4 ms·

Really? You think that's more realistic than just taking it from the top 0.1%? There was a time in this country for nearly 40 years where the top tax bracket wa

by cmurf 10y ago

Really? You think that's more realistic than just taking it from the top 0.1%? There was a time in this country for nearly 40 years where the top tax bracket was above 75%, and for quite a while it was 91%, and for a short while it was 94%. Basically it was a policy of not letting a small number of people take all of the marbles. There is, in fact, a way to avoid that tax, it's called start a new business or expand one - those costs are tax deductible. The problem is tax policy at the top end is basically saying some tiny number of people can be hoarders, not innovate, and then aristocratically hand it off to their kids in the form of trusts that don't pay inheritance tax. Very possibly some kind of basic income would help people be more mobile, move from expensive cities to less expensive cities. But I also think as likely is higher taxes would incentivize the very rich to invest. Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad.

friendlygrammar 10y ago
>There was a time in this country for nearly 40 years where the top tax bracket was above 75%, and for quite a while it was 91%, and for a short while it was 94%. When we were at war. There was also a longer time when there were no taxes.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  No income taxes I assume you mean, and only in the US. I think they were introduced at the federal level in 1861 to support the civil war, then it was repealed in 1895 via constitutional argument in the Supreme Court. This forced the government to pass a constitutional amendment in 1913 to keep the income tax in place. So the income tax has existed for more that 50% of the US' history at this point. That doesn't include whatever States decides to impose.
- chefkoch 10y ago
  So there is no war now?
svantana 10y ago
This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? The way I see it, the 'problem' with rich folks is when they use up a disproportionate amount of resources without creating any value, e.g. buying land, houses, cars and employing people to do their pointless (from society's perspective) bidding. I.e. spending money.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? Quite the opposite - savings are integral to a healthy economy. Investment (in an aggregate economy) must equal savings; this is an identity, not an equation. Any money that is invested (whether loaned to private individuals to buy a house or car, or whether invested by the state into public infrastructure) - all that requires others' savings in order to happen. For some reason, people get mad when they think of other people "hoarding" money. But in reality, there's no such thing as "hoarding" money. You can hoard a rivalrous resource, but you can't hoard fiat money.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Uninvested cash does nobody good.
    - tlb 10y ago
      Not true. When you put it in a bank, the bank loans it out (usually at a multiple). Even if you put stacks of bills under your mattress, you're effectively making a loan to the mint to fund government operations. Some invested money is bad, though. Investment in many businesses is bad for the world: cigarette companies, casinos, monopolistic roll-up companies.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Banks don't loan out savings. That's a myth. The money for the loan is created by the act of creating the loan. Loans are effectively banks 'licence to print money'.
pipio21 10y ago
You know when the tax bracket was above 75%, and 91% there were rich people that basically paid nothing in taxes? This was the result of existing exemptions in the laws. You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes". In fact that basically meant in practice that only a few could hold all the power, with no competition, by law. It is very similar to what happens in Cuba today, when you can't earn more than 30 USD a month or so, no matter how good you are or how much you provide for the state. You could be the one responsible for the famous Che Guevara photo or a baseball player, you will earn millions that the State will take, and give you 30 USD. An exception has been made recently for small business to this law, but of course some people in power are the gatekeepers to it(and you better pay them a significant part of your profits under the table for getting permission). Of course the communist in power will spent lavishly your money because they can decide who spends what. No rich people in the country officially. Fidel officially has no money, extra officially it has billions outside the country. Basic income means most of your money being taken away from you in taxes for someone else to spend for you. This has been already invented and tested before.
- loeber 10y ago
  > You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes". No, that's not true. The highest marginal tax rates were between 1940 and 1963. Source: http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/t...
rhino369 10y ago
Those sky high tax rates were only applied to earned income. Capital gains was never anywhere near that high. All that means is the owners of capital stay rich and nobody can earn their way into being rich. You have to invest or already be rich. If you tried taxing capital that much they'd flee the country.
- tsukikage 10y ago
  "If you tried taxing capital that much they'd flee the country." I keep encountering various forms of this. Can someone explain why rich people who do not significantly spend, invest, pay taxes or otherwise contribute "fleeing the country" is bad?
- unprepare 10y ago
  who cares? theyd have to pay an expatriation tax on their wealth in order to take their money out of the country anyways. Theyd have to forfeit their US citizenship in order to not owe US taxes. If they think thats worth it, then let them. Why is this such a horrible outcome?
kamaal 10y ago
>>Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad. Why do each of these tax schemes feel like the poor want a consolation, and they would accept a compromise deal wherein rich would be made poor, just in case they can't be made rich. Never heard a single argument why some human beings getting ahead of others is wrong. No matter how hard you try there is always some people who are richer, some who can draw better, some who can compose music better, some who win nobel prizes. This whole idea that losers will happy if the winners are punished seems to be wrong to even begin with.
- wstrange 10y ago
  No one is talking about making rich people poor. That is a strawman. Do you really believe some hedge fund manager should pay less tax as a percentage than a school teacher? There are places in the world where you can move to and pay no effective tax. They tend to be pretty crappy places to live.
- Frondo 10y ago
  You know, this time, I'll bite. Because it's a democracy and because I say so. That's all the reason I need in a democracy to push my idea out there, because I want it, I want a world with less disparity in how resources are distributed. Not, mind you, because I think I'd come out on top, or in my case, even ahead (I wouldn't, under any redistributive scheme) but because there's millions of my fellow citizens who I think would come out a lot better in a less disparate world. It seems like something's wrong in the world when people can work full-time jobs and need food stamps and rent support. That's all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. It seems like something's wrong in a world where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. That too is all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. At the end of the day, I'm not looking for natural laws that delineate winners and losers, I'm just looking at human-made systems that generate enough food for us all to be morbidly obese, and distribute it so poorly that a measurable proportion of my nation's children go hungry. I'm looking at that stuff and saying nope, gonna use my vote to make something else happen. That's all, because it's a democracy and because I say so.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gjolund 10y ago
This is such a naive interpretation of the tax policy at those times. I don't think you have ever heard of capital gains.

by cmurf 10y ago

friendlygrammar 10y ago

>There was a time in this country for nearly 40 years where the top tax bracket was above 75%, and for quite a while it was 91%, and for a short while it was 94%. When we were at war. There was also a longer time when there were no taxes.

bluejekyll 10y ago
No income taxes I assume you mean, and only in the US. I think they were introduced at the federal level in 1861 to support the civil war, then it was repealed in 1895 via constitutional argument in the Supreme Court. This forced the government to pass a constitutional amendment in 1913 to keep the income tax in place. So the income tax has existed for more that 50% of the US' history at this point. That doesn't include whatever States decides to impose.
chefkoch 10y ago
So there is no war now?

svantana 10y ago

This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? The way I see it, the 'problem' with rich folks is when they use up a disproportionate amount of resources without creating any value, e.g. buying land, houses, cars and employing people to do their pointless (from society's perspective) bidding. I.e. spending money.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? Quite the opposite - savings are integral to a healthy economy. Investment (in an aggregate economy) must equal savings; this is an identity, not an equation. Any money that is invested (whether loaned to private individuals to buy a house or car, or whether invested by the state into public infrastructure) - all that requires others' savings in order to happen. For some reason, people get mad when they think of other people "hoarding" money. But in reality, there's no such thing as "hoarding" money. You can hoard a rivalrous resource, but you can't hoard fiat money.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Uninvested cash does nobody good.
  - tlb 10y ago
    Not true. When you put it in a bank, the bank loans it out (usually at a multiple). Even if you put stacks of bills under your mattress, you're effectively making a loan to the mint to fund government operations. Some invested money is bad, though. Investment in many businesses is bad for the world: cigarette companies, casinos, monopolistic roll-up companies.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Banks don't loan out savings. That's a myth. The money for the loan is created by the act of creating the loan. Loans are effectively banks 'licence to print money'.

pipio21 10y ago

You know when the tax bracket was above 75%, and 91% there were rich people that basically paid nothing in taxes? This was the result of existing exemptions in the laws. You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes". In fact that basically meant in practice that only a few could hold all the power, with no competition, by law. It is very similar to what happens in Cuba today, when you can't earn more than 30 USD a month or so, no matter how good you are or how much you provide for the state. You could be the one responsible for the famous Che Guevara photo or a baseball player, you will earn millions that the State will take, and give you 30 USD. An exception has been made recently for small business to this law, but of course some people in power are the gatekeepers to it(and you better pay them a significant part of your profits under the table for getting permission). Of course the communist in power will spent lavishly your money because they can decide who spends what. No rich people in the country officially. Fidel officially has no money, extra officially it has billions outside the country. Basic income means most of your money being taken away from you in taxes for someone else to spend for you. This has been already invented and tested before.

loeber 10y ago
> You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes". No, that's not true. The highest marginal tax rates were between 1940 and 1963. Source: http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/t...

rhino369 10y ago

Those sky high tax rates were only applied to earned income. Capital gains was never anywhere near that high. All that means is the owners of capital stay rich and nobody can earn their way into being rich. You have to invest or already be rich. If you tried taxing capital that much they'd flee the country.

tsukikage 10y ago
"If you tried taxing capital that much they'd flee the country." I keep encountering various forms of this. Can someone explain why rich people who do not significantly spend, invest, pay taxes or otherwise contribute "fleeing the country" is bad?
unprepare 10y ago
who cares? theyd have to pay an expatriation tax on their wealth in order to take their money out of the country anyways. Theyd have to forfeit their US citizenship in order to not owe US taxes. If they think thats worth it, then let them. Why is this such a horrible outcome?

kamaal 10y ago

>>Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad. Why do each of these tax schemes feel like the poor want a consolation, and they would accept a compromise deal wherein rich would be made poor, just in case they can't be made rich. Never heard a single argument why some human beings getting ahead of others is wrong. No matter how hard you try there is always some people who are richer, some who can draw better, some who can compose music better, some who win nobel prizes. This whole idea that losers will happy if the winners are punished seems to be wrong to even begin with.

wstrange 10y ago
No one is talking about making rich people poor. That is a strawman. Do you really believe some hedge fund manager should pay less tax as a percentage than a school teacher? There are places in the world where you can move to and pay no effective tax. They tend to be pretty crappy places to live.
Frondo 10y ago
You know, this time, I'll bite. Because it's a democracy and because I say so. That's all the reason I need in a democracy to push my idea out there, because I want it, I want a world with less disparity in how resources are distributed. Not, mind you, because I think I'd come out on top, or in my case, even ahead (I wouldn't, under any redistributive scheme) but because there's millions of my fellow citizens who I think would come out a lot better in a less disparate world. It seems like something's wrong in the world when people can work full-time jobs and need food stamps and rent support. That's all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. It seems like something's wrong in a world where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. That too is all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality. At the end of the day, I'm not looking for natural laws that delineate winners and losers, I'm just looking at human-made systems that generate enough food for us all to be morbidly obese, and distribute it so poorly that a measurable proportion of my nation's children go hungry. I'm looking at that stuff and saying nope, gonna use my vote to make something else happen. That's all, because it's a democracy and because I say so.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gjolund 10y ago

This is such a naive interpretation of the tax policy at those times. I don't think you have ever heard of capital gains.