Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

[wehateporn]

America has been doing income taxes wrong for more than 50 years.

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.

The top tax rate that makes all citizens, including the highest 1 percent of earners, the best off is ?somewhere between 85 and 90 percent,? Krueger told The Huffington Post. Currently, the top rate of 39.6 percent is paid on income above $406,750 for individuals and $457,600 for couples.

Fewer than 1 percent of Americans, or about 1.3 million people, reach that top bracket.

Continued Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

[Joshua G]

yeah...a country with a statue of fuckin liberty should tax its most productive citizens to the point of communism. What a brilliant idea.

hey. if henry ford just paid 90% taxes, we could all be driving horses right now.

[420]

Why not tax them at 99% instead? Probably would be better if the tax laws were straight forward without so many loopholes.

[mineistaken]

huff post and leftards strikes new level of stupidity.

[DWB]

I'm not sure who I would rather see burn to death in a fiery crash, you or DVtimes. It's a tough call.

[bronco67]

No we shouldn't. We should just make sure they don't pay only 10% through loopholes.

Also, anyone making under 20k should be taxed 0%. Giving up a percentage of your money hurts more if you live below the poverty line.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

yeah...a country with a statue of fuckin liberty should tax its most productive citizens to the point of communism. What a brilliant idea.

hey. if henry ford just paid 90% taxes, we could all be driving horses right now.

You are kind of horribly misinformed. For a start America HAD your "communism" level taxes and the "fuckin' statue of liberty" survived just fine.

People like Howard Hughes and many other innovators all made squillions with high tax rates and it didn't stifle innovation. The tax rates were that high during the period of unquestioned American glory. Every old white republican arguing for lower taxes and looking back at the good old days of their childhood when America was strong is lionising the period of 90% tax rates.

There are actually valid reasons why a 90% tax rate doesn't stifle things that much. Firstly most idiots don't understand the government isn't taking 90% of your money, it really only affects people earning over $400k/yr so it doesn't stop the innovators dreaming about being millionaires and the guys that do earn a mill a year tend to only be able to do it for a short time, or they're so large they have 1 billion instead of 10 billion.
Secondly it encourages business owners to keep their money in/reinvest in the business which promotes growth, jobs and innovation as they try and find better uses for the money than taking it out as a wage to bump them from $450k/yr to $500k/yr.
Thirdly it promotes the demand side of the economy which is far more important than anything else. I've only ever increased my business due to customer demand. There is an acceptable level of higher tax I would pay to have more consumers willing to spend more money on my products although I wouldn't have a clue what it would be.

That said, no fucking way would I want to pay 90% tax and I don't think that level is reasonable. 50% tax and we might be having a conversation although I'd still try and minimise the shit out of it.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by bronco67

No we shouldn't. We should just make sure they don't pay only 10% through loopholes.

Person earned 300k. Post an example of how he would pay only 10%.
Note: deductable income is not loophole.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Also, anyone making under 20k should be taxed 0%. Giving up a percentage of your money hurts more if you live below the poverty line.

Good idea. I think its like this in the UK - anyone making under approx $16k/pa doesn't pay tax.

Id love to see if Warren Buffet still thinks he should pay more tax if he's offered the 90% level....

[SuckOnThis]

[woj]

the real reason is egoistic: "if they pay more, I'll pay less"
the rest is just trying to put a spin on it to justify it...
just think for a sec, what if the cut off for 90% was chosen below your income? (so some of your income would get taxed at 90%) would it still sound like such a great idea?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

yeah...a country with a statue of fuckin liberty should tax its most productive citizens to the point of communism. What a brilliant idea.

hey. if henry ford just paid 90% taxes, we could all be driving horses right now.

Actually, as you had that 90 % tax during the golden 40-60's, Henry Ford paid those taxes, or at least could have. Those golden communist times.

[Emil]

Yeah, because they wouldn't move to another country if that was the case. :P

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

leftards

...

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Emil

Yeah, because they wouldn't move to another country if that was the case. :P

US citizens still get taxed abroad

[aka123]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

US citizens still get taxed abroad

Although they can give up their citizenship.

[Barry-xlovecam]

This has worked well for France

[AtlantisCash]

he meant steal 90% from productive men's pocket and give it to the mostly parasites that produce nothing, suppose to be a good idea.

[k0nr4d]

All taxing 90% would do *today* is force more people to do grey-area offshore stuff.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

yeah...a country with a statue of fuckin liberty should tax its most productive citizens to the point of communism. What a brilliant idea.

hey. if henry ford just paid 90% taxes, we could all be driving horses right now.

Just a heads up but he was paying taxes when the USA had a 90% bracket so the answer is they did and we don't.

[Captain Kawaii]

taxes.derp

[MK Ultra]

90% taxes? WHAT A GREAT IDEA...!!







(...for all the countries that American wealth would move to)

[Cherry7]

Under communism there are no taxes. You keep all your wages. That is because property is communal.

The poor do pay tax in the UK, It is called VAT and it is 20%.

In fact the poor pay far more tax than the rich, they pay so much that their children go to school hungry and they can't afford to heat their houses.

Who earns how much is game, wealth production is complex with thousands of people needed to produce good, electrical generation, education, roads, postal services, fuel ...a person who says a person has made a million dollars has not thought it through. Could he have made a million without anyone else? On a desert island? You have to have a society there to exploit...

Like in this business you need all the elements models, photographers, websites, internet etc...Capitalist state power organises society so that a few people get 80% of the wealth.

A little thought would reveal the stupidity of a speculator making more than a teacher, doctor just because he can play the system

[bronco67]

If the rich are asked to pay more taxes, then the government will find new ways to waste it. We have enough revenue, it's just that the spending of it is so inefficient.

[seeandsee]

give back socialisam yeah

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

You are kind of horribly misinformed. For a start America HAD your "communism" level taxes and the "fuckin' statue of liberty" survived just fine.

People like Howard Hughes and many other innovators all made squillions with high tax rates and it didn't stifle innovation. The tax rates were that high during the period of unquestioned American glory. Every old white republican arguing for lower taxes and looking back at the good old days of their childhood when America was strong is lionising the period of 90% tax rates.

There are actually valid reasons why a 90% tax rate doesn't stifle things that much. Firstly most idiots don't understand the government isn't taking 90% of your money, it really only affects people earning over $400k/yr so it doesn't stop the innovators dreaming about being millionaires and the guys that do earn a mill a year tend to only be able to do it for a short time, or they're so large they have 1 billion instead of 10 billion.
Secondly it encourages business owners to keep their money in/reinvest in the business which promotes growth, jobs and innovation as they try and find better uses for the money than taking it out as a wage to bump them from $450k/yr to $500k/yr.
Thirdly it promotes the demand side of the economy which is far more important than anything else. I've only ever increased my business due to customer demand. There is an acceptable level of higher tax I would pay to have more consumers willing to spend more money on my products although I wouldn't have a clue what it would be.

That said, no fucking way would I want to pay 90% tax and I don't think that level is reasonable. 50% tax and we might be having a conversation although I'd still try and minimise the shit out of it.

so you spend 20 minutes writing all that, & in the end, you agree that 90% is unreasonable.

OK.

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by bronco67

If the rich are asked to pay more taxes, then the government will find new ways to waste it. We have enough revenue, it's just that the spending of it is so inefficient.

True, Fat envelopes for polititions, irresponsible spending of gov and burocrats, unreasonable military spendings and so on.

we no need that mutch tax if we want productive individuals/society.

[AtlantisCash]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

so you spend 20 minutes writing all that, & in the end, you agree that 90% is unreasonable.

OK.

i've lolled to this

[georgeyw]

Originally Posted by DWB

I'm not sure who I would rather see burn to death in a fiery crash, you or DVtimes. It's a tough call.

Well, more than one seat in a car

[pornmasta]

Wehateporn: you should receive a french honorary citizenship

[Seth Manson]

90% taxes would just make me work less as i reach the higher brackets. I'd rather have more free time than give more of my money away.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Seth Manson

90% taxes would just make me work less as i reach the higher brackets. I'd rather have more free time than give more of my money away.

When that would be relevant, the time you work is not so relevant. You know, you just skip the four hour lunch+golfing session, and go earlier to home.

It's so cute that people think that making money is just about working hard, especially when already being at the top notch.

[carpocratian]

A better way to approach this would be to close off the more ridiculous tax loopholes that are typically used by the very wealthy.

[OldJeff]

The simplified tax code

0-20,000 0%
20,001 - infinity 15%

Actual Net Income, IRS spends 100% of it's time finding people deducting their private planes, and Vacations to Fiji as business expenses.

Money moved offshore to be hidden is taxed at 100%

Now cut spending to responsible levels, deficit eliminated, national debt on the decline, and the dollar exchange goes to record highs.

If only I could be elected benevolent dictator

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

yeah...a country with a statue of fuckin liberty should tax its most productive citizens to the point of communism. What a brilliant idea.

hey. if henry ford just paid 90% taxes, we could all be driving horses right now.

Making a lot of money, does not make someone "more" productive than someone that makes less. Most extremely wealthy are not Donald Trumps or Elon Musks, they are almost always trust fund babies whom inherited their money from their family.

With these kinds of people, they are not producing anything, their money just grows because they pay investment bankers to babysit their money. They are not producing anything, but their accountants and investor are by using the money.

So a postal worker making $50k a year is far more productive than some trust fund baby that probably has never done a days work in their life,

Even still, I don't agree with taxing someone at a higher percent than anyone else. Everyone should pay a flat tax rate and there shouldn't be special treatment up or down the chain.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

US citizens still get taxed abroad

Yep we do. We do get a break on the income meaning that the first 95k is not taxable but that means very little.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by aka123

Although they can give up their citizenship.

And still be responsible for the following 25 years.

Citizenship and the IRS are not that closely related.

[Phoenix]

I think making sure they paid some tax is a better idea.
The fact that some companies who make their money by using natural resources which should really be paying the citizens of the country they are in are not even paying taxes is unreal. Also some companies are making billions in profits each year yet pay almost nothing.
Small mom and pop shops struggle and still pay taxes.

[PR_Glen]

is that info graphic actually accurate or manufactured like all his other shit?

if it is accurate, where they taxing at 90% because the country was prospering in the industrial revolution or did the high taxation kill it?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by pornguy

And still be responsible for the following 25 years.

Citizenship and the IRS are not that closely related.

How? And how will US enforce that?

[JA$ON]

make it whatever you like. Nobody will ever pay anything close to that. People will use loopholes, lie, cheat, MOVE out of the US. Whatever it takes. Nobody will ever pay that, lol

[aka123]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

is that info graphic actually accurate or manufactured like all his other shit?

if it is accurate, where they taxing at 90% because the country was prospering in the industrial revolution or did the high taxation kill it?

Or did high (marginal) taxation cause it (prosperity)? You forgot that option, maybe that was too commie or something.

[SekobA]

Huge percent...if they pay double it would be much better

[Seth Manson]

Originally Posted by aka123

When that would be relevant, the time you work is not so relevant. You know, you just skip the four hour lunch+golfing session, and go earlier to home.

It's so cute that people think that making money is just about working hard, especially when already being at the top notch.

I've been in the top bracket and it wasnt because I took 4hr lunches and played golf.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Seth Manson

I've been in the top bracket and it wasnt because I took 4hr lunches and played golf.

There is a point at which your additional work produces marginal additional benefits. The 4 hour lunch and golf thing is a cartoonish exaggeration but if you're a business owner (and you employ people) your management and ideas are generally worth more than your actual physical "work". A medical specialist might be in the top tax bracket and each consultation increases their earnings in a linear fashion but a businessperson increases their income by hiring additional people, outsourcing or investing their money well.
It's possible to be in the top tax bracket and not do THAT much work. It's just that the work is of a different more valuable nature. 2 hours of a boss thinking about strategy can earn more money than a data entry guy working for him for 1000 hours.
That's partially why a higher tax bracket isn't THAT much of a disincentive like everyone makes it out to be. There aren't that many professions that are so highly paid per hour that it's easy to hit $400k and work less.

To the other comments, I bothered replying because you were factually incorrect and engaging in silly hyperbole. Just because I agree that 90% is too high doesn't change the fact some dumb shit was posted.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

You are kind of horribly misinformed. For a start America HAD your "communism" level taxes and the "fuckin' statue of liberty" survived just fine.

People like Howard Hughes and many other innovators all made squillions with high tax rates and it didn't stifle innovation. The tax rates were that high during the period of unquestioned American glory.

Do you honestly believe that ANYBODY actually PAID that tax rate?

The reason it didn't "stifle innovation" was because nobody paid that much.

Back in the days of people like Carnegie, Biltmore, and Rockefeller...they were actually richer than the federal govt. (which is as it should be). Not one of those gentlemen ever paid income taxes...because Federal income tax didn't exist.

Neither did Howard Hughes...income tax did exist in his lifetime, but you can bet your ass he NEVER paid that high of a rate...ever. Didn't matter what the rates were, people just never paid that.

The period of "unquestioned American glory" had a federal govt. that wasn't a giant overbloated monster.

Surely to God you don't think they need even MORE money do you?

Right now Bill Gates is the richest man in America. He is worth 81.8 billion dollars.

The United States Federal Govt. spends that much in less than 8 days!!!!!!

Why the hell would you want to take money from people and give it to the Feds????

So they can bomb and kill even more people around the world? Don't they take enough of people's money already?

The U.S. govt. doesn't earn any money. It TAKES it from people.

And how would YOU like it if every dollar you earned...the Federal govt. took 90 cents of it. And THEN the city tax, county tax, property tax, and sales taxes...you would literally be working to LOSE money.

It's a joke. Nobody COULD pay 90% federal taxes. The math just wouldn't add up after all those other taxes (and don't forget the Obama Care "tax" either...plus paying all of your employees matching taxes and of course Social Security taxes)

If you've ever made any real money...you know what I'm saying.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Do you honestly believe that ANYBODY actually PAID that tax rate?

The reason it didn't "stifle innovation" was because nobody paid that much.

Back in the days of people like Carnegie, Biltmore, and Rockefeller...they were actually richer than the federal govt. (which is as it should be). Not one of those gentlemen ever paid income taxes...because Federal income tax didn't exist.

Neither did Howard Hughes...income tax did exist in his lifetime, but you can bet your ass he NEVER paid that high of a rate...ever. Didn't matter what the rates were, people just never paid that.

The period of "unquestioned American glory" had a federal govt. that wasn't a giant overbloated monster.

Surely to God you don't think they need even MORE money do you?

Right now Bill Gates is the richest man in America. He is worth 81.8 billion dollars.

The United States Federal Govt. spends that much in less than 8 days!!!!!!

Why the hell would you want to take money from people and give it to the Feds????

So they can bomb and kill even more people around the world? Don't they take enough of people's money already?

The U.S. govt. doesn't earn any money. It TAKES it from people.

And how would YOU like it if every dollar you earned...the Federal govt. took 90 cents of it. And THEN the city tax, county tax, property tax, and sales taxes...you would literally be working to LOSE money.

It's a joke. Nobody COULD pay 90% federal taxes. The math just wouldn't add up after all those other taxes (and don't forget the Obama Care "tax" either...plus paying all of your employees matching taxes and of course Social Security taxes)

If you've ever made any real money...you know what I'm saying.

Oh Robbie, your poor reading skills are coming to the fore again. I've already said several times 90% is too high and I wouldn't want to pay it. Don't know how you missed it. I can however appreciate how it might work on a hypothetical (and historical) level without slobbering about communism and the 'gubmint which was my original issue with the comments in the thread.

Robbie, I was in the top tax bracket in my country when I was TWENTY. I've run several businesses for well over a decade, I have employees and multiple properties, unlike some I'm not talking out of my hat.

I would support marginally higher taxes if the money was spent on infrastructure, education and anything with a decent return on investment for the country. A lot of that though would be closing corporate tax loopholes that has allowed them to shift the tax burden onto ordinary people and getting money out of politics.
Put it this way, I would still work and innovate at 50% top tier tax rates. I'd still look at doing everything I could to minimise my tax though, I wouldn't be HAPPY about it. but if I could see a long term benefit to the country, with less people trying to steal my car and more people buying my products, I don't mind a bit of welfare. My guiding principle is enlightened self interest. I'm not so strapped for cash that I see every dollar lost as some sort of crime. I have the ability to be a bit financially comfortable and above the fray to look at the big picture.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

Robbie, I was in the top tax bracket in my country when I was TWENTY. I've run several businesses for well over a decade, I have employees and multiple properties, unlike some I'm not talking out of my hat.

Put it this way, I would still work and innovate at 50% top tier tax rates.

That's very impressive.

I still stand 100% by my statement that NOBODY in the U.S. during the "glory years" ever actually paid those tax rates. It's impossible to pay the feds 90%, the city another percentage, pay property taxes, pay state income tax, etc. You would be paying in around 120% in taxes. It's impossible.

So your declaration of how great the "rich" did with 90% tax rates isn't correct. They never paid those rates.

And if you think you could pay 50% in just federal income tax and just keep right on rolling...I would say you haven't took the time to do the math on that.

Here in the U.S. that definitely wouldn't work.
If I had to pay an actual 50 cents of every dollar I earned just in federal income tax I would go broke.

Why? Because then I still have to pay Social Security tax. And then MATCHING funds for every employee.
And then property tax. And then city taxes. State taxes. Fuel tax every time I go get some gasoline. And of course sales tax on every last thing I buy.

It's insane how much you actually pay in taxes.
How much tax do we really pay?

According to that chart if you paid only 17% in federal income taxes...you are still ACTUALLY paying 43% in overall taxes to different govt. entities.

So quick math says that all taxes other than federal equal about 26% on average.

So if I had to actually pay 50% with no deductions to the feds...I would in reality be paying 76% in overall taxes.

Brother...I don't want to work every day of my life to only hold 24% of what I EARNED.

The govt. doesn't earn a goddamn thing. They take it from us.

That's the way I see it.

And every dollar the govt. takes from you is one less dollar that you could use to do things for yourself, your wife, your kids, your family, and to expand your business.

And what does the govt. do with the money?

Let's see, here in the U.S. they spy on us. They make defense contractors extremely wealthy. They use those weapons to invade other countries and kill people worldwide.
And of course funnel money back to their home states to their cronies in the form of pork barrel spending.

And the majority of the money that is earmarked to actually HELP people? It's mostly spent on...you guessed it: administrative costs. Which translates into more bureaucrats making a living sucking off of hard working people like you.

It's disgusting to me.

[TeenCat]

yeah

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Seth Manson

I've been in the top bracket and it wasnt because I took 4hr lunches and played golf.

Obviously, unless you get paid for the lunches and golfing.