I love how, in a Pit thread, we can cover every topic under the sun ranging from fascism to command economics to transgenderism to Trump to coronavirus to tax policy to free speech, high-speed trains, Keystone XL and flat-Eartherism.
Pass the Ritalin.
Just like during the Eisenhower administration, right?
Actually, those were marginal rates, not effective rates (is anyone really talking about a 90% effective tax rate on all income of the rich?), but our economy seemed to do okay with 90% marginal rates.
The marginal rates then had so many loopholes that all they really did was drive a lot of tax avoidance activity. Government revenue never climbed above 20% of GDP during that period. It hasn’t changed by more than 5% of GDP from then until now, when marginal rates were all over the place from 91% to 28%. They never translate into much more or less revenue because people are really good at avoiding tax.
If you actually intend to raise that money and spend it, we have to talk about effective rates. Raising marginal rates that can be easily avoided just causes deadweight losses and diverts money from the most efficient use to the one that pays least tax.
And if you did that, the stock market would collapse, along with everyone’s 401(k)s, new business investment would dry up, all risky ventures would cease, and there would be massive capital flight out of the U.S.
So are we raising marginal rates just to say we did something, knowing that little will change, or are we seriously ‘re-imagining’ the economy and stripping the investor class of 90% of their money so that central planners in government can spend it?
My god, you get stupider every day.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Well, no, we’d raise marginal rates to raise revenue. And I don’t think raising the top marginal rates to 90%, or somewhere around there, is the same as “stripping the investor class of 90% of their money.”
I also don’t see why the “investor class” should pay taxes at a lower effective rate than I do.
Whoa, I was scared there for a minute wondering what Prokofiev had to do with this, because I freaking love Prokofiev’s music. Happy to see he’s in a decent position. 
You know the answer. Not a single Democrat running for re/election is going to suggest anything like a 90% marginal tax rate. They haven’t even suggested clawing back the Trump tax cuts with any real sincerity.
Well, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren might. 
And they’ll get re-elected. And I’m happy about that.
You know they won’t. They had their chance in the 2020 election. What, you think 2024 is the year for raising taxes? 
Low tax rates, more than any other policy, is what the McConnell Gang are dug in on protecting.
We need much higher rates on really high incomes. Sam is very wrong.
I agree that the wealthy should pay a larger share of taxes. I disagree with him about the fact that Democrats intend to do anything about it and that there is no reason to fear monger about marginal tax rates going up to 90%. Nobody is talking about that.
The one thing he really isn’t wrong about is that the Tax Code renders upper echelon earners nearly impervious to the machinations of mere mortals wrt Marginal Rates:
And since this thread has a mind of its own …
I have no personal dissatisfaction that the linked thread above never caught fire, but – politically – I am surprised that it didn’t catch fire on this forum.
This is serious shit that should be a fairly high priority issue for every liberal, and – once the lobotomies are democratized [NPI] – every old-school conservative.
And nearly every red stater so easily gulled by the shit-gibbon, JFTR.
They don’t pay what we’re told they pay, and this is why we can’t have nice things.
Meanwhile, we’re all fairly easily distracted by (relatively) shiny objects.
Including me.
No, in keeping with the fact that Sam is wrong about almost everything, he’s wrong about that, too. While it’s true that upper echelon earners have access to significant tax shelters, the fact remains that big reductions in maximum marginal tax rates have been one of the major drivers of exorbitant top-executive compensation. CEO compensation has reached obscene levels, while typical worker compensation has barely – or not at all – kept pace with inflation. This regressive tax policy is among the reasons for the rapidly growing disparity between the rich and poor in the US, and in particular, between the super-rich and everybody else.
As others pointed out, your strawman here would be relevant if that number was proposed in a recent legislation or proposal; AFAIK, Biden proposed just an increase to 28% (from the current 24%) and Republicans like Thom Tillis and Rand Paul declared that the Republicans will undo any reasonable tax rise like that one if they take control.
Who was crazy again?
I know this fast-moving thread has long since moved on since I last had a chance to respond, but I can’t let this nonsense stand.
You’re wrong again. And in particular, you’ve completely missed my point in post #345. Let’s parse your last sentence – that I’m confident about my position on climate science because I have “done that” – i.e.- supposedly followed your advice and read enough about it to make my own informed judgments. If I have, due to having been interested in the subject for over ten years, that’s incidental and irrelevant. It is, again, a ludicrous and disingenuous argument on your part to suggest that no one should be entitled to express a view on a factual matter, whether on a message board or, much more importantly, in the voting booth, unless they have spent ten years becoming at least an amateur-level expert on the subject matter. That isn’t the way the real world works, and it’s certainly not the level of knowledge that we use to pick our elected representatives.
Furthermore, if I argue that my position is valid because I’ve done substantial reading on the matter, someone else can take the opposite position using exactly the same claim. Indeed, some time ago on a different board, I had someone of a conservative political bent tell me that he had “read up on climate change”, and as a result was now firmly convinced that climate science was bullshit and the argument for anthropogenic global warming was a gigantic hoax. Where does that leave your dictum about “looking at the evidence”?
The whole point in my lengthy previous post, giving examples about the kinds of bullshit that conservatives have often cited against climate science, is most emphatically NOT that everyone should become an amateur-level expert on any subject they express an opinion on, which is clearly absurd. The whole point is that one must apply common sense to identifying reliable sources of information, along with at least a little bit of critical thinking to distinguish reliable sources from self-interested propagandizing.
So for climate change, for example, the IPCC assessments, public reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the various joint statements from the national academies of the major countries of the world, NOAA, NASA, and the like – can be considered authoritative and reliable. Fox News and other highly political outlets, propagandizing websites of unknown provenance that have a history of peddling unscientific claims, and other sources of that ilk would be examples of the unreliable ones that one should never depend on.
It’s not hard, yet many Republican supporters and other right-wing types with a predisposition to disbelieve inconvenient truths are either too stupid to be able to make this distinction, or are exercising willful ignorance in failing to do so. As Upton Sinclair famously said, “it’s hard to convince a man to believe something when his salary depends on not believing it”.
This is a bit of a shell game. We have lots of posters on this board who have talked about 90% tax rates, how there shouldn’t be billionaires at all, etc. There is whole wing pf the Democratic party including a half dozen elected congresscritters who are ‘Democratic Socialists’ who believe in similar things. BLM leaders call themselves ‘trained Marxists’ and are heavily supported by Democrats.
But when we talk about this, suddenly none of it matters unless we can point to current or upcoming legislation that supports this stuff. If we can’t, then the crazy positions aren’t relevant and are off limits.
In the meantime, people on the right on this board are called to defend every lunatic nutbar on the right or disavow the Republican party.
We aren’t just talking about the current President. We’re talking about positons held by many people in the Democratic party, including some elected officials.
Also, the 24% to 28% increase is the least controversial of the proposed changes. Much more problematic is treating capital gains as normal income for tax purposes, plus a 4% ‘investment tax’, which would raise the effective capital gains tax to just about 50% from 29% today. That would have a dramatic effect on investment - especially long term investment and risky investment. And most especially when there is substantial inflation.
Piffle, the reality is that the most irresponsible positions are the ones already made reality by the Republicans. And they still have a lot of power. Again, until your straw man becomes political reality, you are just stupidly ranting.
Remember, it was you the one that pointed at what the parties are doing in government, your attempt at bringing the posters on a message board into the discussion of who is the crazy party on this issue of taxes made at the federal level, is just an attempt at avoiding how wrong you were by making that point in the first place.
You mean like your claim Biden is “doing everything the left wants”? You claim the left wants 90% taxes. Which is exactly what Biden will give us as he works for an increase from 24 to 28%?
No one’s forcing you to do that.
Which you could do at no ‘cost’ to you.
Problem is, you prefer to LARP as an American, conservative, Republican . . . and you can stop doing that any time you want to.