# What could be done with a 10% tax increase on the very wealthy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716 "2015-10-15T12:49:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/21 "2015-10-15T15:27:27Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > No but $77 billion would pay for the F-22 Raptor program with about $10 billion left over. We need more cool expensive jets to fight armies of Toyota trucks with machineguns bolted to the roof. We could still be paying for the Toyota trucks as well … ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/22 "2015-10-15T15:29:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > No but $77 billion would pay for the F-22 Raptor program with about $10 billion left over. We need more cool expensive jets to fight armies of Toyota trucks with machineguns bolted to the roof. Yeah, 'cause we won’t ever have to plan for any enemy or potential enemy in the future that isn’t ISIS or the like, right? Good thing China and Russia, for instance, will never be any sort of threat or something we need to at least think about! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/23 "2015-10-15T15:36:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Yeah, 'cause we won’t ever have to plan for any enemy or potential enemy in the future that isn’t ISIS or the like, right? Good thing China and Russia, for instance, will never be any sort of threat or something we need to at least think about! Depending on your [source,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) you might get different figures but if we assume these are at least in the ballpark: US Military spending: $610 B China: 216 B Russia: 85 B If we spend roughly twice as much as China and Russia combined, I do believe we have all the real and imaginary threats covered several times over. Cut half the military spending and make college free for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/24 "2015-10-15T15:36:54Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > So what’s stopping him? Probably the fact that he understands the difference between a symbolic act and a significant change in public policy. One person paying more taxes voluntarily is a symbolic act of little consequence (unless it causes a lot of others to follow suit). Requiring all the rich folks in his position to pay more taxes results in a significant increase in revenue and hence has a much larger consequence. People also tend to be attracted more to ideas that involve shared sacrifice rather than just “I am going to sacrifice alone.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/25 "2015-10-15T15:38:49Z")
We will need to pay an extra $5 billion or so on the [extra troops in Afghanistan that Obama said he was going to pull out,](http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-flip-flops-thousands-troops-remain-afghanistan-through-2017) but won’t. So that will eat some of it, or else add to the deficit. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/26 "2015-10-15T15:45:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Depending on your [source,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) you might get different figures but if we assume these are at least in the ballpark: > > US Military spending: $610 B > China: 216 B Russia: 85 B > > If we spend roughly twice as much as China and Russia combined, I do believe we have all the real and imaginary threats covered several times over. Cut half the military spending and make college free for everyone. We also have more commitments than either China or Russia…or, to put it another way, they mainly worry about us (or, at most, some other nations in their local neighborhood), but we have to worry about all of them (and be able to deal with them in their local backyards while not being from around there ourselves) AND deal with the schlubs in Toyota trucks as well. At least, that’s our current requirements. So, you are comparing why Google’s IT budget is more than the mom and pop ISP up the road and asking the burning question of why Google spends more on cyber security than the mom and pop ISP does?!?!?! :eek: (ETA: And to help your argument out, you might want to consider that though China’s military budget is ever increasing, at least half of that actually goes to internal security and their internal military keeping a lid on things…so, for the purposes of your argument they actually spend less on their military wrt external concerns like the US. Just to be fair to your argument) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/27 "2015-10-15T15:48:31Z")
> [@](#): > > We will need to pay an extra $5 billion or so on the extra troops in Afghanistan that Obama said he was going to pull out, but won’t. So that will eat some of it, or else add to the deficit… Yeah! And how much did Clinton’s “stand down” order in Benghazi cost us? We don’t know, do we? Once again, **Shodan** puts his finger right on the central issue that all those liberals are trying to distract us from! ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/28 "2015-10-15T15:51:40Z")
We could pull our troops out of Germany too … the Nazis fell 70 years ago ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/29 "2015-10-15T15:55:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We will need to pay an extra $5 billion or so on the [extra troops in Afghanistan that Obama said he was going to pull out,](http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-flip-flops-thousands-troops-remain-afghanistan-through-2017) but won’t. So that will eat some of it, or else add to the deficit. > > Regards, > Shodan I wish it were $0, but I like to think of it as savings against what we’d be spending if a Republican were in the WH. Whoever that was would be calling for higher levels than that! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/30 "2015-10-15T16:19:09Z")
[QUOTE=not what you’d expect] So, I’d like to talk about what a 10% hike would look like. How much money might we be talking about and what could we do with it? Would it be enough to pay for universal health care? [/QUOTE] Yes, and it would also cover college tuition for everyone, child credits and shore up Medicare and Social Security for the next century. It’s brilliant, and no one else would have to pay a dime. You da man, Bernie Sanders! ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/31 "2015-10-15T17:02:27Z")
> [@XT](#): > > We also have more commitments than either China or Russia…or, to put it another way, they mainly worry about us (or, at most, some other nations in their local neighborhood), but we have to worry about all of them (and be able to deal with them in their local backyards while not being from around there ourselves) AND deal with the schlubs in Toyota trucks as well. At least, that’s our current requirements. Some of those commitments could be assumed by our partners and allies, but won’t be as long as we keep offering to pick up the tab. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/32 "2015-10-15T17:03:24Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Yes, and it would also cover college tuition for everyone, child credits and shore up Medicare and Social Security for the next century. And the only possible reason that it would not be enough to fund all that, and more besides, is Republican intransigence. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/33 "2015-10-15T17:19:50Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Some of those commitments could be assumed by our partners and allies, but won’t be as long as we keep offering to pick up the tab. Well, leaving aside the question of whether they actually could or not (I’m going to go with ‘it depends’ for an off the cuff answer to that, since it’s complex), you get into a sort of catch 22 issue in this case. The US has it’s own strategic goals and interests, which we have to protect, so we can’t and won’t just stop doing this stuff in the hope that one or more of our allies step up. The fact is, most of our allies, especially in Europe, have stepped down…almost none of them meet the minimum defense goals for NATO membership (2% of GDP IIRC), for instance, and most of them continue to drop that further and further. And it’s unclear to me that they COULD increase that in any effective way, even if they wanted to…which most of them don’t, feeling that spending on social programs is more beneficial (or at least more popular) with their people than spending on that nasty defense stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/34 "2015-10-15T17:36:23Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, leaving aside the question of whether they actually could or not (I’m going to go with ‘it depends’ for an off the cuff answer to that, since it’s complex), you get into a sort of catch 22 issue in this case. The US has it’s own strategic goals and interests, which we have to protect, so we can’t and won’t just stop doing this stuff in the hope that one or more of our allies step up. The fact is, most of our allies, especially in Europe, have stepped down…almost none of them meet the minimum defense goals for NATO membership (2% of GDP IIRC), for instance, and most of them continue to drop that further and further. I would agree that “it depends,” as long as we’re keeping things general. But a lot of these countries are very rich. Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. They can afford to spend more on their own defense. The US has a shared interest in their defense; but generally those countries have much more at stake in any given regional issue (e.g. dealing with North Korea; Russia in Ukraine) than does the US. Hence, pulling back American commitments to those countries would create an incentive for them to step up their own investments in security. That would allow us to spend more money on domestic priorities (or reduce our tax burden) in ways that go directly to our national interest. > [@](#): > > And it’s unclear to me that they COULD increase that in any effective way, even if they wanted to…which most of them don’t, feeling that spending on social programs is more beneficial (or at least more popular) with their people than spending on that nasty defense stuff. They might be less inclined to feel that way if they didn’t have the luxury of taking the US security umbrella for granted. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/35 "2015-10-15T17:39:42Z")
The top marginal rate for those making more than $413,000 is about 40% for earned income and 20% for capital gains. What’s the proposal? To change these to 44% and 22%? Why not add more brackets; e.g. 44%/22% above $400k, 48%/25% above $1 million, 50%/30% above $2 million, or such? A household with $3 million taxable income would still be taking home $2 million or so, so they wouldn’t be \*completely \*impoverished. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/36 "2015-10-15T17:46:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The top marginal rate for those making more than $413,000 is about 40% for earned income and 20% for capital gains. What’s the proposal? To change these to 44% and 22%? Why not add more brackets; e.g. 44%/22% above $400k, 48%/25% above $1 million, 50%/30% above $2 million, or such? > > A household with $3 million taxable income would still be taking home $2 million or so, so they wouldn’t be \*completely \*impoverished. I am not generally a fan of CG tax rates being different (other than indexing for inflation), but if you’re going to have them, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have different brackets for different income groups. The (alleged) purpose is to spur investment, and raising the rates on higher income earners sort of defeats the purpose. Otherwise, yes, there is no reason to consider adding just one bracket except to keep things simple. If you want to raise more money, then more brackets is probably a good way to go, and spreads the burden more fairly (or less unfairly). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/37 "2015-10-15T17:52:15Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > I think what often gets blurred in these discussions is a distinction between aggregate _consumption_ of x (say health care) and how that consumption is _financed_. If the government took $1,000 more per month out of my paycheck but gave me “free” healthcare, I would be indifferent to the outcome even though my taxes ostensibly went up by $1,000 per month (i.e. a lot). It’s strictly a question of how my consumption is financed. And maybe because the government is so big and powerful, they can buy me $1,000 worth of healthcare for $900, so they only need to take $900 out of my paycheck and I’m actually better off by $100. Excellent point. And, considering the lower per person cost of countries with single payer plans, you might be able to implement one at very small additional cost per person. Since many not getting care now are blocked by the intransigence of their state governments, not lack of money, I don’t think that is much of a problem either. I think if we did this the money should go to infrastructure improvements, which is probably a better investment than healthcare and does not run the risk of running up prices. We have plenty of backlog. As for the amount and who, can we set an income distribution target that would match what it was say 20 years ago, and raise taxes until we get to that? It is not like the rich were not working during the bubble, after all. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/38 "2015-10-15T20:18:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If $170B would get us Universal Healthcare along the lines of Single Payer, sign mer up!! The US spends about 17% of GDP on healthcare and the government spends about 7% of GDP on healthcare. That means the private sector spends 10% of GDP on healthcare. If the government were to make up the difference that would be 1.8 trillion dollars per year. That is more than the government takes in income tax each year. Total taxes would have to go up by 60 percent each year. The top one percent paying 10% per year would cover 4.2% of the cost. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/39 "2015-10-15T20:28:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Excellent point. And, considering the lower per person cost of countries with single payer plans, you might be able to implement one at very small additional cost per person. Since many not getting care now are blocked by the intransigence of their state governments, not lack of money, I don’t think that is much of a problem either. > > I think if we did this the money should go to infrastructure improvements, which is probably a better investment than healthcare and does not run the risk of running up prices. We have plenty of backlog. As for the amount and who, can we set an income distribution target that would match what it was say 20 years ago, and raise taxes until we get to that? It is not like the rich were not working during the bubble, after all. Raising taxes to get a better income distribution target is probably not possible. According to a recent [study](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/09/28-taxes-inequality/tax-rates-redistro-simulation-release.pdf)if you raise the top income tax rate to 50% and distributed the new money to the bottom 20% of household it would afford each poor household less than 150$ a month and not affect inequality very much at all. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716/40 "2015-10-15T20:31:19Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Leaving aside whether it’s a good idea or not, here are some quick Google search facts. The top 1% paid nearly half of the [Federal income tax](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html) in 2014. Question: Does the ‘top 1%’ include corporations? Or only individuals? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-could-be-done-with-a-10-tax-increase-on-the-very-wealthy/734716.md?page=3)