Majority Of Americans Support Raising Top Tax Rate To 70%

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Majority Of Americans Support Raising Top Tax Rate To 70%

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:43 pm ... ax-rate-70

Back in 2012, when Europe's populist tensions were first emerging, France's socialist president Francois Hollande decided to harness the unhappiness of the proletariat (and distract from what would soon be one of the most disastrous presidencies in French history), and passed a 75% tax on earnings above €1 million as part of his election campaign.

Supported by socialists everywhere, the reform quickly prompted accusations of an anti-business agenda, sparked an exodus of high-profile personalities (France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship), sent local stocks tumbling as investors pulled out of France, and local real estate prices plunged.

Well of course the rich are going to flee to an easily accessible neighboring European country for refuge. Such tax has to be implemented across the whole of Europe, wherever the euro currency applies; just like such tax would need to be on the whole of the US, wherever the USD applies, or else businesses would flee from the high-tax state to a state that is more willing to prostitute its people while retaining ease of trade with the former residence.

France's problem is being dumb enough to think the people can pay their own welfare and they should immediately remove all taxes on anyone remotely close to poverty level, and their top rate cannot exceed the top rate of any other European country lest they spark an exodus of capital. If the Europeans wish to raise taxes, they will have to do it in unison to avoid asymmetries among member states.

The main purpose of taxation is redistribution and it makes no sense to take from the poor to give to the poor (minus some profit for the service) so the poor shouldn't be taxed at all, and that includes sales tax. Sales tax is THE most socioeconomically harmful tax. All flat taxes are worse than counterproductive and most heavily burden the ones least able to afford it.

The latest The Hill-HarrisX survey conducted on Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70%, shocking found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59%, supports the idea.

The "radical" proposal was popular with both sexes: women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin, while a slightly smaller majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. What is maybe even more surprising is that the proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it as well, 56 percent to 44 percent.

The surprises don't end there: increasing the highest tax bracket to 70% has a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters also backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin while Democrats were clearly the most in favor, supporting it 71 percent to 29 percent.

People are smarter than I thought. Go Ocasio!

she said would kick in at individuals 10 millionth dollar of income, at 70%.

16,000 people

0.005% of the population.

In her CBS comments, Ocasio-Cortez referenced tax rates that had once been in place during the mid-20th century, when indeed during the 1950s and 60s, the wealthiest Americans were once taxed at a rate in excess of 90 percent. Of course, back then it didn't take about a 10 minute phone call and a token "investment" to purchase a passport anywhere else in the world, ensuring that those who are targeted by the tax would promptly depart the US and leave the nation with even less tax receipts.

The tax-avoidance argument only serves to embarrass those delivering it by exposing ignorance of empirical historical data:

Data for 1916-1933 ... me-reports
Data for 1934-1953 ... ort-part-1
Data for 1954-1999 ... rn-reports
Data for 1996-2016 ... ax-returns

It was a pain in the ass entering all the relevant data into excel, and I only did every 5 years (1916 and 1920 - 2015), but here are the taxes actually paid into the IRS divided by the income reported to the IRS for each income group:

taxes actually paid.jpg
taxes actually paid.jpg (96.61 KiB) Viewed 4231 times

From shortly after 1930 to shortly after 1980 the rich paid effectively and essentially half their income in taxes, according to my calculations, which I invite everyone to verify.

The moving average of Real GDP Growth was slightly higher back then ... verage.png

And that's even more significant considering GDP was calculated less liberally back then. Nowadays they're looking for ways to massage the number a bit higher.

Here's the shadowstats verion of GDP which shows a recession since 2000 ... uct-charts

Same can be said of the unemployment rate ... 8-2015.png

And the shadowstat version puts employment into perspective: ... ent-charts

That was back in the days where wages were the highest in he world, quality was the highest, one man could support a wife a kids while still saving and having no debt and having the house nearly paid for... and they bagged your groceries and pumped your gas. That's the MAGA days Trump wants to return, but he's recreating opposite conditions, conditions which preceded the 1929 crash, where taxes were low on the wealthy and income inequality was highest.

If not for the staggering explosion of debt since Reagan, the economy would already be unsustainable.

Meanwhile, for AOC - who instead of focusing on abolishing the Fed believes that social inequality can be crushed only thanks to taxes - taxing the super rich is a matter of wealth redistribution:

Yes, of course taxing the rich reduces inequality. That's been studied extensively:

wealth divide.jpg
wealth divide.jpg (50.37 KiB) Viewed 4231 times


The objective morality objection:

The moral appeal of the taxation-is-theft argument is overshadowed, both in quantity and degree of suffering within a constituency. If taxation is indeed immoral, then the only moral action is to eliminate all taxes, which eliminates all government assistance, so how can a moral action result in an increase in suffering? And what about the military? Does one have a moral obligation to defend ones country? How about the vets?

Who wants to argue the other side of this?
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users