4 ms·

The 80% sounds over the top to myself as well, but in the article they were using it in reference to someone with an income of 1 billion dollars per year. To my

The 80% sounds over the top to myself as well, but in the article they were using it in reference to someone with an income of 1 billion dollars per year. To my mind, 80% on 1 billion isn't so crazy. It sounds like the far end of the scaled tax curve. As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of people (like maybe five) that make in excess of 1 billion a year. I work with government agencies and I am all for them being more accountable, I have no doubt that they could spend a lot less than they do. On the other hand, I am entirely unwilling to wait for them to become more efficient before deciding to severely tax the five people who make over 1 billion per year.

joslin01 11y ago
So if you taxed those 5 people, you would make 4 billion. We spend over 3 trillion a year. Do you really think the punishment fits the crime? Wiser management of federal resources would go a lot further than throwing more money down the hole.
- cmiles74 11y ago
  If this tax regime was put in place, people would find other ways to shelter their money; I don't think the government would end up with a significant windfall. Maybe they'd invest in their company or start a new company and invest in that. I'm sure that with such a large income, they would have many places to put that money.
  - joslin01 11y ago
    I agree, which is more reason against it.
askafriend 11y ago
Come on you two, don't be so thick. He wasn't seriously suggesting we tax at 80%. He was using that as an extreme example to make a point.
dave_sullivan 11y ago
I have no doubt that they could spend a lot less than they do. On the other hand, I am entirely unwilling to wait for them to become more efficient before deciding to severely tax That sounds to me like, "We can't get our ship in order, so lets rob someone who can instead of fixing it and we'll fix it later (but we won't because note what we've done in the current example)." The problem for government is less "not enough money" and more "we don't know how to spend it to accomplish specific and measurable goals"
ryandrake 11y ago
80% is not over the top. The top marginal tax rate in the USA was over 60% for half of the last century, topping out at 94% in 1944. The tax rates imposed on the top incomes have only recently (Reagan era) come down to such ridiculously low levels as we have today.

joslin01 11y ago

So if you taxed those 5 people, you would make 4 billion. We spend over 3 trillion a year. Do you really think the punishment fits the crime? Wiser management of federal resources would go a lot further than throwing more money down the hole.

cmiles74 11y ago
If this tax regime was put in place, people would find other ways to shelter their money; I don't think the government would end up with a significant windfall. Maybe they'd invest in their company or start a new company and invest in that. I'm sure that with such a large income, they would have many places to put that money.
- joslin01 11y ago
  I agree, which is more reason against it.

askafriend 11y ago

Come on you two, don't be so thick. He wasn't seriously suggesting we tax at 80%. He was using that as an extreme example to make a point.

dave_sullivan 11y ago

I have no doubt that they could spend a lot less than they do. On the other hand, I am entirely unwilling to wait for them to become more efficient before deciding to severely tax That sounds to me like, "We can't get our ship in order, so lets rob someone who can instead of fixing it and we'll fix it later (but we won't because note what we've done in the current example)." The problem for government is less "not enough money" and more "we don't know how to spend it to accomplish specific and measurable goals"

ryandrake 11y ago

80% is not over the top. The top marginal tax rate in the USA was over 60% for half of the last century, topping out at 94% in 1944. The tax rates imposed on the top incomes have only recently (Reagan era) come down to such ridiculously low levels as we have today.