Forum Post: 91% tax rate after the first $2,000,000
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 8:17 p.m. EST by FollowTheMoneyVideo
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te7cvY4LmI0
We need to institute a 91% tax rate after the first $2,000,000 of income - the way it used to be...
Seriously - Follow the money
I have a better way. We can use income inequality sliding tax rate. In this method the tax rate goes up when income inequality is high and goes and goes down when income inequality is low. So everybody will be mostly happy. Some people can still get really rich and class warfare (particularly on the poor) is under-minded. Concept was originally proposed by Professor Schiller Of Yale, PhD. Economist, Author, Still alive. Press the up arrow if you like this post.
But... But... Think of the yachts! And the private islands! And the castles! How are the job creators supposed to own these-- what is their due, as the Atlases undergirding the world --with such a burdensome and unfair regulation?
DARN these rich people! They work their asses off, employee hundreds of people, have families to feed, and businesses they invest MOST of that money back too.
DARN these rich people for buying a yatch with their HARD EARNED MONEY!
I couldn't agree more! They earned their money the hard way-- fighting off roving bandits with their own personally-funded, personal armies, building their own roads and transportation infrastructures, funding their own basic research and development, educating their own workforces with their own schools, and so much more.
All this, from the ground up-- Man against World, Man against Beast, and Man against Man: only the strong would survive; only the pure would persevere and Win, damnit- despite the ill will of those who would suck the blood of the pure like so many damn parasites. With only the light of St. Ronald Magnus and God-given strength, has Man attained more than swift and brutal barbarism.
Actually honey, these "rich" paid their fair share of the roads, transportation, education, etc.
Most of them even pay DOUBLE in taxes what most pay. So yes, my dear, they deserve to have that yatch.
That is what the AMERICAN DREAM is all about -- having the OPPORTUNITY and ABILITY to freely seek the life you want to live. There is no RIGHT to the American Dream, only the RIGHT TO PURSUE the American Dream.
Sorry to burst your bubble honey :)
Go Rand yourself, you condescending troll.
You painfully misunderstand what it is to be a part of a society. If these Atlases have paid their proper due to society, well, they've obviously failed to provide in your case. Darling.
Thanks for the name calling :)
It only gives you more credibility.
Tata for now :)
Goodbye, Troll. And good riddance.
Oh for God's sake: you petty troll. Give it up
Oh... I am sure you will be working for me one day ;)
Very close to the concept of maximum wage. And that's even the amount I've come up with that would be justifiable.
I disagree. I'm sorry, but while I consider myself very liberal, the Laffer curve does bear some semblance of truth. If you move the tax rate up too much for a particular group, the revenue will start to decline overall. Right now, we are to the far left of the Laffer Curve, which has driven us into horrible debt. But we can't go too far right to the Laffer Curve either, lest we be no better than hardheaded conservatives.
Taxes during the period of the 20th century that saw the greatest economic growth for the middle class were, by today's standards, outrageously high. He said "the way it used to be" for a reason.
But those were at different points of the economic cycle... Please follow this link and scroll down to the chart with tax rates by year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
The fallacy you're subscribing to is "Correlation equals Causation"
We didn't prosper because the tax rate was high. We increased the tax rate because we were prospering. It was a responsible Keynesian reaction to the post-war boom to offset the dramatic increase in debt incurred during the depression by increasing taxes during a time of prosperity. Don't get me wrong, we need to increase taxes and add tax brackets.. Since then, we've done nothing but lower them with false promises that revenue will go up (based on the false premise that we were on the right side of the Laffer Curve) and deficits will go down. It's absurd. All it did was ensure a permanent upper-class that reasonably spends more money protecting their other money through legislation(fighting estates taxes and anything that makes social mobility and new innovation possible) rather than investing. What was my point?? Oh yeah. 91 percent's too high..
Maybe so. But I still think it's highly absurd to accept the notion that making obscene amounts of money just to have it. A great many of the people who have the funds to stimulate the economy (creating jobs) are leaving it solely to the middle class (and lower, such as myself) to cough up a buck. They're just sitting on their money. Or as you rightly state, spending it to protect their money. And if your view is correct, why is it we had a tax decrease in the early part of this century when we were sitting on an economic surplus? Why did Regan raise taxes immediately after lowering them in 83'?
I'm not saying there's no truth to what you're saying. I agree with a lot of it. I'm just saying that it's an incomplete view.
Part of FDR's new deal was a very real maximum wage that didn't hurt the economy.
Then tax all assets. It isn't "bleeding someone dry" if a guy making $10 mil a year suddenly makes $1 or 2 or 5 mil a year....
An asset tax is dicey. It could hurt the average person too (a home and a car are considered assets). Also small business. But then again, I don't think 91% over $2 mil is "bleeding someone dry".
Ah thank you Atoll. I rescind it now and will stick to "Close all loopholes and off shore tax shelters and guys - strengthen our corporate prosecutors! Also - get these rich people to support the country that made them rich and shelters them."
:) that's the spirit!
Hell no! The rich are not the bad guys. The solution we need will help create vast wealth for Wall Street and Main Street. The long term solution is helping more Americans participate in and create personal wealth, not in punishing them for having achieved financial success. We can invest in the USA, create high paying careers and spread success, without punishing the rich. The Global markets have grown tremendously and there has been plenty of job creation abroad, without punishing the rich. We can achieve the same right here without making enemies of the men and women we should all try to emulate, rather than discriminate against.
Stupid idea. What about a hippie tax? Wall st would be worth a fortune.
Then what's the incentive to work hard and earn more than 2 million? What's the incentive to risk your own capital and invest in America if the government is going to take 91% of it if you succeed? You didn't really think this through did you.
And 2 million back then was a lot more than it is today.
If we just close the tax loopholes, we will have a lot more money in the government.
47% of you fucks don't pay taxes. We need a way to tax your worthless asses. Consumption tax is the only fair tax and maybe a flat tax. Men were created equal and therefore should be taxed equally. Work and contribute lazy fucks.
Why not just make it 100%. No one should have $2 million.
Why have it as high as $2,000,000? No one should be allowed to make over $250,000 which is plenty to have a very comfortable living, and there would then be more money for others to live comfortably as well.
Agreed, not even $250,000 but $150,000 you can still live comfortably
I am so tired of seeing people like you post up something like this. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "If you divide all of the money in the world up, by the end of the day the rich will be rich again and the poor will be poor again"
You want to know why? Raise taxes on the rich and see if you still have your job tomorrow :)
Go ahead, I dare you! Or, keep your thoughts to yourself and let the rest of us remain employed. It is people like YOU that will cause me to lose my job.
Thank you!
Ah the whole "Globalization - The Hostage Situation" thing.
Yeah I wonder how anybody can advocate the failed economic experiment called Free Trade after decades of experience....
I just can't figure out if you are serious with this post or just trolling.
It's idiocy like this that makes the movement lose legitimacy.
We need to stick to the idea that ALL of us can agree on - keeping money out of politics.
That whole video was one big rant about being poor and looking for a scapegoat... instead of going and getting a job, or furthering your education, so you can get a better one.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/to-all-the-tea-partiers-libertarians-1ers-and-ever/
Oh and - what about the Law School Grad Students? What about Joshua Persky the investment banker?
yep - and dont worry they'll make more to cover their expenses....lmao
Watch the unemployment rate go sky high.
The marginal tax rate is the lowest it's been since the Gilded age, more or less, and the unemployment rate hasn't been helped by that at all.
They're already sky high - where the hell were you?
Why would this happen?
Because you are taxing the job creators at a ridiculously high rate.
Job creators who aren't creating too many jobs. They have the money. And companies create jobs more than individuals. And before you call it, breaks could be given to small business owners (legitimate small business - not non-public "small businesses" like the ones the Koch family owns) to allow for that job creation.
You're kidding us with this republican branding-- of rich assholes who wine about contributing to the society that's a necessary condition for their current gluttony.
Get a brain, moran.
nope won't happen
FollowTheMoneyVideo,
How would you respond if I stated that a 91 percent tax rate was morally wrong?
its not
That's ridiculous! What would be the point of even tryin to make more than 2 million? There wouldn't be any point to succeed! We wouldn't have any companies, not even small ones, because there would be no incentive to make money if it's just taken away from you!
finally we got some people waking up these forums.. thats it.. once an individual has made x amount of wealth to provide all means of comfort.. and hit the ceiling so to speak... there incentive can change from making profit, to actually helping other people, improving the quality of the product or service they provide and doing something good for the world.. this would apply to individuals in corporations too. The only thing i would add is let the individual choose to some or to all extent with who to donate the excess money... there you will find more incentive!
I do agree with that- if I had more than two million I'd probably give most of it away. I mean look at bill gates! He's the richest person in the world but he also gives most o it away to charitable contributions. However, this choice of whether or not to give away your millions isn't societies choice to make, it's yours and yours alone. Just as it would be unethical to blow your millions on yachts and jets and other bullahit, it's also unethical to force that person to give their money away. It must be a free choice.
It would be automated in every bank you use.. you nominate your donatees prior and the excess would go to them immediately (providing the donatees are not over the limit ).. If you have no *donatees then the excess is automatically distributed to all other accounts in the bank that are not over the limit. In the beginning the billionaires would run to countries where the law is not enforced.. but eventually they would be taken down by international pressure.
Bill gates doesnt give much money away.. otherwise he wouldnt be richest man. Besides i hear that he funds eugenics programs - abuse of power
*not sure this word exists
I'm kind of tired of seeing the word "incentive". It's almost synonymous with "entitlement".
"I DESERVE the money I get" Listen. The average salary for heart and neuro surgeons in the US is just under $1 mil. They have tougher jobs than anyone on Wall St. A $2 mil limit isn't going to hurt these people, so why should an investment banker not drag his lazy a$$ out of bed in the morning and do his job too?
nope
You sir are a moron.