For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law
Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007.[2]
So...yeah, marginal rates have been 70% or higher...but the Federal government has never successfully collected that much, due to write-offs, tax shelters, and other schemes that were largely closed in 1986 with...
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…
So if we re-implement the 70% marginal tax rate now that these schemes are closed...?
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#4Any discussion that doesn't even broach the topic of actual tax incidence is superficial at best, and probably just negligent. You can't really say if X worked at a societal level if X didn't do what it sounds like it did and literally applied to around half a dozen people.
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#5https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…
The article touches on a cultural shift in business leader salaries, saying that they didn’t demand as much because it would all go to taxes. Not sure how accurate that is, but if it were the case would that explain some of this phenomenon? Basically income would be shifted to lower brackets.
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#6I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs).
Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a fairly weak understanding of political theory.
Assuming no reductions in revenue, the only solution is raising taxes substantially on the wealthy below 1%. Simple.
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…
So if we re-implement the 70% marginal tax rate now that these schemes are closed...?
Technically no, because the 70% marginal tax rate would be on earned income while a significant portion of wealth is taxed through capital gains.
The tax code is very large, so you can implement a 70% marginal rate on earned income and capital gains, but that will just shift accounting elsewhere.
Alternatively, we could get better at our costs. Actually look to balance the budget by decreasing military spending, rein in pharma companies and healthcare costs, and then if needed raise taxes to make up the difference.
It would have a much better effect, because increasing the taxes on the wealthy would do nothing to adjust healthcare spending, high cost of drugs, a lack of investment in our infrastructure.
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…
So if we re-implement the 70% marginal tax rate now that these schemes are closed...?
[deleted]
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#9I have given up with the long answers. The US had a marginal rate this high before: wrong, this doesn't reflect tax paid which, for the top 1%, is only down slightly since mid-1960s (and not worth anywhere close to what the US needs). Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a…
Let's assume you're right and the US really hasn't ever had a marginal tax rate of 70% in the past. Introducing it now would be the first time it's ever been done.
What's wrong with trying new things?
Re: For Dell’s Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich Is a Joke
#10https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% bet…
Honest question: if people like the one described in the article won't actually end up paying more in taxes due to an increase in their tax rate, why do they oppose it?