The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's the rate they started at, not paid. Just like the top 1% today start at 37% but usually pay less than 15% after deductions. It's a game, but the deck was stacked more in the favor of the average Joe back in the 50s. Today, the top 1% rarely pays their fair share, and corporations rarely pay any tax at all.



Sure, just like saying that the top 1% pay 37% right now. Back in the 50s the top 1% paid a lot closer to 91% than the top 1% today pay 37%. The systems have always been screwed up that way because of the imbalance in reductions that rich people get to abuse and poor people have no access to.

What are you talking about? Do you know how marginal tax rates work?

[corporatejay]

Eisenhower? People travelled by Steam ship ffs. You can't compare the economy of Eisenhower to now. That's preposterous.


Maybe tax blacksmiths more. I heard that worked under Washington.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Eisenhower? People travelled by Steam ship ffs. You can't compare the economy of Eisenhower to now. That's preposterous.


Maybe tax blacksmiths more. I heard that worked under Washington.

When exactly do you think Eisenhower was president?

[OMG!WTF!]

Sure, just like saying that the top 1% pay 37% right now. Back in the 50s the top 1% paid a lot closer to 91% than the top 1% today pay 37%. The systems have always been screwed up that way because of the imbalance in reductions that rich people get to abuse and poor people have no access to.

Not really. The top 1% pays an average of 27% now.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

Personally I can't believe anyone would believe that someone should be worth billions of dollars while his employees subsist on food stamps, but this is what we are at.

That in no way addresses the fairness of a 94% tax bracket.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

What are you talking about? Do you know how marginal tax rates work?

Yes. But it seems what's lost is how effective tax rates work? Because that's the problem with the imposition of a wealth tax. People see the marginal rate and think that's what people pay rather than understanding the effective rate and the impact of tax loopholes. Look at StrangeBrew for example. Maybe we're looking at this from two different angles. Explain to me what you're trying to get at. Tax law is very confusing in the US because it varies so much from state-to-state and even down to the municipal level. Here's an interesting article on the impact of the tax rates being discussed for the top 1% in each state. Where you live makes a massive difference.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes. But it seems what's lost is how effective tax rates work? Because that's the problem with the imposition of a wealth tax. People see the marginal rate and think that's what people pay rather than understanding the effective rate and the impact of tax loopholes. Look at StrangeBrew for example. Maybe we're looking at this from two different angles. Explain to me what you're trying to get at. Tax law is very confusing in the US because it varies so much from state-to-state and even down to the municipal level. Here's an interesting article on the impact of the tax rates being discussed for the top 1% in each state. Where you live makes a massive difference.

How did you conclude that I don’t understand what a marginal tax rate is?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes. But it seems what's lost is how effective tax rates work? Because that's the problem with the imposition of a wealth tax. People see the marginal rate and think that's what people pay rather than understanding the effective rate and the impact of tax loopholes. Look at StrangeBrew for example. Maybe we're looking at this from two different angles. Explain to me what you're trying to get at. Tax law is very confusing in the US because it varies so much from state-to-state and even down to the municipal level. Here's an interesting article on the impact of the tax rates being discussed for the top 1% in each state. Where you live makes a massive difference.

The initial question was about the wealth tax that Warren and Bernie proposed. A wealth tax taxes people assets vs the income tax that we are all used to that taxes income. Here's a good article about what it is and why it basically failed in Europe.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...pe-kill-theirs

It's a cousin of the property tax, but it encompasses all forms of wealth: cash, stocks, jewelry, thoroughbred horses, jets, everything. Warren calls the policy her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax." It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person's net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years.

So, at first it sounds good. The problem is that there are a lot of problems with implementing it as other countries have found out:

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

There are arguments that the US wouldn't have this problem for reasons like it is harder to leave, that the IRS taxes world income for US citizens forever and they could put a big penalty on people expatriating for that reason. But there are still many of the other issues including that it may not be constitutional. It also becomes a polarizing political issue because taking money that people already have is a pretty big shift in paradigm.


What you are referring to with the high tax brackets is taxing people who are earning lots of money which is very different than taxing what people already have.

Back to the 90% marginal rate question. Here are what the brackets looked like in 1954 for example:

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1955

Here is income distribution in 1954
https://www.census.gov/library/publi...o/p60-020.html

The top 1% was anyone making over $15,000.

A family making $20,000 that year would be definitely be in the top 1%.

Going back to the tax bracket table above, if they didn't have any deductions,
They'd pay 20% on their first $4,000, 22% on the next $4,000... and so on and hit with 38% rate on their last $2000. I'm not going to do that math, but the average federal rate they'd pay would be in the 30% range.

From the article further up in the thread, only the top 0.02% would even have income that hit that 81% bracket, and probably only a handful reached the 91%, and they likely didn't pay that rate on much of their income.

A super high tax bracket doesn't really mean anything if no one is actually hitting. 1%ers definitely weren't. 0.001 %ers probably had a small portion of their income hit with it, if anyone did.

[Strange Brew]

Here's how a marginal tax rate works.

Sally CEO has a contract that calls for a $9 million salary. And a $1 million bonus should she hit certain performance targets. Let's say Sally hits those targets. And let's say the top marginal federal tax rate is 94% for any income above $9 million (for now, assume no deductions etc. which would change the numbers, but not the principle).

Sally would not pay 94% tax on $10 million.

But for her $1 million bonus, she would receive $60,000. And the other $940,000 goes to the government.

I get that many people believe no one should make that kind of money. Tax the rich, redistribute wealth etc. That's fine if it is your belief.

But, in my opinion, with a marginal bracket of 94%, the government is essentially making it illegal to make over x amount by taking almost all of it away. In my opinion, it is not the purpose of taxation to put a cap on what people should earn which is what absurdly high marginal tax rates do.

[CaptainCrunch]

Dumb question. How would that work if the CEO takes a low salary and the rest in Stocks.


And then what would happen if the CEO takes a loss on the stocks.

[Harry Lime]

I haven't read back far enough to see if a rate was proposed on a marginal tax rate.

Something like 50% on income over 30 million (including investment income) wouldn't eliminate incentive, IMO. It's all about finding the right balance.

Also, estate tax makes sense to me. Wealth tax has inherent problems. It's sad that the former attempt at an estate tax in the states was so easily killed simply by renaming in the media as a death tax.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Dumb question. How would that work if the CEO takes a low salary and the rest in Stocks.


And then what would happen if the CEO takes a loss on the stocks.

Not a dumb question.

Depending on how long you hold the stock, and certain elections you make at the time of granting, the stock can be taxed as a capital gain which is a lower tax rate.

Which here in the US is very controversial, since generally it's people with more money that get awarded stocks or stock options and it's an income tax reduction opportunity not available to people in many jobs.

If you get a $1 million award in stocks and then the stock devalues to $700K and you sell it, you ultimately pay tax on the $700K but depending on passage of time and the elections you made, the tax rates and timing of your tax would vary.

I don't know if I explained that very well.

And stock options will be a little different but in the big scheme of things, you should end up paying tax on what you ended up with in your pocket. But being taxed as a capital gain is very favorable compared to ordinary income.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I haven't read back far enough to see if a rate was proposed on a marginal tax rate.

Something like 50% on income over 30 million (including investment income) wouldn't eliminate incentive, IMO. It's all about finding the right balance.

Also, estate tax makes sense to me. Wealth tax has inherent problems. It's sad that the former attempt at an estate tax in the states was so easily killed simply by renaming in the media as a death tax.

The US had an insanely marginal tax rate in the mid 20th century which is where my 94% came from.

I haven't seen anyone propose such a thing, but some are passive aggressively defending it.

[Flash Walken]

There are a lot of percentage points between 32 and 94.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There are a lot of percentage points between 32 and 94.

There are. But what's amazing is that the 94% isn't made up.

Well, I take that back. The highest marginal tax rate was in fact 92% in 1952 and 1953.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of flattened tax rates but elimination of loopholes, deductions and different rates for different types of income.

You make more, you pay more.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Here's how a marginal tax rate works.

Sally CEO has a contract that calls for a $9 million salary. And a $1 million bonus should she hit certain performance targets. Let's say Sally hits those targets. And let's say the top marginal federal tax rate is 94% for any income above $9 million (for now, assume no deductions etc. which would change the numbers, but not the principle).

Sally would not pay 94% tax on $10 million.

But for her $1 million bonus, she would receive $60,000. And the other $940,000 goes to the government.

I get that many people believe no one should make that kind of money. Tax the rich, redistribute wealth etc. That's fine if it is your belief.

But, in my opinion, with a marginal bracket of 94%, the government is essentially making it illegal to make over x amount by taking almost all of it away. In my opinion, it is not the purpose of taxation to put a cap on what people should earn which is what absurdly high marginal tax rates do.

What exactly is the problem with that? Other than somewhat limiting rich people's ability to get richer, there's very little downside.

Personally I'm all for the idea that there should be a one billion dollar maximum to how much any single person own. Nobody needs more than one billion.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Itse

...Nobody needs more than one billion.

Says who?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Says who?

People that don't have it?

[Rando]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Says who?

Can you explain how anyone NEEDS a billion dollars?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Rando

Can you explain how anyone NEEDS a billion dollars?

Don't try playing this game with me. Can you explain how anyone doesn't need it? WHO decides what YOU need?