Tax the rich and save the poor.

Oh that I agree with. I’d support drastically hiking capital gains taxes, even more than what you suggest.

That’s an irrelevant conclusion. The statistics themselves portray very little of the value on each side. It may appear to be unfair to make the top 0.1% of people pay 99% of taxes, but the fact is the top 0.1% people will have significantly more value left over than the bottom 80% of people. When it comes to peoples lives you can’t dismiss a statistic’s value for the statistic it’s self.

This would drastically ***decrease *** tax revenue. Instead of paying LeBron James $20 million a year, an NBA team would simply offer him $100,000 a year. LeBron himself wouldn’t request a salary above $100,000 - what would be the point? He’d forfeit every penny beyond that $100k floor/ceiling.

So rather than LeBron paying, say, $9 million a year in income taxes to Uncle Sam, LeBron would now instead pay…$0 in income taxes. Your proposal just lost Uncle Sam $9 million in income taxes from one individual alone. On a nationwide scale, your proposal would lose Uncle Sam *trillions *of tax dollars per year.
(I have no idea what LeBron’s actual income is, or how much he is taxed; these are purely hypothetical sums.)

So…then, the Cavs would have an additional $19,900,000 in taxable net income.

I’d also raise corporate income tax massively from its current 35%, but that wasn’t asked so I didn’t speak about it, foolishly assuming that people would understand that shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Are you implying we don’t tax capital gains? I’m positive there is some kind of tax on stock investment gains. I thought it was how people avoid paying their tax that’s the problem. Like they’ll exchange stocks or something like that.

So what I’m thinking is this, Trump want’s to avoid taxes on his tower so he invests his proceeds into a stock or another tower. That undermines having to pay the tax on his gains because he immediately reinvested it.

I’m not entirely sure because I’m not a corrupt rich snob but I think that’s at least one way people are avoiding paying the capital gains tax. This is all considering there is a capital gains tax which I’m pretty sure there is.

That was only the nominal rate. The real rate, although high, was much, much lower. That 90% figure in practice was probably no higher than our rates today. I’ve seen people argue both ways, but it was not actually 90% of the top-tier income.

So, you’ll have a universal 0% income tax, then? Because nobody is going to bother having an income above $100,000. Even if you tried to decide that people can’t ever take a pay cut below $100,000 (which would hilariously fail), no one will ever try to get paid more. In fact, this would be an absurdly great deal for corporations and people with substantial investments in them, since they basically get to instantly cut all salaries above $100,000. Maybe you can tax the various benefits that companies will now offer to their people, although that’s also pretty questionable as practical policy.

This will also destroy in-numerable forms of work that don’t rely on a very steady monthly salary. You can basically kiss all non-corporate jobs goodbye.

Remind us again how many people actually paid that rate.

Why draw the line at $100k? I mean, to paraphrase, after extensive taxing for the last several years it’s come to our attention that ‘the rich’ still have resources to last a month…dirty bastards should SHARE!! :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, I’m not sure what you think this would do other than destroy both the economy AND starve the government of resources, but it’s a pretty silly idea. If it worked, do you not think our European brethren and sistren would have tried it already? Oh, that’s right…they DID have stuff like this (though even they never tried anything as draconian and self destructive). How did that work out for them, again?

So, you’d drive out all of the ‘rich’ people AND drive away all of the corporations. Sounds like a great plan. What could go wrong???

LOL. Given your opposition to facts and data, might I ask if you’ve ever heard the phrase “kill the goose that laid the golden eggs”? Can you think of how it might apply to your proposal?

I would venture about as many people that pay the top 39.6% rate today.

The “Cavs” probably wouldn’t exist at all, at least, not in their current form. After all, who in their right mind would put themselves through all the years of sacrifice and training necessary to be an elite athlete for a measly hundred grand a year? The “Cavs” would most likely devolve into a team of enthusiastic amateurs that nobody would pay more than a couple of dollars to see. Again, net result is a massive drop in taxable income.

What effect do you think that would have on our governments’ budgets. Would we have a surplus, or a deficit? Would cities & states go bankrupt, or be rolling in cash?

ETA: beat by others

No. That’s not how accounting, economics, or the English language work.

If I go to the dry cleaners, and pay $5 a shirt, am I “paying for” their postage costs? The answer is no.

Indirectly yes you are.

If a business does not cover all their costs, postage included, they will not be in business long.

If they clean 1,000 shirts per year they will spread their costs (which includes cost of postage and rent and detergent and wages and all the other stuff) and a profit margin across those thousand shirts and charge you accordingly.

That’s not how it works. And what something actually costs is what it costs. There isn’t an intrinsic dollar value to anything. Other than another dollar.

The dynamics would certainly change but a lot of people would still play. $100,000 is still a good salary and better than a lot of inner city kids would otherwise be able to hope for. Tickets and concessions would be a helluva lot cheaper.

I forget the documentary (“When it was a Game” maybe?) that talked about football in the 50’s and 60’s. Players were paid so little they painted houses during the week to make ends meet. Even so they played.

That said I do not advocate a $100,000 income cap.

Apparently, the difference between revenue and expense is confusing to some people.

The $5 dry cleaning fee is revenue, and postage is an expense. Do you understand that?

OK, you asked for it. Cite?

BTW, and before you go look for a cite, would you like to bet? I’d really like to bet if you’re game.

Oh, and also btw, when we say “pay that rate” we mean “are in that bracket”. Not pay 90% (or 39.9%) of all their income

Yes I know the difference.

What is confusing to me is the point you are trying to make.

Seriously doubt any players above 4th or 5th tier high school graduates would play. Why would anyone who was really good play for $100k when they could go to, say, China and play for millions?? Saying that people played for much less in the 50’s or 60’s is pretty meaningless, since they weren’t anything like at the level that today’s players have to be at to even be on the bench. This would be moot though, since professional teams would also be taxed at a much higher percentage according to the poster in putting this plan forward, and most likely wouldn’t be able to stay in business even paying it’s players $100k.

It’s pretty much an indefensible plan that only someone who doesn’t understand even the basics would think was a great idea.