Billionaire Michael Dell on 70% tax rate

allpurpleallgold

“Name a country where that’s worked - - ever”

https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/comments/ajbr5n/davos_billionaire_on_70_tax_name_a_country_where/

I can’t think of one.

RaceBannon

I'm guessing the guy is an idiot because he doesn't know about pre JFK tax rates that were 70% or higher?

creepycoug

Who's Michael Dell? Does he poast here?

greenblood

Denmark has a a plus 70% high tier tax rate, and it causes problems for them, as it's extremely difficult to start a new business there.

The biggest problem they have are the continued abandonment of their younger population. They utilize the free college, then once graduated, they leave for other countries. It's almost like people love socialism when they can benefit from it, but hate it when they have to pay for it.

allpurpleallgold

RaceBannon said:

I'm guessing the guy is an idiot because he doesn't know about pre JFK tax rates that were 70% or higher?

I don’t know if he’s stupid but it’s certainly a stupid thing to say.

RaceBannon

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

Why don't you talk about how the economy exploded after Clinton's tax increases or fell flat on it's face after 3 George Bush tax cuts?

RaceBannon

Why don't you fuck off since I wasn't talking to you?

I voted for Bill twice and the economy was great in the 90's but the tax "hike" is no more than it is today.

Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 percent income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. The taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon on transportation fuels and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits were increased.

That SS tax increase hurt the middle class more than the "rich" Reagan did the same thing

MikeDamone

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

Why don't you talk about how the economy exploded after Clinton's tax increases or fell flat on it's face after 3 George Bush tax cuts?

Ok. Let’s talk about it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/amp/

RaceBannon

The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars). In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.


If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

RaceBannon

BTW nobody thinks the collapse of the economy in 07 was due to tax cuts or hikes

Obama never got around to repealing those deadly Bush tax cuts that he used to whip up the simple minded. (Hi Hondo!)

2001400ex

Race is pressing.

I didn't say they were popular. The public hated it. Your point was that tax cuts created growth in the 60s and 80s. And I pointed to times were tax cuts or increases had the opposite effect.

It's almost like there's many other things going on with the economy than just taxes.

RaceBannon

That wasn't my point. You missed it. You need to read for comprehension. Your news source is lying to you

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

That wasn't my point. You missed it. You need to read for comprehension. Your news source is lying to you

Race is right. As always.

Pitchfork51

creepycoug said:

Who's Michael Dell? Does he poast here?

@thechatch

allpurpleallgold

RaceBannon said:

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

So I’m going to start with your framing to make a larger point. The country survived the rates and only exploded with tax cuts. But I’m pretty sure the countries best economic year under Reagan came after a massive tax hike. And I’m not saying that’s the reason why, I’m saying you can always come up with reasons why this worked or that didn’t work.

Economy explodes under Clinton, no doesn’t count. Craters under Bush, noooo doesn’t count. Explodes under Reagan, see tax cuts work. But it was after a tax hike, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOESNT COUNT. And, obviously, everybody does it.

This will sound familiar but I want the 70% top tax rate because I think we’ve got to do something. 40% of the country can’t survive a $400 emergency. It’s not even that tax cuts can’t theoretically work, it’s that I don’t trust the people who will get that money and I have found people that I do trust.

UW_Doog_Bot

allpurpleallgold said:

RaceBannon said:

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

So I’m going to start with your framing to make a larger point. The country survived the rates and only exploded with tax cuts. But I’m pretty sure the countries best economic year under Reagan came after a massive tax hike. And I’m not saying that’s the reason why, I’m saying you can always come up with reasons why this worked or that didn’t work.

Economy explodes under Clinton, no doesn’t count. Craters under Bush, noooo doesn’t count. Explodes under Reagan, see tax cuts work. But it was after a tax hike, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOESNT COUNT. And, obviously, everybody does it.

This will sound familiar but I want the 70% top tax rate because I think we’ve got to do something. 40% of the country can’t survive a $400 emergency. It’s not even that tax cuts can’t theoretically work, it’s that I don’t trust the people who will get that money and I have found people that I do trust.

You can actually measure these things. There's an entire body of science you can pretend doesn't exist but you still can't defy it's basic principles.

MikeDamone

allpurpleallgold said:

RaceBannon said:

Not all of us were there

This has been discussed here before. The country did survive the high rates but it also exploded with growth when JFK cut taxes then Reagan.

The tax code was a joke back then just like today. It was written so the rich could avoid ever paying anywhere near that. 70% income tax today would miss most of the uber rich too

I know the flat tax is considered some right wing nightmare but if you taxed all income as income regardless of the source, put in an exemption that eliminated the poor paying then set a rate at 15% or so you'd take in more money and simplify the dodges that are written in the code by bought off congresspeople

Too simple minded? Sometimes simple is better and at least we all pay the same rate so its fair I guess

I'd prefer to go this route than back to high rates and thousands of pages of deductions to avoid them. And as previously stated, Buffet and guys like that don't do much income tax. If you want at their money you have to raise the capital gains which has its own consequences or go flat.

TL/DR

So I’m going to start with your framing to make a larger point. The country survived the rates and only exploded with tax cuts. But I’m pretty sure the countries best economic year under Reagan came after a massive tax hike. And I’m not saying that’s the reason why, I’m saying you can always come up with reasons why this worked or that didn’t work.

Economy explodes under Clinton, no doesn’t count. Craters under Bush, noooo doesn’t count. Explodes under Reagan, see tax cuts work. But it was after a tax hike, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOESNT COUNT. And, obviously, everybody does it.

This will sound familiar but I want the 70% top tax rate because I think we’ve got to do something. 40% of the country can’t survive a $400 emergency. It’s not even that tax cuts can’t theoretically work, it’s that I don’t trust the people who will get that money and I have found people that I do trust.

The issue is your assuming ceteris paribus regarding the analysis. It’s a common error. When looking at other variables (like what was in the forbes analysis) it’s not accurate to simply say “tax increases caused economic growth” or “tax cuts caused economic growth”

Also, the math on the 70% of the tippy itop doesn’t generate near enough revenue for a green new deal or much of anything else.

https://taxfoundation.org/70-percent-tax-initial-analysis/

It would need to be extended much further down the income chain, and then we get back to the dangers of assuming ceteris paribus.

CuntWaffle

Pitchfork51 said:

creepycoug said:

Who's Michael Dell? Does he poast here?

@thechatch

Probably still in his hot tub with his diamond cutter

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

Race is pressing.

I didn't say they were popular. The public hated it. Your point was that tax cuts created growth in the 60s and 80s. And I pointed to times were tax cuts or increases had the opposite effect.

It's almost like there's many other things going on with the economy than just taxes.

Clinton raised income taxes while cutting capital gains taxes. The economy didn't really start to take off until after the Republicans took over the House, and put pressure on cutting spending.

HardlyClothed

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

Race is pressing.

I didn't say they were popular. The public hated it. Your point was that tax cuts created growth in the 60s and 80s. And I pointed to times were tax cuts or increases had the opposite effect.

It's almost like there's many other things going on with the economy than just taxes.

Clinton raised income taxes while cutting capital gains taxes. The economy didn't really start to take off until after the Republicans took over the House, and put pressure on cutting spending.

Of course you believe this. It had nothing to do with spending cuts, which probably only hurt the economy.

The 90s expansion was due to the tech boom and Alan Greenspan juicing the economy by keeping interest rates low.