A couple of places in the world have implemented it before. Hey, at least it gave the world "Exile on Main St."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/05/21/french-tax-soars-over-100/
http://thehistoryofrockmusic.com/1971/04/05/the-rolling-stones-become-tax-exiles/
How can anyone possibly think that's fair and ok? The scariest part is that this guy has tons of support.
Because people want their government to give them free stuff. Regardless of working or future impact. Where's my Obama phone. Approximately 50% of America pays for the other half.
If you're living off the government and doing nothing, why would you want change?
He was talking about the last time the US had a 90% top marginal tax rate. That was under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was also a period of tremendous economic growth for the lower and middle classes in the US. The current massive disparity over the distribution of wealth is partially attributable to very low tax rates on dividends and the top marginal tax rate. When taxes on dividends are high and the top marginal tax rate is high, investors will look for safe long term investments instead of high risk/high return bets. Corporations can afford to better compensate employees without running the risk of sudden devastating capital flight. The economy then become demand driven, like it was in the 1950s under Eisenhower instead of a bubble laden supply side economy created by the fed and low tax rates.
Precious Roy wrote:
He was talking about the last time the US had a 90% top marginal tax rate. That was under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was also a period of tremendous economic growth for the lower and middle classes in the US. The current massive disparity over the distribution of wealth is partially attributable to very low tax rates on dividends and the top marginal tax rate. When taxes on dividends are high and the top marginal tax rate is high, investors will look for safe long term investments instead of high risk/high return bets. Corporations can afford to better compensate employees without running the risk of sudden devastating capital flight. The economy then become demand driven, like it was in the 1950s under Eisenhower instead of a bubble laden supply side economy created by the fed and low tax rates.
What does taxes on dividends have to do with anything? Investors have already paid taxes on their earnings. They are risking whatever they invest. If they lose all will govt. compensate them? Roy, you say the most idiotic things on here. The reason for massive wealth disparity is because many in US spend all their money. They dont' invest. They buy 60' TVs and other crap when they could be investing it.
If you think most poor people have 60" TVs you're a crackpot. There's people out there who have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their kids.
Precious Roy wrote:
He was talking about the last time the US had a 90% top marginal tax rate. That was under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was also a period of tremendous economic growth for the lower and middle classes in the US. The current massive disparity over the distribution of wealth is partially attributable to very low tax rates on dividends and the top marginal tax rate. When taxes on dividends are high and the top marginal tax rate is high, investors will look for safe long term investments instead of high risk/high return bets. Corporations can afford to better compensate employees without running the risk of sudden devastating capital flight. The economy then become demand driven, like it was in the 1950s under Eisenhower instead of a bubble laden supply side economy created by the fed and low tax rates.
Roy, you should know by now that LRCers don't take well to reason and fact. It's become the fox news crowd around here as far as I can tell.
Don't forget Precious Libtard Roy, in those Eisenhower days, nobody paid 90% taxes because of loop holes that were wider than the Grand Canyon.
Taxes were LESS 'progressive' back then. Overall tax burden was lower. Lowest brackets actually paid 20% - shocking, and nobody paid close to 90% of anything unless you're fooling yourselves. Personal savings rates were much higher and thus people were financially independent. Liberals have done everything in their power to reverse those trends, and PS Bernie Sanders' following is a cult.
Sure Randy sure wrote:
Randy Oldman wrote:If you think most poor people have 60\" TVs you\'re a crackpot. There\'s people out there who have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their kids.
Sure there are Randy. There are some that do. But, why don\'t you mention the lazy azzes who are gaming they system?
Better punish the entire middle class just to stick it to those \"lazy azzes\", right?
Randy Oldman wrote:
If you think most poor people have 60" TVs you're a crackpot. There's people out there who have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed their kids.
No, a crackpot is someone who thinks that working 80-120 hours per week is not enough to feed your kids. How many kids does your example family have, 40???
Bernie Sanders will bankrupt the nation within a term. I'm tempted to vote for him and if he wins we can finally start a new country again after the place goes broke.
It's a horrible country now after 8 yrs of Obama in washington. Don't forget he was a Senator too. The economy has never been good since that clown arrived.
It's not coincidence. It's not Bush. It's not the Chinese. It's Barack Obama and the fact that he's more succsssful at stupid sh&t like naming mountains than bringing back an economy.
Apologize if you voted for Obama.
Eisenhower had nothing to do with the tax rates. It was Truman and Fdr before him. Stop making Ike look like some Marxist. He dealt with a Democrat Legislature who were insane. Jfk knew by 1960 something had to be done, and he signed a 20 percent cut on the top brackets taxes.
Oof wrote:
How can anyone possibly think that's fair and ok? The scariest part is that this guy has tons of support.
EXACTLY!
Precious Roy wrote:
He was talking about the last time the US had a 90% top marginal tax rate. That was under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was also a period of tremendous economic growth for the lower and middle classes in the US. The current massive disparity over the distribution of wealth is partially attributable to very low tax rates on dividends and the top marginal tax rate. When taxes on dividends are high and the top marginal tax rate is high, investors will look for safe long term investments instead of high risk/high return bets. Corporations can afford to better compensate employees without running the risk of sudden devastating capital flight. The economy then become demand driven, like it was in the 1950s under Eisenhower instead of a bubble laden supply side economy created by the fed and low tax rates.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. It is well accepted by economists that the U.S. Economy did well during this period in spite of these obscenely high tax rates, not because of it.
Europe was destroyed. Japan was reeling. China was sill in the Bronze Age. Who was going to compete with America during this time. The economic boom for the middle class had nothing to do with Eisenhower.
"IM NOT A CROOK"
Nixon wanted a commie healthcare system, and thought taxes were too low on the rich at 75 percent. Guy was a crackpot.
Robin Hood wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Bernie-Sanders-tax-wealthy-90-percent/2015/05/27/id/647105/
Bernie wants people to start paying higher taxes, except most exceptionally wealthy people have ways of finding loopholes. Whats the cut off for "rich" in salary to pay 90 percent taxes?
It will end up being 200k which means you bring home 20k after making 200.
A corn wrote:
Bernie Sanders will bankrupt the nation within a term.
The economy has never been good since that clown arrived.
Yeah, much better to elect someone like Trump, who has experienced bankruptcy before and is running on fiscally sustainable policies such as building a giant wall along the southern border, identifying and deporting millions of illegal immigrants, and maybe starting a war.
By the way, the economy has only improved under Obama's watch. It's been slow, but undeniably better than the tailspin W. Shrub and criminal investment bankers sent us into. Who knows how much better off we'd have been if Republican lawmakers weren't so intent on weakening the stimulus and protecting the filthy rich hucksters who tanked the economy.
On behalf of Obama voters, you're welcome.