It's time to bring back the 90% tax tier.

[Atman]

Think about it, seriously. You've been shown, vividly, that their "low taxes" message has been meaningless (unless you're one of them), but what was the tax rate when GE was born, when the Kennedy's and Bush's bought/built their compounds, when the Carnegies and Melons built their fortunes? It was ninety freakin' percent. And they not only survived on the millions they had left, they built industries and massive estates and got even wealthier. Even if you "only" have 10 million dollars instead of 10 billion, the interest is quite handsome. Most people could still survive. It's time for Obama to go all populist on 'em and say "FUCK THEIR WHINING! The people who caused this will be the people to pay for it."

It's time to tax the living shit out of them. If they can't take it, they can go get a job as a Wal Mart greeter.

.

[AngryAmish]

1. Andrew Carnegie died in 1919, US income tax started 1913

[Atman]

2. And your point is? Did the Carnegie family die with him?

Jesus fucking christ, dude. Way to totally miss a point!

:eyes:

.

[endthewar]

51. Calm down

Sounds like it was just a friendly clarification. :hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. !

:thumbsup:

[dmallind]

4. At what income level? NT

[Newsjock]

7. Take the old levels and index for inflation

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

91% on the amount over $400,000 in 1963

Adjusting for inflation at http://www.westegg.com/inflation yields:

91% on the amount over $2.68 million in 2007.

Sounds fair to me.

[trotsky]

5. I'd be more than happy with a 50% top rate.

It'll only affect the richest 20% of Americans, the same "investor class" that got us into this mess. And it'll still be much lower than it was in the BOOMING 1950s and 60s.

[On the Road]

32. 50% is About What I Think, Too

You could balance the budget, avoid massive tax evasion and keep more money and enterprise here.

What I tell people who think that's socialism is: "I agree with Ronald Reagan's first tax cut."

[tsuki]

35. Sorry, I like Ike. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. No Way. I'm 100% Against That.

No one, no matter how rich, should ever be taxed more than 35% in my opinion.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jrockford]

12. Yeah, I would be inclined to agree. I'm sure he thinks the rest of

the burden should be on the working class. Why? some misguided sense of fairness? Or the hopes one day he can be an greedy boss?

Or can we expect to hear that bullshit "it'll cramp incentive and hamper productivity...which makes no sense because the top 9% really aren't what "moves" this country.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Tools Are Useful. Better To Be That Than USELESS.

[jrockford]

11. I'm for it. The whole "I hope to be a big fish one day"

is what kills progressive tax measures. I would fall into that category and would gladly pay that tax rate if the other bastards had to as well. It's not like I would suffer from it, since the system works primarily for me right now anyway.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Yay For You That You're For It.

I don't think the government EVER deserves 90% of an amount of income that ANYBODY makes. People have the right to earn money.

There are a ton of ways to generate necessary federal income beyond having to ever have such insanely unfair and ridiculous tax rates.

[Hydra]

24. Even some liberatians I know are for punitive income tax

And I'm for it so there will be no incentive to screw people for higher profits. It's not as satisfying to steal money when you have to give most of it back.

[kath]

42. You do understand that we're talking MARGINAL tax rates here??

A simple concept that very few understand.

[MH1]

48. Failure to understand marginal tax rates,

by a too large part of society, may have a lot to do with how we got into this mess.

Is anyone else amazed at how little is taught to kids in high school of basic everyday economics?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. I Absolutely Do.

My reply was as simple a concept as one could state, and yet you seem to have not been able to grasp it.

I don't believe in any income being taxed more than 35%.

[El Pinko]

8. I would support a top bracket of 50%, plus 70% on the portion of an inheritance over $2 mil.

Tax inheritances. Rich kids' brats need to go out and earn their own money, but I don't think we need to punish people quite that much for making a lot.

Also, I would not have a problem with a cap on CEO pay - maybe something based on a multiple of the company's profits...

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Other countries impose caps on CEO pay, do they not? I think I read that Japan does.

:shrug:

[dmallind]

20. I actually agree with this

I make that point because I rarely worry about or even notice who posts what, and I tend to reply to the post not any person, but El Pinko and I have fundamental differences of opinion on housing expressed often enough that I recognize the name, so I thought it worthwhile to make a special note of my agreement here.

My wife and I are not far from the top bracket of marginal rates some years and if we were lucky enough to break into that, 50% even at today's levels let alone inflation adjusted would not bother me at all. I can't imagine anyone saying "I make $500K gross now and can do a deal or get a promotion that would make that $1M but damned if I want to because I'd only get to keep $250K of that extra 500K". Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't.


I have no idea how a party that is supposedly focused on self-improvement and personal responsibility can justify massive inherited wealth. The $2M level suggested would allow a person a comfortable living on safe interest alone. There should be no reason not to heavily tax people who became wealthy by luck not work or even risking their own money.


CEO pay is not as significant a factor on company or market success as many think ( I once worked out that removing the entire executive board of Northwest Airlines - a much used example of unearned executive largesse at the time - would not make even 5% difference to their net loss, and would give all employees a raise below 2% if so allocated), but cliquish spiraling packages ARE demoralizing to employees and should indeed depend on success. Base salary capped at say 50 times lowest exempt FT employee (can't really use non-exempt hourly as then no capable CEO would ever join say a restaurant company that relies on beginner and low skill labor) and bonuses based on demonstrated growth in either profit over at least a year or stock price over at least two quarters would be doable.

[gravity]

15. Taxes shouldn't be punishment for making money

If taxes need to be raised, they should be modestly to balance the budget. This tax the shit out of them mentality is doing it for all the wrong reasons and is bad for the economy.

[Atman]

17. It's not a "punishment."

When you reach a point where your interest income is greater than most people's working income, you have a responsibility to your country. After all, it was your country that made you the money. You sold your product/service to people. The money you made didn't come out of thin air.

.

[gravity]

26. They should pay a fair share, but 90% is just absurd

The only reason people advocate this is because they believe that the wealthy don't deserve any of it.

The wealth people generate doesn't come out of thin air either. Unless you are born lucky, it requires hard work, perseverance, and risk. Self made millionaires work their asses off, and should be rewarded for what they bring to the economy.

If you want to strike balance, maybe give 50% in taxes to the government and you can keep the other half. The government plays an important part of generating that wealth, but so did the individual.

[Atman]

31. "The only reason people advocate this is because they think..."

Uh, excuse me. I made the OP, and I don't think the wealthy don't deserve it. Stop with the rash generalizations about the motivations or thought processes of people you don't even know. My point had nothing to do with whether or not anyone deserves their wealth or not. Not that long ago the United States actually had a 90% top tax rate. And wonder of wonders, people like the Kennedy's and the others I mentioned still managed to amass great wealth. And, the amount of money Bush's 1% has makes more money faster than they could possibly spend it.

I don't need a lecture about how hard some people work. I'm not a child. I never said people didn't work hard. I simply think that if you can't live on 10% of 5 billion dollars, you have a serious spending problem and are making very poor investment choices.

.

[pitohui]

40. no, YOU don't understand what 90% means (it's on the margin)

just because there is a 90 percent tax bracket it doesn't mean that ANY of ANYONE's income EVER was taxed at 90 percent

it means there is some level of income at which it is obscene and wrong to keep more than 10 percent because the amount of income in question is jsut indecent

for example say for whatever reason this year i suddenly earn $500 million dollars, there is no reason why that last $100 million of income should not be in the 90 percent bracket

that still leaves $400 million of income that i have earned and paid taxes on in the lower tax brackets

if people would inform themselves before spouting off, they would realize that 1) a 90% tax bracket affects almost no one (hence why the kennedys and so forth could still accummulate many millions in those days) and 2) it is only on a portion of the money and still leaves the entire family, entourage, and endless hangers-on more cash than any decent person could ever spend on themselves

a self made millionaire (of which there are very few anyway) would not be affected

someone who made tens of millions would AND SHOULD be affected

no one should have billions of dollars while a billion people in this world don't even have clean drinking water, that is a crime against humanity and no i don't give one fuck for the person who thinks the self made billionaire deserves it because they're just insane, nobody deserves that

because our society is more concerned w. protecting millionaires from taxes than from providing decent schools and medicine to the public, we have a society where ALL of us (except the shitheel millionaire with his tax shelter) is exposed to violent crime and where MOST of us (except the shitheel millionaire) have at some point had to choose to do w.out medical care because of the high cost to our family

[Kansas Wyatt]

56. Right... Those working multiple jobs and busting their asses for nothing

Deserve to be shoved into a shell game, designed and lobbied for by the upper class, that has them paying "socialized" tax rates (add Fed, state, local, & all other taxes together) just so self made millionaires can pat themselves on the back as they step away from their shifted burden. Meanwhile, those working people paying "socialized" tax rates don't get what "socialized" countries give their citizens.

This country survived 90% rates on the Wealthy Elite before, and that just happened to be during all those nostalgic good ole' days. The Wealthy Elite just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and start pulling their load, instead of slacking, being gluttons, and making everyone pay for their greed.

'Don't deserve any of it.' How much is enough? How many homes can one person live in? How many cars can one person drive? How many boats can one person lay their bloated asses out on? How many people can one person look down their noses at in a day and order around, just because they are rich and powerful?

Oh yes, the rich should be rewarded, because they have given us so much in the economy. Yes, the economy is just busting at the seams and bringing so much promise to all those who actually do work for a living and retirement. Too bad GREED from the top down got in the way, and only the Wealthy Elite get the benefits of "socialization."

Oh no, the only absurdity here is that the wants of a few are more deserving than the needs of the many.

You have also missed the point that if one was faced with paying 90%, then they just might invest earnings into real business assets, which would improve the economy from the present smoke and mirrors model of take all you can.

[ozymandius]

47. Taxes support the system, our society, that allows one to succeed.

A prime subject in point is Warren Buffett.

When Warren Buffett pays a smaller percentage of his income than does his secretary - something is incredibly wrong. He has said so. Warren Buffett also collects a Social Security check each month. He will eat without it, no doubt. Under the current system he contributes to the Social Security fund only up to the first $90 thousand of his income.

He also says he should pay more in taxes. Not as punishment for being rich. He believes in supporting the society that offered him opportunities that allowed his intelligence to flourish when he was not wealthy. At a 90% tax rate, I'll argue, he would still be extremely wealthy.

Edit to add: I do not advocate a 90% top income tax rate. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50% works. I do advocate an increase in FICA contributions, including raising the bar to $300k on personal income.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. 90% Is Far Too HIgh

It's a net economic drag. It encourages hoarding and cashing out which reduces the velocity of cash and stagnates consumption.

The upper bracket needs to be higher than it is now, but 90% will do more harm than good.

I'd say around 45% above $400k, with no deductions for either interest or property taxes beyond a single home, unless it provides direct year round rental income.

Also, i'd raise the cap on SS to $200k and include income from ALL sources, not just wages.
The Professor

[ThomWV]

21. That rate was OK during the Eisenhower (R) and Nixon(R) Presidencies

I believe we still had a 90% marginal rate when Nixon was President.

[TahitiNut]

37. Regarding the basis for Social Security (FICA) payments ...

It's the ONLY entitlement system in which there's a vested interest in the earning power (wages and salaries) of subsequent generations. When we look at "third world social security" as having 5-6 children in the hopes that at least one survives and is able to earn enough to take care of aged parents, we begin to understand the tyranny of population explosions and mortality. Out Social Security system was coincident with a lowering of the birth rate ... when we became a "national family" ... all with a vested interest in improving the education, skills, and productivity of the next generation and a vested interest in caring for ALL our parents and grandparents.

As it's designed, the Social Security system benefits the MOST when those earning the LEAST get an increase in income. We NEED that. As it's designed, the Social Security system benefits the MOST when unemployment goes DOWN. We need that.

People with "INVESTMENT" income have a vested interest in REDUCING wages and salaries in order to increase profits. We DON'T need more of that.

As I've looked at the numbers, the 'troubles' with Social Security are DIRECTLY correlated with the increase of the Gini Ratio ... and the increasing gap between the highest and lowest incomes.

While I CERTAINLY think unearned income should pay a higher rate than currently applied, I don't want the Social Security system decoupled from the earning power of the "bottom 90%" of people who actually WORK for a living.

[Cresent City Kid]

19. We may not agree on the top rate here...

...but I hope it's apparent to everyone that under-taxing the top brackets isn't good for anyone but the rich. The money they make is dependent on a safe playing field provided by our military, and the sweat of the labor force who live hand to mouth. Taxation is a fair way for them to pay the cost of doing business. When they give back, the economy is cyclical, right now it's linear.

[cottonseed]

22. At $2 million I'd like to see 65%

[unblock]

23. just so people understand how progressive taxation works, 90% MARGINAL tax is not 90% AVERAGE tax

so if you make the $2.6 million / year needed to reach the 90% bracket, only your last few dollars are taxed at 90%; the rest of if is taxed at the lower rates.

at $2.6 million /year, your AVERAGE tax rate is quite a bit lower, probably less than 50%, depending on the actual brackets and rates.


now, if you make more than $10 million / year, so that most of your money IS taxed at 90%, then your average tax rate would be quite a bit closer, perhaps around 75% in that case.

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. Two reasons why the 90% tax and the Estate Tax need to be permanent realities

Now granted, Paris is merely annoying rather than a mass murderer like Chimpy is, but other than that, they have a lot in common. Two stupid people who would probably be Wal Mart greeters if they weren't living off money their grandfathers made.

[Prophet 451]

27. Agree with the sentiment but not the figure

Personally, I think 90% is just too high (and yes, I'm aware it's been that high in the past) but I could support, say, 75% on the very highest incomes.

Alternatively, another idea is to have a low but continuing tax on wealth. Several European nations (such as the hugely productive Germany) already have such a tax and according to the late Molly Ivins, just a 1% tax each year on the wealth of the top 1% would net upwards of $70 billion a year and several times that if the various loopholes were closed.

EDIT: Reinstating the Estate Tax is a no-brainer too.

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. ABSOFUCKINLUTELY!!!

I've been saying this forever. An added benefit... It keeps the top from getting too powerful and screwing up the system. Every time we let too much money accumulate in too few pockets, there is major trouble from it. They dominate politics and media, and pervert the government especially the military to destructive and wasteful purposes.

THAT'S how to get reform done. It almost takes care of itself.

Besides, those who benefit the most should pay the most. We see now that their greed has no logical limits, so it's up to us to ignore their whining and do what's right for all - and that's a 90% tax at the top 1%. Yes. Graduated down, as it was. And yes, it worked great, and would again.

We should be unapologetic about it, right out front. THEY have performed a humongous redistribution of wealth in the wrong direction already for 30-40 years now, and it's time to rectify that. This was their drunken spree and they need to pay for it and be held accountable for it, and then on top of that, fix the tax structure.

Nobody under 125% of poverty (meaning the actual minimal cost of getting by) should be paying ANY income tax whatsoever. It's in the public interest for those people to be able to advance. That doesn't happen while they're being weighted down with taxes. All it does really, is make the minimum wage effectively lower. What's the point of that? Besides they pay sales, gas, property (oftentimes) and other taxes anyway.

[ThomWV]

29. Just remember, that is a marginal rate - so no one ever actually pays that much

That is the rate on all income above some level - let's say $200,000. On the early wages the taxpayer pays the same rate as you or I or anyone else so the actualy rate the taxpayer puts in has to be lower than the top marginal rate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. That is why realistically it is 75%

but if you set it at 75%, then it is 60%

(And yes I am just using the numbers and justification to bring it down from 90 to 70 by JFK)

[ThomWV]

38. A 70% top marginal rate would be fine with me

Hell, I think a 25% marginal rate is just fine as long as they get rid of the bullshit deductions. When Warren Buffet tells us that when all is said and done his secretary pays income taxes at a higher rate than he does then you know our system is horribly broken but that the problem is not in the rates that are charged, but how the rates are applied.

[slampoet]

54. I recall that Buffet said he paid only 19 %

[Cleita]

30. Also, it's time to start taxing wealth instead of the income of the poor.

working and middle classes. There are many ways to do it and we should do all of them.

[kath]

43. Sales tax on groceries should be illegal -- the most immoral tax there is.

Here in OK, a poor mother buying a gallon of milk for her babies pays around 32 cents in sales tax (depending on the county or town). This is the freakin' Bible belt, so it's relevant to ask - WWJD?? -- would Jesus approve of taxing people on bread and milk???
I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't :evilgrin:

[magdalena]

49. Wow, there are places that actually do this?

I've never lived in a state where groceries had sales tax. That is disgusting.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Absotively, posilutely!!!

[TexasObserver]

36. No!! That was insane, and it didn't work worth a damn.

You get investors spending money on shitty deals that are created to exploit tax sheltering.

The government doesn't COLLECT the tax. No one pays that 90%. The whole purpose of that 90% tax is to force people to invest money in certain things, so they can shelter their income.

It doesn't work. It never worked.

[trudyco]

39. Hmm. Close the tax shelter loopholes? Alternative Minimum?

[TexasObserver]

41. Don't care for AMT, either.

It's never going to happen, but I prefer a much different tax system.

[Silver Swan]

44. I am stupid about economics

but it seems so me that the lower tax rates on the rich lead directly to lower wages for regular workers.

Wages are a deductible business expense, but when taxes are so low, there is no incentive to lower taxable income by raising expenses, such as wages.



But back in the 1970's when my spouse and I were a young married couple, we were paying a ton of income taxes. There was a high "marriage penalty" and even average workers had a marginal tax rate of 49 percent. So excuse me if I feel no pity for those making a lot more money now, who are paying a much lower percent in taxes than we did then.

I especially hate those who complain about how the boomers had it made. What? We paid a lot more of our income in taxes when we were young, making it harder to raise a family and save for retirement.

[Avalon Sparks]

45. I agree 100%

Back to the 90% tax.......

The GAP is just too effing wide now between the Haves and the rest of us.

[yurbud]

46. if anyone has ever had a business address on Wall St, make it 99.9%

[Courtesy Flush]

50. That would get people to vote Republican for sure!!!

[aikoaiko]

52. "tax the livin shit out of them" --- sounds like sour grapes to me,

Obama should only adopt your suggestion if he want to lose.

[DailyGrind51]

53. Your recommendation would prevent corporations from paying CEOs

multi-million dollar salaries, thereby having more in the salary line-item to "trickle-down" to the employees at the base, the ones who actually do the work.:thumbsup: