I think our tax rates are still a long ways from the point where I might get heartburn over concern that they’re too low.
Whoops 10 million. Point still stands.
Ps do you actually read Vox? That would surprise me.
If you want your tax rate to go down that missing revenue is going to have to come from somewhere. Which means you are also in favor of higher taxes on the rich.
Deficits bad
Taxes also bad
Wall money very good
Waiting for consistency seems like folly
Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, occasionally. I’m not eagerly devouring every article the instant it’s published.
No, there is another option here that you seem to be missing. Think hard about what it might be.
Is it “cut Medicare”? If so, focus on taxes.
Cut military spending?
No wall money?
Disband ICE?
Am I close?
Fewer FBI investigations.
I’ll go with “food”.
I’ll take the unsolicited advice under advisement. The next time you feel tempted to compose a sentence (fragment) with this format (“Which means you are also in favor of _____.”) I’d like to urge you to first consider alternative explanations.
The question was asked “What do you think?” not whether it was politically feasible or likely to occur.
I will also take the unsolicited advice under advisement.
I would support a 70% marginal rate on incomes above $10M. But the case many economists would make against it has nothing to do with how comfortable the person so taxed would be. They would say it removes too much incentive for executives and holders of private equity to create wealth for their companies and therefore also for the people who work there, and those who hold stock in the company, and all the businesses those people patronize, etc.
I doubt 70% is high enough to be a major problem in that regard. But it’s approaching that point, I think.
A look at history would be illuminating in this regard. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the USA had a marginal tax rate around 70% on earnings above some large number of millions of dollars, for quite a few years.
Did executives quit in any noticeable numbers? Did innovation and entrepreneurial activity slacken during those decades? Did Americans of means just stop what they’d been doing and sit on their hands?
Or did the USA have an ever-increasing surge of invention and creativity and growth?
…Imma gonna say, the latter.
Well, I said I didn’t think 70 percent was too high, but that my sense is that it is approaching the “too high” line (that is, if you value capitalistic growth incentives, which is not necessarily the case for everyone).
In any case, hardly anyone was paying that 70 percent. My grandfather was a real estate tycoon who used all kinds of perfectly legal tax shelters.
“Wealth enhanced.”
So taxes on the super rich are too high, even after the last round of Republicantax cuts for the rich. But they didn’t go far enough. Good to know. I’m sure the Republicans are going to be campaigning on that issue in 2020, just like they did in 2018.
And obviously the “Third Option” is record breaking budget deficits. We can fund tax cuts for the super rich by borrowing more money from China, I’m sure it will work out great.
I have no doubt they’re not going to campaign on this issue in 2020, but that wasn’t the question. Again, I was asked “What do you think?” not “What’s a winning campaign strategy?”
Think harder.
Let poor kids and senior citizens die in the street by eliminating or severely cutting social security and medicare and programs like WIC?