Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[StLucieBengal]

http://m.mic.com/articles/119630/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-the-rich-at-90-here-s-why-that-s-not-so-crazy

[fredtoast]

Makes sense to me, but it would have to kick in at a ridiculously high mark, like over $20 million.

[xxlt]

Math don't lie. The highest rate was 90% (actually 91, I believe) in the 1950's when our country and economy were the envy of the world.

[Steeler Eater]

(06-01-2015, 03:41 PM)xxlt Wrote: Math don't lie. The highest rate was 90% (actually 91, I believe) in the 1950's when our country and economy were the envy of the world.

When unions were actually formidable. 

[fredtoast]

People with lots of money want to make more money. If they are given the option of making more money and paying 90% tax or not making any more money they will choose to make more money and pay the tax.

Most of the money made at that level is through investment of money instead of any sort of actual work. And people will always invest instead of sitting on their savings.

[JustWinBaby]

The tax rate and economic health are mostly unrelated, largely because policy has had only marginal affects on actual revenues (and there are many, many reasons for this).

Revenues were no higher when top marginal rates were 90% than they were under W. Sanders preaching 90% is the same old song that works with people who don't know any better.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 03:41 PM)xxlt Wrote: Math don't lie. The highest rate was 90% (actually 91, I believe) in the 1950's when our country and economy were the envy of the world.

Also the world had been blown to pieces and we were the only game in town.  That kinda helped. Not to mention that keeping 90% of any portion of someone's income is plain immoral.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People with lots of money want to make more money.  If they are given the option of making more money and paying 90% tax or not making any more money they will choose to make more money and pay the tax.  

Most of the money made at that level is through investment of money instead of any sort of actual work.  And people will always invest instead of sitting on their savings.

No they won't.  If you can earn $20 million and keep $12 million or work more to make $30 million and keep $13 million, nobody is working more.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-01-2015, 03:41 PM)xxlt Wrote: Math don't lie. The highest rate was 90% (actually 91, I believe) in the 1950's when our country and economy were the envy of the world.

Yup.....and I've always heard the theory that the businesses just paid folks a little more of the pie back then instead of giving so much to the government in taxes.  The more disposable income your consumers have, the healthier the economy as a whole will be.  Pretty simple......

[StLucieBengal]

(06-01-2015, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Makes sense to me, but it would have to kick in at a ridiculously high mark, like over $20 million.

Ofc it makes sense to you lol  ... Since you do not think people deserve to keep what they earn.   

[*michaelsean*]

Do these wealthy people get all of the write offs that they could use in the 50s? And how about all of the perks that weren't considered compensation?

[BmorePat87]

Not surprised given his political leanings.

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2015, 04:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do these wealthy people get all of the write offs that they could use in the 50s?  And how about all of the perks that weren't considered compensation?

The exemptions and deductions from the time frame of high rates are about the same as they are today.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1946.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1946.pdf

[GMDino]

(06-01-2015, 04:03 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yup.....and I've always heard the theory that the businesses just paid folks a little more of the pie back then instead of giving so much to the government in taxes.  The more disposable income your consumers have, the healthier the economy as a whole will be.  Pretty simple......

Trickle up.

Always works.

People who work and have less spend what they have.

People who invest and have more accumulate and can't spend enough to cover.

Its a no brainer unless you've been brainwashed by the trickle down folks for the last 35 years...

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 04:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The exemptions and deductions from the time frame of high rates are about the same as they are today.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1946.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1946.pdf

No they weren't.  They could deduct far more business expenses and interest than they did today. 

Is there seriously not one liberal who thinks taxing 90% of any part of someone's income is beyond excessive? Especially when your big example is post war America?

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2015, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they weren't.  They could deduct far more business expenses and interest than they did today. 

Is there seriously not one liberal who thinks taxing 90% of any part of someone's income is beyond excessive?  Especially when your big example is post war America?

I'm not saying I was for it. I'm just pointing out similarities. It should be noted that Bernie is talking after $5million, which is twice the amount for the top tier from the post-WWII era. Also, why is post-WWII a bad example? We've been dealing with costly wars nor for over a decade and have been paying for them with bonds. We need to make up for that somehow to pay it down. This is a post-war America as well. WWII may have cost us more financially, but it is the only war that has cost us more than the post-9/11 conflicts.

All of that being said, I'm for broadening the tax base, not raising the rate.

Edit to add: Where is there more that can be deducted?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040sc--1950.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040sc--2014.pdf

Not seeing much of a difference, to be quite honest.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-01-2015, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Is there seriously not one liberal who thinks taxing 90% of any part of someone's income is beyond excessive?  Especially when your big example is post war America?

Not to mention it's not going to sustain the expansion of government and entitlements...the "soak the rich" argument is a nice distraction from the need to nickle and dime the middle/upper middle class everywhere you look to get the real revenues pouring in.

Globalization is the great equalizer.  If you look at what the average US worker has vs. the average China worker, when there's no difference in skill to do a job that China worker will see their standard of living rise at the expense of yours.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not saying I was for it. I'm just pointing out similarities. It should be noted that Bernie is talking after $5million, which is twice the amount for the top tier from the post-WWII era. Also, why is post-WWII a bad example? We've been dealing with costly wars nor for over a decade and have been paying for them with bonds. We need to make up for that somehow to pay it down. This is a post-war America as well. WWII may have cost us more financially, but it is the only war that has cost us more than the post-9/11 conflicts.

All of that being said, I'm for broadening the tax base, not raising the rate.

Because post WWII is a very unique time in history.  The entire world was war ravaged, and there was one major player in the rebuilding and supplying.  

You also have to look at what was considered compensation.

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2015, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You also have to look at what was considered compensation.

In what regard?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what regard?

Companies could provide you with all sorts of perks that weren't taxable including housing.