3 ms·

More than what they are paying today. I'll also remind you that the tax burden on every marginal dollar is the same for everyone. That is, that CEO pays the sam

by dlp211 6y ago

More than what they are paying today. I'll also remind you that the tax burden on every marginal dollar is the same for everyone. That is, that CEO pays the same amount of tax on their first taxable dollar as I do irrespective of what our total income is. With that said, there is no reason that the top marginal tax rate shouldn't be 90%, and that should apply to incomes in 10's of millions. And the marginal tax rate should progress up from the current 37%@$622+k income to 90% at say $25MM. The CEO in your example's marginal tax rate should be coming in probably in the 45-50% range. That's marginal, not effective. Capital gains tax should be eliminated and cap gains should be counted as income.

umvi 6y ago
> there is no reason that the top marginal tax rate shouldn't be 90% But why should the government get to essentially steal 90% of wealth generated by a person above an arbitrary threshold? Because "there's no reason someone needs that much money"? I would argue that if you do this, you'll get less things like SpaceX and Tesla, which required a person with much more than 25MM to decide to create them.
- dlp211 6y ago
  1. Taxes are not theft. 2. No man/woman is an island. They did not create their success on their own. 3. Marginal utility of dollars. Taking 90 cents from that person and giving it to someone that is not as well off is better for the economy and our society. 4. Marginal propensity to spend. Again, that $.90 is far more valuable being spent today than in capital investment. Capital is no longer a scarce resource. 5. These levels of tax rates don't in any way make that person worst off because everyone making that amount of money are subject to the same tax levels.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Not legally theft, but conceptually the same thing. If I pass a law that says you and only you get taxed at a 100% rate, technically it's not theft because it's legal (I just passed it as a law), but conceptually it is theft because I take every dollar you earn against your will. Also aren't you essentially saying: "People that have hundreds of millions or billions can keep their wealth, but starting now we don't really want anyone in the rising generations to have a net worth much more than ~$25MM"?
    - dlp211 6y ago
      Your first is an appeal is an appeal to the extreme fallacy. A law like that would never pass in a functioning democracy, and if our democracy isn't functioning, then I would say we have bigger problems than a single person be taxed of all their earnings. Your second point would matter if making income is that was how people became billionaires. That simply isn't the case. The vast, vast, majority of people with a 9-digit or more net wealth did not get there by income. I also advocate for other taxes and methods of taxation that would handle high net-worth individuals/families. I'm not looking for a perfect system, nor am I looking for a system that appeases everyone's idea of fairness, I'm advocating the system that I think is best for America moving through the 21st century and the threats it will face this century.

by dlp211 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> there is no reason that the top marginal tax rate shouldn't be 90% But why should the government get to essentially steal 90% of wealth generated by a person above an arbitrary threshold? Because "there's no reason someone needs that much money"? I would argue that if you do this, you'll get less things like SpaceX and Tesla, which required a person with much more than 25MM to decide to create them.

dlp211 6y ago
1. Taxes are not theft. 2. No man/woman is an island. They did not create their success on their own. 3. Marginal utility of dollars. Taking 90 cents from that person and giving it to someone that is not as well off is better for the economy and our society. 4. Marginal propensity to spend. Again, that $.90 is far more valuable being spent today than in capital investment. Capital is no longer a scarce resource. 5. These levels of tax rates don't in any way make that person worst off because everyone making that amount of money are subject to the same tax levels.
- umvi 6y ago
  Not legally theft, but conceptually the same thing. If I pass a law that says you and only you get taxed at a 100% rate, technically it's not theft because it's legal (I just passed it as a law), but conceptually it is theft because I take every dollar you earn against your will. Also aren't you essentially saying: "People that have hundreds of millions or billions can keep their wealth, but starting now we don't really want anyone in the rising generations to have a net worth much more than ~$25MM"?
  - dlp211 6y ago
    Your first is an appeal is an appeal to the extreme fallacy. A law like that would never pass in a functioning democracy, and if our democracy isn't functioning, then I would say we have bigger problems than a single person be taxed of all their earnings. Your second point would matter if making income is that was how people became billionaires. That simply isn't the case. The vast, vast, majority of people with a 9-digit or more net wealth did not get there by income. I also advocate for other taxes and methods of taxation that would handle high net-worth individuals/families. I'm not looking for a perfect system, nor am I looking for a system that appeases everyone's idea of fairness, I'm advocating the system that I think is best for America moving through the 21st century and the threats it will face this century.