4 ms·

"Make more than a million dollars a year? 95% marginal tax rate." Great. Then what? Everyone currently making over $1m a year will cut their salary to $1m.

"Make more than a million dollars a year? 95% marginal tax rate." Great. Then what? Everyone currently making over $1m a year will cut their salary to $1m. Then you gotta start taxing the upper middle class -- what rate do you want to tax people making over $500k? $250k? $100k? Those are the ones that will pay for this program. As much as you want to tax "the wealthy", there really aren't enough wealthy people to pay for everything, and it comes down to how much you want to tax the moderately successful person who is trying to pay for their 2 kids' college expenses while saving to have a retirement.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Great. Then what? Everyone currently making over $1m a year will cut their salary to $1m. Do wealthy individuals in other countries with a heavier tax burden (Europe, Scandinavia to be specific) do this? Would be nice to see evidence of this behavior before outright dismissing raising taxes.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  If the tax rate is 95%, a company would have to pay someone a $21 million dollar salary to pay that person $2m. I suspect that no company would do such a thing, as it's just throwing money away.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    5% of a very large number is still a large number. Very few people are going to say "don't give me that extra $20 million because the government will take $19 million." $1 million is still a lot of money. And of course, there are lots of deductions. You could give that $20 million to a charity and the government would get none of it. You wouldn't get any either, but you could certainly get a lot of indirect value out of giving away $20M.
    - JonFish85 11y ago
      What company is going to pay that? It's just silly. If you felt that a CEO/athlete/whatever was worth $30m a year, you'd have to pay that person $581 million dollars. They'd find some other way, that money wouldn't go to the government.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > They'd find some other way, that money wouldn't go to the government. And so we keep closing loopholes.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  Yes. Google "millionaires leaving X" and see what the autosuggestions are for X and choose one. While some are US states - NY, Maryland, etc - most are countries. Here's the top couple using France: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/23/flight-of-millionaires-reasons-to-give-thanks-for-one-percent-taxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/23/flight-o... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax
crdoconnor 11y ago
>As much as you want to tax "the wealthy", there really aren't enough wealthy people to pay for everything, The point isn't to make them pay for everything. The point of taxing them is to mute the inflationary effect of letting them keep their money. The primary noticeable effect of taxing the wealthy on the rest of us would be to make property more affordable once again.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  "The point of taxing them is to mute the inflationary effect of letting them keep their money." What? How is it inflationary to let "the wealthy" keep their money vs. artificially raising the wages of the minimum wage workers? "The primary noticeable effect of taxing the wealthy on the rest of us would be to make property more affordable once again." Also--what? Being that we're on Hacker News, the majority of people here are probably making $100k+ a year and are solidly in the top 10% of wage-earners in the country. We're the ones driving up housing prices on a macro scale across the country, not the few people that have hundreds of millions to spend.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >What? How is it inflationary to let "the wealthy" keep their money Because they spend it. >We're the ones driving up housing prices on a macro scale across the country, not the few people that have hundreds of millions to spend. Both are. The few people with hundreds of millions of dollars will buy large properties in central locations in multiple cities, shrinking the available housing stock for the rest of us.
    - JonFish85 11y ago
      "Because they spend it." So does everyone, they just spend it differently. Bill Gates' money isn't sitting in a checking account, it's in stock certificates. High net-worth people don't put money under their mattresses, they spend it, albeit in different ways. I don't know how to compare consumer spending vs. investments, so I can't say if one is "better" than another, but that money isn't just sitting in bank accounts. Available housing stock on the whole is just fine in the US. Sure, you and I probably can't afford to live on Park Avenue or overlooking Central Park, but that's because those properties attract worldwide money. We're not there yet. San Francisco's housing problems aren't as simple as "some people have money". Taking money away from people isn't going to solve this.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> Great. Then what? Everyone currently making over $1m a year will cut their salary to $1m. Do wealthy individuals in other countries with a heavier tax burden (Europe, Scandinavia to be specific) do this? Would be nice to see evidence of this behavior before outright dismissing raising taxes.

JonFish85 11y ago
If the tax rate is 95%, a company would have to pay someone a $21 million dollar salary to pay that person $2m. I suspect that no company would do such a thing, as it's just throwing money away.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  5% of a very large number is still a large number. Very few people are going to say "don't give me that extra $20 million because the government will take $19 million." $1 million is still a lot of money. And of course, there are lots of deductions. You could give that $20 million to a charity and the government would get none of it. You wouldn't get any either, but you could certainly get a lot of indirect value out of giving away $20M.
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    What company is going to pay that? It's just silly. If you felt that a CEO/athlete/whatever was worth $30m a year, you'd have to pay that person $581 million dollars. They'd find some other way, that money wouldn't go to the government.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > They'd find some other way, that money wouldn't go to the government. And so we keep closing loopholes.
caseysoftware 11y ago
Yes. Google "millionaires leaving X" and see what the autosuggestions are for X and choose one. While some are US states - NY, Maryland, etc - most are countries. Here's the top couple using France: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/23/flight-of-millionaires-reasons-to-give-thanks-for-one-percent-taxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/23/flight-o... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

crdoconnor 11y ago

>As much as you want to tax "the wealthy", there really aren't enough wealthy people to pay for everything, The point isn't to make them pay for everything. The point of taxing them is to mute the inflationary effect of letting them keep their money. The primary noticeable effect of taxing the wealthy on the rest of us would be to make property more affordable once again.

JonFish85 11y ago
"The point of taxing them is to mute the inflationary effect of letting them keep their money." What? How is it inflationary to let "the wealthy" keep their money vs. artificially raising the wages of the minimum wage workers? "The primary noticeable effect of taxing the wealthy on the rest of us would be to make property more affordable once again." Also--what? Being that we're on Hacker News, the majority of people here are probably making $100k+ a year and are solidly in the top 10% of wage-earners in the country. We're the ones driving up housing prices on a macro scale across the country, not the few people that have hundreds of millions to spend.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >What? How is it inflationary to let "the wealthy" keep their money Because they spend it. >We're the ones driving up housing prices on a macro scale across the country, not the few people that have hundreds of millions to spend. Both are. The few people with hundreds of millions of dollars will buy large properties in central locations in multiple cities, shrinking the available housing stock for the rest of us.
  - JonFish85 11y ago
    "Because they spend it." So does everyone, they just spend it differently. Bill Gates' money isn't sitting in a checking account, it's in stock certificates. High net-worth people don't put money under their mattresses, they spend it, albeit in different ways. I don't know how to compare consumer spending vs. investments, so I can't say if one is "better" than another, but that money isn't just sitting in bank accounts. Available housing stock on the whole is just fine in the US. Sure, you and I probably can't afford to live on Park Avenue or overlooking Central Park, but that's because those properties attract worldwide money. We're not there yet. San Francisco's housing problems aren't as simple as "some people have money". Taking money away from people isn't going to solve this.