4 ms·

> out of the government's purse This is NOT infinite, nor remotely large enough.

danaris 6y ago
> This is NOT infinite True. > nor remotely large enough. I do not believe this to be true at all. As numerous other people have pointed out, the government can currently borrow money at next to no cost. Furthermore, there's a very (conceptually; the implementation is fraught) straightforward method of vastly increasing the government's funds without risking massive future debts: Put our taxes back the way they were during the time we were most productive—the period after WWII, where the top marginal brackets were around 90%.
- cameronbrown 6y ago
  > where the top marginal brackets were around 90%. Lol nope. Would rather take my chances with the virus than hand over 90% of my earnings, and I suspect most would agree.
  - sundaeofshock 6y ago
    If you put it to most people, I don’t think they would agree. Check it: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/i... Adjusted for inflation, that 90% rate would only hit individuals making $1.7 million/year. I suspect most people would be just fine with that top rate if it meant they could keep their homes and feed their families.
    - jki275 6y ago
      If that’s the case, it would have essentially no impact on revenue. Very few people have actual “income” over 1.7 million a year. Most people who could bring in that kind of money are smart enough and have the resources to structure things so that they don’t bring that kind of money in W2 type earnings or earnings that would qualify for this kind of tax. Or they renounce their citizenship and move to Singapore as some have already. That kind of tax rate is essentially pointless. It’s virtue signaling at its worst.
      - mgkimsal 6y ago
        “If that’s the case, it would have essentially no impact on revenue.“ Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”
        cameronbrown 6y ago
        Because it's a waste of time, and likely that 90% tax comes with lower bands of 60-70 for the middle class (whatever remains of it anyway).
        jki275 6y ago
        Because it's pointless virtue signaling...
        ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        > "Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”" Because driving wealthy people and powerful businessmen out of your nation is obviously going to have bad effects that can't be reversed?
        wutbrodo 6y ago
        > Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?” Can you expand on this? Why would you want to put a policy on the books, dealing with its side effects without achieving its objective? You're saying this as if it's obvious; to me, it's anything but.
        jki275 6y ago
        Also, it sets a precedent that people who work hard and are successful are bad and we should take all their money for the societal good. If you don't recognize that particular ideology, it's one that has murdered millions of people worldwide in every place it's been implemented.
      - sundaeofshock 6y ago
        This article seems to suggest it would raise a fairly substantial amount. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/two-democrats-come-up-with-a-new-plan-to-tax-income-over-2-million.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/two-democrats-come-up-with-a...

> This is NOT infinite True. > nor remotely large enough. I do not believe this to be true at all. As numerous other people have pointed out, the government can currently borrow money at next to no cost. Furthermore, there's a very (conceptually; the implementation is fraught) straightforward method of vastly increasing the government's funds without risking massive future debts: Put our taxes back the way they were during the time we were most productive—the period after WWII, where the top marginal brackets were around 90%.

cameronbrown 6y ago
> where the top marginal brackets were around 90%. Lol nope. Would rather take my chances with the virus than hand over 90% of my earnings, and I suspect most would agree.
- sundaeofshock 6y ago
  If you put it to most people, I don’t think they would agree. Check it: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/i... Adjusted for inflation, that 90% rate would only hit individuals making $1.7 million/year. I suspect most people would be just fine with that top rate if it meant they could keep their homes and feed their families.
  - jki275 6y ago
    If that’s the case, it would have essentially no impact on revenue. Very few people have actual “income” over 1.7 million a year. Most people who could bring in that kind of money are smart enough and have the resources to structure things so that they don’t bring that kind of money in W2 type earnings or earnings that would qualify for this kind of tax. Or they renounce their citizenship and move to Singapore as some have already. That kind of tax rate is essentially pointless. It’s virtue signaling at its worst.
    - mgkimsal 6y ago
      “If that’s the case, it would have essentially no impact on revenue.“ Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        Because it's a waste of time, and likely that 90% tax comes with lower bands of 60-70 for the middle class (whatever remains of it anyway).
      - jki275 6y ago
        Because it's pointless virtue signaling...
      - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        > "Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?”" Because driving wealthy people and powerful businessmen out of your nation is obviously going to have bad effects that can't be reversed?
      - wutbrodo 6y ago
        > Then why be against it? Why not say “look, we enacted 90% top marginal rate and it hasn’t helped at all?” Can you expand on this? Why would you want to put a policy on the books, dealing with its side effects without achieving its objective? You're saying this as if it's obvious; to me, it's anything but.
      - jki275 6y ago
        Also, it sets a precedent that people who work hard and are successful are bad and we should take all their money for the societal good. If you don't recognize that particular ideology, it's one that has murdered millions of people worldwide in every place it's been implemented.
    - sundaeofshock 6y ago
      This article seems to suggest it would raise a fairly substantial amount. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/two-democrats-come-up-with-a-new-plan-to-tax-income-over-2-million.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/two-democrats-come-up-with-a...