He must have been predicting ignorance!
Sorry. I meant to say “No. Unless it was delivered by a herd of green unicorns.”
I forgot to mention a side effect that’s probably due at least in part to the tax situation, but there may also be other reasons for it. When you win, say, a $50 million jackpot in a Canadian lottery, that’s what you actually win. There’s no bullshit about a vastly reduced “lump sum” amount vs. an annuity. You will literally get a check with 50 million dollars written on it, or a funds transfer. And there’s no tax withheld, and no tax owing. I understand that certain posters here refer to that as “socialism”. Personally, I like it. I also like how instead of going under water in the financial crash my house was continuing on its path of almost tripling in value. I love living in a “socialist” country! 
Yeah, OK. So you go along with OP’s completely incorrect premise and then add your own misconceptions and misunderstandings on top of it. I don’t know what to call the end result of all this obfuscation but “factual” sure ain’t it.
Agreed.
In as much as high taxes on lottery winnings (or lower payouts at the same tax rate) reduced the number of suckers, that would be a social good.
Does this mean it would be better if we taxed the winnings at 99 percent? No. At some point, if the net lottery winnings get low enough, we would see the return of widespread organized crime-sponsored illegal numbers. That’s the point at which I’d say that the government wasn’t giving the suckers a good enough deal.
Now, personally, I wouldn’t have bought a powerball ticket even if the average return for a $2 ticket was $3 (instead of an estimated $1.32). This is because unearned riches would have a lot of negative consequences for me. The example to our children would be terrible. My job would no longer seem as meaningful. The strain from friends and family upset over whether my wife and I shared the riches with them would be distressing.
In return, what do I get? A big detached house? Don’t need. Our neighbors on the other side of the parti-wall are wonderful. Flying in a roomy seat? Now, that would be nice. But the negatives of sudden and unearned riches far outweigh positives, from where I sit.
Now, if our children were hungry, or ill-clothed, or if it was impossible to send them to decent schools, of course, that would be different.
Is there a thumbs-up emoticon on StraightDope? This deserves two big ones.
If you are saying Sanders is not a socialist, obviously you are wrong. I don’t think you need a cite.
If you are saying he is not a ninny, you are still wrong but it is a matter of opinion and no cite is necessary.
If you are saying that he didn’t say that a 90% tax rate was not too high, that is wrong and a cite showing this has already been supplied. If you are claiming that he did not back off from that statement, again, wrong and has been cited.
So no explanation is necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Your last sentence is clearly in error.
Sanders said he would not propose a 90% tax rate.
Sanders said that he did not think a 90% tax rate was obviously too high.
These statements are not contradictory.
Do you understand yet? If not, I have a helpful analogy about quinoa, my planned dinner menu, and my opinion of its healthfulness that might help you.
Looks like you’re compounding the ridiculous assumptions of the OP by blending in a spurious “double taxation” argument.
Works like this:
Everyone wants things like roads and schools and police and fire departments. Intelligent people realize we have to pay for all that stuff so we need taxes.
But conservative math at its finest says we should cut taxes and still have all that stuff. Because we’re entitled to it even if we don’t want to pay for it.
No, I understand perfectly. What I said is correct, and you are trying (without success) to talk it away.
Regards,
Shodan
At this point, all you have is a double-down, with no additional facts. I figure we’re done.
Yes, you are.
Regards,
Shodan
Um, no.
First, Bernie explicitly said he did not want a 90% tax rate, as was cited in the second post in this thread. I find it hard to believe that you missed that post, but just in case, here’s what Bernie said:
Hopefully this corrects your oversight and pretty egregious misstatement about what Bernie’s tax plan is.
Second, to your example, even at 90%, that last $25 would leave you with more than 2.5%. We’re talking about a marginal tax rate. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it. Read this and other sources online. It’ll really help you understand this difficult concept!
So the thing is, different amounts of that $25 dollars will be taxed at different rates. What those rates are, and where those lines are, are part of what makes up a robust tax policy. Maybe the top $20 of that money would be taxed at 90% and the first $5 wouldn’t be taxed at all, leaving you with $7. Maybe all income under $30 isn’t taxed at all, so you end up getting to keep the whole $25. You don’t really know, and looking at a made up 90% top marginal tax rate that no one is proposing does not in any way lend itself to simple reductions like yours.
His point is that what is true for lotteries is also true for other things like starting a business. If you make the payoff smaller by increasing taxes, then fewer people will do it. Fewer businesses started means fewer jobs, fewer innovations, and a reduced standard of living.
I get this principle. But we’re talking about top marginal rates, right? Do you have any evidence that increasing the top marginal rates discourages entrepreneurship or innovation? Did this happen though the bulk of the 20th century?
The high-tax 1950’s and 1960’s were a time of great prosperity and innovation. Contrary to predictions by Gingrich, the Clinton 1993 tax hikes were followed by one of the greatest periods of innovation and prosperity ever.
But those are just facts. American politics are no longer expected to be reality-based.
Yes, it used to be “cut taxes and cut expenses (except military)” Now it’s “cut taxes, increase expenses, then blame the Democrats when they have to raises taxes to stop the govt from going bankrupt”. :rolleyes:
You get the principle but don’t believe it applies to innovation? Why not?
This did happen through the bulk of the 20th century. Take Sweden which was one of the richest countries in the world throughout most of the twentieth century. They then started raising tax rates from 1970 to 1990 and fell behind. After 1994 it cut tax rates and started growing faster. The same think happened to the UK. In 1980 it had a smaller economy than Italy, Germany, and France. It cut taxes and then over the next 25 years grew faster and became a bigger economy than all three.
If you increase the reward of an activity then you get more of that activity. It is a simple part of human nature and applies to business just as well as everything else.
Because it’s not that simple. The top tax bracket is in the $400 000 range. If I am a plumber making $40K/year, the top tax bracket isn’t going to stop me starting up a small company so I can start pulling $200K/year. It’s not going to stop me from trying to sell this new sprocket I invented. Yes, once I start edging towards the top bracket, I may not feel it’s worth it to expand further but the invention and entrepreneurship wouldn’t have been cancelled.
In 1953 when Eisenhower was inaugurated the effective top rate was 49%. It went down every year of the 1950s and was 31% by 1960. In 1964 the Tax Reduction Act reduced taxes across the board by 20%. The 1950s and 1960s were an era of falling tax rates and increased innovation.
In 1997 after Republicans took over congress, Clinton signed a 28% reduction in the capital gains tax. This lowered the effective top rate and that is when the boom took off.
Those are the facts.
Small companies are not what provide jobs or innovation. Only 25% of small company owners is interested in making their company bigger. It is young, small companies that become big companies. These companies need two things, people willing to take risks and capital. Cutting the rewards for growing companies would hamper both of these things.