y'know, because it's relatively safe and so is your money, you NEED to pay for this privilege.