21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were on track to pay off the debt 20 years ago. The debt is substantially higher now but nothing has fundamentally changed.
The difference between what it takes to pay down a moderate debt and what it takes to pay down a truly massive debt is a fundamental difference.
Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year behave the same? Do they help, buy overpriced luxury goods they don't need, or park their money in some financial product.
His foundation does much work outside of the USA. That's commendable, but it's not up to the individual to decide what they fund. For a good reason.
He really came as arrogant and uninformed. And where was the push back from the host?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is likely quite simple. Because allowing for one idea would lead into another. 70% tax is a start. Not the end. The idea is to find where the "excess" income is taking place and add additional taxes in that area to direct the income into investment and services. 70% may be a start at ordinary income. But does it apply to investments? And then what's next? I think the key question for Dell and others is: ca…
Wage growth is not flat: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45448323
https://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…
I 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…
No amount of tax increase alone is going to address a $22 trillion debt. Reducing the size of the state will be required.
It would take a mini-treatise to summarize what's wrong with this statement, so suffice it to say that there are several scenarios where such a debt is absolutely healthy and encouraged, and no one should use it as an excuse to put their foot further on the neck of the lowest rungs of socio-economic status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage growth is not flat: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45448323
Adjusted for inflation, pretty flat: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=l7U1
https://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…
I see where people are coming from when they dismiss high marginal rates out of hand, without giving the honest answer as to why: No-one who is caught by them will pay them. If I'm Michael Dell, and my marginal rate is 70%, or 90% or even 100% (whatever) then I'm incentivized to take that money in another way, be it in stock, deferred bonuses, or even in leaving the capital in the business without issuing a dividend.…
I 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…
I think you need a longer answer than this, because the marginal rate was indisputably higher than this before.
I see where people are coming from when they dismiss high marginal rates out of hand, without giving the honest answer as to why: No-one who is caught by them will pay them. If I'm Michael Dell, and my marginal rate is 70%, or 90% or even 100% (whatever) then I'm incentivized to take that money in another way, be it in stock, deferred bonuses, or even in leaving the capital in the business without issuing a dividend.…
Major corporations won't de-list from the NYSE/NASDAQ for tax savings.