Billionaire Michael Dell on 70% tax rate
https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/comments/ajbr5n/davos_billionaire_on_70_tax_name_a_country_where/
I can’t think of one.
Comments
-
I'm guessing the guy is an idiot because he doesn't know about pre JFK tax rates that were 70% or higher?
-
Who's Michael Dell? Does he poast here?
-
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.
-
I don’t know if he’s stupid but it’s certainly a stupid thing to say.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?
-
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 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 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 -
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/2001400ex said:
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 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 -
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." -
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!) -
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. -
What's it like to live in a world where everything good is from Republicans and everything bad is from Democrats?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 concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
-
It is a radical change but I think it generates more income than jacking the income tax because the ultra rich avoid incomeDoog_de_Jour said:The concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
The government knows where to find payroll tax payers and is likely to keep lowering who is rich because we no longer consider cutting spending.
State and local income taxes would need to align
I'm just a contractor
Simplicity is generally a good concept. Complexity is generally a way to hide things
A flat is more radical than a 90% rate to a lot of folks I'm sure -
You can measure them and the measurements are completely biased. That’s why one presidential candidate will put out an economic plan and a bunch of economists will say it’s amazing and a bunch of economists will say it’s terrible. Then the other candidate puts out a plan and the economists flip sides. It’s a pseudo science at best.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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. -
Yeah I posted the chart a little while ago. But when you factor in State and local and payroll taxes. The top 5% wage earners earn about 21% of the income and pay about 23% of the taxes. It's like that throughout all of the income brackets.Doog_de_Jour said:The concept of a flat tax has always chintrigued me, but I’ve never been able to come up with a way it would work practically. I’m no economist, but wouldn’t most of the benefits be negated by state/local income and payroll taxes?
If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax. Which is distorted like you said, mostly because the SS part of payroll taxes ends at $132k in income on capital gains and dividends aren't taxed for payroll.
So when you look at the complete picture, we have roughly a flat tax. Or it's a lot closer to flat than what is perceived.
Cue Bob destroying his keyboard in anger about facts. -
If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
-
I'm not looking it up again. But even if your number is right. Doesn't change my point or my discussion with de Jour.SFGbob said:If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
Shut up and let the adults talk. -
So lying is an adult discussion2001400ex said:
I'm not looking it up again. But even if your number is right. Doesn't change my point or my discussion with de Jour.SFGbob said:If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
Shut up and let the adults talk. -
You can shut the fuck up too. You are better than that RaceRaceBannon said:
So lying is an adult discussion2001400ex said:
I'm not looking it up again. But even if your number is right. Doesn't change my point or my discussion with de Jour.SFGbob said:If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
Shut up and let the adults talk. -
You add nothing than repeating a lie2001400ex said:
You can shut the fuck up too. You are better than that RaceRaceBannon said:
So lying is an adult discussion2001400ex said:
I'm not looking it up again. But even if your number is right. Doesn't change my point or my discussion with de Jour.SFGbob said:If you isolate just federal income tax, and don't include payroll taxes. The top 5% pay about 39% of the federal income tax.
Hondo, fucktarded ass always.
Top 5% pays over 50% of all income taxes.
Shut up and let the adults talk.
You seem upset.
