6 ms·

We should just go back to like 80% tax rate after $100M income.

by epups 3y ago

AH4oFVbPT4f8 3y ago
I’ve often said this but at the 10M mark but I’ve not based that on anything. Is there a reason why you say 100M?
jeffbee 3y ago
It was a lot better than that. The last time we had high marginal rates, they were 91% above $400k in 1963 dollars, which is ~$4 million 2023 dollars. Before Reagan we still had 70% marginal rate above what in 2023 dollars was about $725k.
jjoonathan 3y ago
If we continue to let the ownership class exempt their changes-in-net-worth from what we call "income," it won't matter. Tax assets.
rank0 3y ago
How much revenue do you expect from such a tax bracket? You should do some napkin math to see if it’ll actually make a difference. I suspect very few people report income in excess of $100M and an 80% bracket would do very little for society other than a vindictive gesture to placate the masses. Not saying we should or shouldn’t…but it’s not gonna fix all our problems like people think.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > You should do some napkin math to see if it’ll actually make a difference. The napkin math says: 3900 employees. 400M is 2435x median income in the company, so that's $164k. So if we gave the CEO the same income as the median, and split the 400M across everybody else, they'd all have received a $102k bonus, a 62%-of-median-income bonus. You tell me if a 62% bonus for the year would make any difference in your life or not.
  - rank0 3y ago
    Very convenient of you to entirely sidestep discussion of the original point: “80% income tax bracket at >$100M” It’s ridiculous that so many users of this startup accelerator forum want to ban private ownership. I guess I’ll bite… Why would anyone start/own a company if the government is just gonna liquidate your legal ownership? It would be more lucrative to find the easiest job and do the bare minimum than be CEO under your half baked authoritarian system. But why is this even a response in the first place to OP? Stick to the topic or else you come off like a religious zealot.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      > Why would anyone start/own a company if the government is just gonna liquidate your legal ownership? I don't know. Ask the people who started companies when the top marginal rate was approx 90%. Seemed to work out ok for them. I have not proposed banning private ownership. The issue is how much of the revenue from a corporation can end up as private income. You may see those as connected, or even the same issue. This is a problem, in and of itself.
      - rank0 3y ago
        Did you even read TFA? The 400M came from planned stock sales. How are you gonna distribute that money if not by taking his ownership? And your suggestion that anything remotely similar happened to the Reagan era corporations is plainly false.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Stock compensation is compensation. It can be distributed the same way as any other compensation: either handed out differently to other employees or taxed. At 90%. > And your suggestion that anything remotely similar happened to the Reagan era corporations is plainly false. This is getting tiresome. Highest marginal tax rate in the pre-reagan era was around 90%. People started companies. People got rich. Not Elon rich, or Bezos rich, but rich. The 90% tax rate didn't prevent them from being rich, it limited how rich they became relative to their income/compensation.
JamesBarney 3y ago
Why? So rich successful individuals spend more time sailing on their yachts instead of building their business?

We should just go back to like 80% tax rate after $100M income.

by epups 3y ago

We should just go back to like 80% tax rate after $100M income.

AH4oFVbPT4f8 3y ago

I’ve often said this but at the 10M mark but I’ve not based that on anything. Is there a reason why you say 100M?

jeffbee 3y ago

It was a lot better than that. The last time we had high marginal rates, they were 91% above $400k in 1963 dollars, which is ~$4 million 2023 dollars. Before Reagan we still had 70% marginal rate above what in 2023 dollars was about $725k.

jjoonathan 3y ago

If we continue to let the ownership class exempt their changes-in-net-worth from what we call "income," it won't matter. Tax assets.

rank0 3y ago

How much revenue do you expect from such a tax bracket? You should do some napkin math to see if it’ll actually make a difference. I suspect very few people report income in excess of $100M and an 80% bracket would do very little for society other than a vindictive gesture to placate the masses. Not saying we should or shouldn’t…but it’s not gonna fix all our problems like people think.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> You should do some napkin math to see if it’ll actually make a difference. The napkin math says: 3900 employees. 400M is 2435x median income in the company, so that's $164k. So if we gave the CEO the same income as the median, and split the 400M across everybody else, they'd all have received a $102k bonus, a 62%-of-median-income bonus. You tell me if a 62% bonus for the year would make any difference in your life or not.
- rank0 3y ago
  Very convenient of you to entirely sidestep discussion of the original point: “80% income tax bracket at >$100M” It’s ridiculous that so many users of this startup accelerator forum want to ban private ownership. I guess I’ll bite… Why would anyone start/own a company if the government is just gonna liquidate your legal ownership? It would be more lucrative to find the easiest job and do the bare minimum than be CEO under your half baked authoritarian system. But why is this even a response in the first place to OP? Stick to the topic or else you come off like a religious zealot.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > Why would anyone start/own a company if the government is just gonna liquidate your legal ownership? I don't know. Ask the people who started companies when the top marginal rate was approx 90%. Seemed to work out ok for them. I have not proposed banning private ownership. The issue is how much of the revenue from a corporation can end up as private income. You may see those as connected, or even the same issue. This is a problem, in and of itself.
    - rank0 3y ago
      Did you even read TFA? The 400M came from planned stock sales. How are you gonna distribute that money if not by taking his ownership? And your suggestion that anything remotely similar happened to the Reagan era corporations is plainly false.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Stock compensation is compensation. It can be distributed the same way as any other compensation: either handed out differently to other employees or taxed. At 90%. > And your suggestion that anything remotely similar happened to the Reagan era corporations is plainly false. This is getting tiresome. Highest marginal tax rate in the pre-reagan era was around 90%. People started companies. People got rich. Not Elon rich, or Bezos rich, but rich. The 90% tax rate didn't prevent them from being rich, it limited how rich they became relative to their income/compensation.

JamesBarney 3y ago

Why? So rich successful individuals spend more time sailing on their yachts instead of building their business?