Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[treee]

Something needs to change with our tax code thats for sure.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-01-2015, 04:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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...

This is my opinion on the matter as well......deregulation really sounded the death knell for the middle class....if they had their 'druthers, we'd return to the labor scene of the late 19th and early 20th centuries......not a doubt in my mind.

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2015, 04:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.  

But most of the income in those ranges are from investment instead of any "work".

Are people going to stop investing their money and make zero instead of investing, earning more, and paying the tax?

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2015, 04:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Companies could provide you with all sorts of perks that weren't taxable including housing.

Are you sure?

 

Quote:If you receive payment in any form other than money, such as merchandise, room, or board, you must include the fair market value in item 2. However, if it is necessary for you to live on your employer's premises in order to fulfill your duties, do not include the value of the board and room furnished you. A minister of the gospel should not include the rental value of a dwelling furnished him as a part of his compensation.

That is from the instructions for the 1040 in 1946. The language we see back then is the same language used for the IRS for non-taxable earning from your employer related to lodging and meals.

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2015, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  Not to mention that keeping 90% of any portion of someone's income is plain immoral.

Actually the moral argument would be that people should not suffer without health care so that others can accumulate more wealth than they will ever spend.

Make all the arguments you want, but don't try to claim that morality is on your side.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually the moral argument would be that people should not suffer without health care so that others can accumulate more wealth than they will ever spend.

Make all the arguments you want, but don't try to claim that morality is on your side.

 

Absolutely morality is on my side.  Deciding a limit, and then taking virtually everything beyond that limit is   immoral.    Unless you are willing to give up everything beyond what is necessary to live so that others may have healthcare, you are no different, just on a smaller scale.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But most of the income in those ranges are from investment instead of any "work".

Are people going to stop investing their money and make zero instead of investing, earning more, and paying the tax?

Over $5 million?  I think plenty of people make that beyond investment.    But as far as investing, would you risk your money when you could only keep 10% of the profit?  That would be insane.  The risk/reward would be blown out of the water.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(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.

Shhhh! Don't mention that!!! We need to support those who make enough money to buy an island every year and their right to pay as little taxes as possible!! If they don't exploit our labor for inhuman amounts of profit, their great great great great grandchildren won't be able to live in mansions and never work a day in their lives, and that  is just plain un-American!

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2015, 05:48 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Shhhh! Don't mention that!!! We need to support those who make enough money to buy an island every year and their right to pay as little taxes as possible!! If they don't exploit our labor for inhuman amounts of profit, their great great great great grandchildren won't be able to live in mansions and never work a day in their lives, and that  is just plain un-American!

Shhh...don't mention everything else.  Who else built cars and produced steel for example?  Correlation is not causation.  

[StLucieBengal]

(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 fair to say liberals.   This is all progressives and socialists agenda.    And to answer your question...  No they actually think it's ok.   

[StLucieBengal]

(06-01-2015, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually the moral argument would be that people should not suffer without health care so that others can accumulate more wealth than they will ever spend.

Make all the arguments you want, but don't try to claim that morality is on your side.

working full time to only get to keep 10% is absurd.  There is no social benefit worth that math.   90% tax rate would kill growth.   

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-01-2015, 06:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: progressives and socialists agenda

I guess Glenn Beck really is still on the air, somewhere.

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-01-2015, 04:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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...

Sorry, but Ronald Reagan never mentioned any of this, and he reminded me of my grandpappy so I'ma take his word for it.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-01-2015, 06:16 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Sorry, but Ronald Reagan never mentioned any of this, and he reminded me of my grandpappy so I'ma take his word for it.

Lol.....love the tongue in cheek.


How many here have seen the archival footage where The Gipper's tie mic picks up the Merrill Lynch bigwig telling him to cut his speech short at the NYSE?  We were sold out long ago......

[GMDino]

(06-01-2015, 06:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: working full time to only get to keep 10% is absurd.  There is no social benefit worth that math.   90% tax rate would kill growth.   

And yet when we had it it did not.

Funny that.

Edit: Most (the vast majority of the people who would be affected by said tax rate do not "work" full time. Their money does.

[6andcounting]

(06-01-2015, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

It's only slavery when you take 100% of someone's labor. Anything less and it's social justice.

[6andcounting]

(06-01-2015, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But most of the income in those ranges are from investment instead of any "work".

Are people going to stop investing their money and make zero instead of investing, earning more, and paying the tax?

If the Powerball kept the same odds for winning, but lowered the payouts by 90% would people still play as much? Maybe, to an extent, because as far as anyone is concerned they are putting down a few dollars and hoping a mere coincidence gives them more money than they know what to do with, but that's a luck of the draw game. Investors who are making careful decisions about risk and reward will certainly respond to having the same risk with a fraction of the reward. 

[BmorePat87]

We could just cut military spending...

[StLucieBengal]

(06-01-2015, 09:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We could just cut military spending...

I don't mind this .... 15% across the board .  

And force them to balance a budget.   Not this baseline budgeting voodoo...    Everything takes a hit.  

That and a flat tax.     

And we can start selling off some of this land controlled by the federal government. Sell it back to the states. Fed gov owns an insane amount of Nevada for example.

[*bfine32*]

(06-01-2015, 10:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't mind this .... 15% across the board .  

And force them to balance a budget.   Not this baseline budgeting voodoo...    Everything takes a hit.  

That and a flat tax.     

And we can start selling off some of this land controlled by the federal government.   Sell it back to the states.   Fed gov owns an insane amount of Nevada for example.

Well actually last year we (military) were furloughed twice and there are plans for 25% reduction in staff. We have seen numerous other benefits cut as well.