Let's debate merits of 90% top marginal tax rate

What would stop them leaving?

https://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/05/12/top-5-island-countries-with-no-income-tax/

Also, tax revenue would go down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Why not a 60% or 70% top tax rate? What is magical about 90%? Why is a $15/hr minimum wage awesome. Why not $25/hr? Just trying to understand.

You either don't understand how marginal tax rates work or you never listened to AOC's proposal. She want's 70% marginal tax rate on $10M+. That means that up to and including $10M you are taxed at the second highest rate. Only the money you make that exceeds $10M is taxed at 70%. There is no plan being suggested by AOC, or any other member of congress that would apply a 70% tax to the doctors and lawyers you mentioned. They are small fries.

My question is: what problem is making the marginal tax rate 50%, 60%, 90% etc trying to solve?

Seems like they've done some pretty large experiments with communism.

If I remember correctly they had to shoot their own citizens to keep them from leaving and the entire system collapsed.

I thought all tweaks in the tax code effectively accomplish are highly compensated individuals altering how they are compensated. Eg RSUs, equity, etc to go after the LT capital gains vs marginal income tax

I offer w/o evidence that the entire top 0.1% already do this, and altering the top marginal tax rate would not affect these earners. It would only impact windfall events such as inheritance [which are already taxed separately //11m exemption/etc, which have their own workarounds should the total exceed 11m]

Sales of business/etc already are outside this. There arent that many salaried professionals with a salary over $1m outside athletes and entertainers. Changing the tax code to 90% would simply cause them to use the equity loophole for LT cap gains that the boardroom set already does anyways. They just give themselves enough of a salary to cover 2 mortgages, 3 kids in college, the concubine and her kid, and the porsche with enough leftover for whole foods.

1) Who is AOC to determine what the tax rates should be? She's a bimbo.

2) The onus is for you to explain why the government should take 90% of any tax bracket and the owner of that money only get 10%

John Utah wrote:

Seems like they've done some pretty large experiments with communism.

If I remember correctly they had to shoot their own citizens to keep them from leaving and the entire system collapsed.

Seems like they set the top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980.

If I remember correctly US GDP grew at a higher rate during those years than it has since then. And shockingly, they did not even have to shoot their own citizens to achieve these results.

The onus is on you wrote:

1) Who is AOC to determine what the tax rates should be? She's a bimbo.

...

Awesome argument, dude!

Tax rates should be flat. If you don't pay tax, you don't vote. This would encourage the best and brightest in the world to come to this country and it would discourage the worst and the dumbest to stay away.

Not John Utah (Thanks God!) wrote:

John Utah wrote:

Seems like they've done some pretty large experiments with communism.

If I remember correctly they had to shoot their own citizens to keep them from leaving and the entire system collapsed.

Seems like they set the top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980.

If I remember correctly US GDP grew at a higher rate during those years than it has since then. And shockingly, they did not even have to shoot their own citizens to achieve these results.

it's always nice to cherry pick data....and I don't even know if your facts are right

John Utah wrote:

Not John Utah (Thanks God!) wrote:

Seems like they set the top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980.

If I remember correctly US GDP grew at a higher rate during those years than it has since then. And shockingly, they did not even have to shoot their own citizens to achieve these results.

it's always nice to cherry pick data....and I don't even know if your facts are right

1) Cherry pick data? That just shows how ignorant you are. The topic here concerns high top tax brackets, does it not? I "cherry picked" the longest span of highest top tax brackets in US history. Cherry picking, no?

2) You don't even know if my facts are right? Ummm . . . Google is your friend. But what the heck, I am feeling generous today. I'll be an even better friend.

3) Thank GOD I am not John Utah!

Back when America was great, taxes were higher. Just proves that Republicans don't care about making America great again.

Sad.

what would stop them from leaving wrote:

What would stop them leaving?

https://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/05/12/top-5-island-countries-with-no-income-tax/

Also, tax revenue would go down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Saying that Tax Revenue would go down is implying that we are either the top of the laffer curve or already somewhat to the right. This is impossible to tell, and this tool is only meant to illustrate the theory

ya..... wrote:

My question is: what problem is making the marginal tax rate 50%, 60%, 90% etc trying to solve?

Mainly the national debt. Policy makers on both sides have been in love with deficit spending since WW2, but especially since Reagan. You can’t have robust government programs, a robust military, and relatively low taxes without a ballooning national debt. Fiscal Conservatives died before 9/11.

Alan

Not John Utah (Thanks God!) wrote:

John Utah wrote:

Seems like they've done some pretty large experiments with communism.

If I remember correctly they had to shoot their own citizens to keep them from leaving and the entire system collapsed.

Seems like they set the top marginal tax rate to 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980.

If I remember correctly US GDP grew at a higher rate during those years than it has since then. And shockingly, they did not even have to shoot their own citizens to achieve these results.

I assume you would also support greatly increasing taxes on the poor and middle class? the tax rates on the poorest were much higher then also. I would also assume on a large increase in the number of loopholes for the rich as well? There were much more deductions available for the highest earners then compared to now. The top earners in the 50s and 60s paid EFFECTIVELY the same tax rate as they do today.

Pretty ineffective if applied to the current tax system. Would it affect Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney? Or most other wealthy people? No.

Solution has been, and always will be, to tax all income the same, at a progressive rate.

Obesity has skyrocketed amongst the poor and life expectancy rates are up 15 years from the late 1930s. Let's go back to a time when tax rates were higher and people were starving and people were dyeing much younger.

If all of the wealthy democrats would just donate 90%, the country's problems would be solved. It's interesting how Buffet, Gates, and Bezos keep most of their money in order to earn even more. Wealthy actors, athletes, and musicians spend all of their money on houses, jewelry, and cars.