Billionaire Michael Dell on 70% tax rate
Comments
-
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. -
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.RaceBannon said:That wasn't my point. You missed it. You need to read for comprehension. Your news source is lying to you
-
@thechatchcreepycoug said:Who's Michael Dell? Does he poast here?
-
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.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
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.allpurpleallgold said:
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.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
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”allpurpleallgold said:
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.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
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.
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.
-
Probably still in his hot tub with his diamond cutterPitchfork51 said: -
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.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. -
Of course you believe this. It had nothing to do with spending cuts, which probably only hurt the economy.SFGbob said:
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.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.
The 90s expansion was due to the tech boom and Alan Greenspan juicing the economy by keeping interest rates low.
