Skip to main content

View Diary: Tax Cuts Are Theft (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, that's right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mas Gaviota, Calvino Partigiani

    There was no prosperity or innovation in this country during the times when the top marginal tax rate was at or near 90% - like the 1940s, 50s, and most of the 60s. The high taxes on all that excessive, unearned income sure didn't encourage wealth-holders to put it into productive use in the economy. Phew! Glad we've got brilliant minds running things now - those billionaires need to hoard cash if we want the economy to thrive!

    Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

    by mataliandy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:54:34 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The highest bracket needs more divisions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Those who make $250K are not living the same life as billionaires and should not be taxed the same.

      and the 90% tax rate did not make us prosperous. There is a difference between causation and and correlation.

      At the same time we had segregation. Did segregation make us prosperous as a nation?

      Maybe you think we should bring that back too.

      Or maybe outhouses. A lot of people still had out=houses in the 1940-1950's. Perhaps shitting outside will make the nation prosperous again.

      Just because some chart has lines that move in the same direction doesn't mean that one lines caused the other.

      I bet we can find a chart that correlates the number of pirates in the world with the number of union members in the US (both numbers have been declining for decades).

      But that does not mean adding pirates will increase union membership.

      And a 90% tax bracket will not make the US turn back into a "Leave it to Beaver" episode.

      •  When the trend lines follow one another (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mas Gaviota

        Closely, over and over, throughout history in all parts of the world, you can be pretty sure that there is a connection. Money pumped into the larger economy keeps the economy running. Money sequestered from the economy does not. Pretty simple. People hoarding money in their own personal bank account aren't feeding the economy.

        Tax policies that encourage investment instead of hoarding are more effective at priming the economic pump.

        No one suggested 90% tax on $250k. Nice of you to bring the strawman to the party, though. He was getting kind of lonely.

        Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

        by mataliandy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:17:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They DO invest it (0+ / 0-)

          I absolutely hate the generalizations made on this site that wealthy people simply hoard their money. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know a great number of extremely wealthy people, although I am not personally wealthy. I do know that they invest and reinvest when it makes sense to do so. They see no gain to be made by sitting their money in the bank, unless they have circumstances where there are realistic chances that there will be legislation which impacts their businesses and personal lives in a negative manner. What would you do right now if you owned a 100 employee printing company in California? Would you be concerned at all about the new health care law? Would you worry about new environmental regulations that may impact your company? Would you worry about an increase in corporate tax and personal tax rates? Would you start hiring in this environment? I agree that the tax policy that encourages investment is the best policy. That's why you make it easier and less expensive for businesses to compete with each other (it's good for us, the consumers when there's more opportunity for small businesses to compete with the larger ones), you level the playing field in trade policy, you keep their taxes at a reasonable level and don't constantly talk about raising them.

          •  Wait (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul Rosenberg, mataliandy

            I thought they needed very special very low capital gains tax rates, etc, to "incentivize" investment or else they wouldn't invest.

            Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: @dcjohnson

            by davej on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They do (0+ / 0-)

              "when it makes sense to do so".Must I repeat myself.
              C'mon, DaveJ, you're an investor. When do YOU invest? Ok, let's do it slow. If I gave you a choice to invest $1000 that pays 5% interest annually, and you have a choice of paying 15% capital gains tax or 50% capital gains tax, which one would you pick? Easy, right? Now let's ask the same question except you have $1,000 being invested at 5% in the first case and paying 15% tax, or 10% in the second case but you have to pay 50% tax, which one would you choose? Not quite as easy, but in the end you'd pick the second, because the rate of return made up for the tax rate.
              But this is an easy case because you KNOW what your return would be, as if it were a CD or other product. For people to invest with higher tax rates, they have to be sure that the reward outweighs the risk, or that they are surer of the potential return. The surer they are, the less they care about the tax. With all of the potential democratic legislation flying around, how sure do you think they are of their investments?

              •  Dude, dude! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mataliandy, Mas Gaviota
                "when it makes sense to do so".Must I repeat myself.

                There's a space required after a period, no? And a question mark after an interrogatory phrase?

                And "democratic legislation...?" I'm pretty sure you meant "Democratic legislation," amirite?

                in the first case and paying 15% tax, or 10% in the second case but you have to pay 50% tax, which one would you choose?

                Did you leave out the missing comma after "case" on purpose, here?

                Dude - if you're going to berate others for typos, always a sure sign of the small-minded, you gots to proofread your spew offerings.

                Please tell me if most of the regulars here want communism in our country?

                by Skritchard on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  How is it that (0+ / 0-)

            all of you wingnut trolls always know lots of "extremely wealthy people"?

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:50:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The trend lines use the WRONG measurement (0+ / 0-)

          Top marginal rates, as I explain below, are meaningless numbers.  The significant number is effective tax rate -- what people actually pay.

          Please see my post below, which explains in detail.  

    •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

      Tax revenues when JFK lowered top tax rate from 91% to 70% increased significantly. When Reagan lowered them from 70% to 28%, they increased significantly. Do you know any of the loopholes in the tax codes in the 40's 50's or 60's that prevented the wealthy from ever paying this? Do you actually think that someone would pay 91% of their income in taxes? Would you? The top tax rate back then was for income over $200,000, the equivalent of $1.7M today.
      What you guys never seem to get is that as many tax changes as you want to make, 1) they're not going to just give it to you, and 2)most of the people making the laws in Congress are in roughly the same boat as they are. If I was a billionaire, as a lesson to the haters, I think I'd just tell my accountant to liquidate my holdings at par and sit it in a non-interest bearing account, providing no taxable income at all. I'd owe NO taxes. I think the U.S. treasury would miss the income, what do you think?

      •  Good Case For A Wealth Tax (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mataliandy, Mas Gaviota

        Your arguments for unlimited greed are most revealing.

        •  Wealth tax is unconstitutional under (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Article I, § 2, Clause 3 and Article I, § 9, Clause 4.   It would require another constitutional amendment, in the same way that the 16th Amendment authorized a tax on incomes.  

          •  Earned and unearned income are both incomes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The taxes are on the income.  We call the state of having accumulated lots of income "wealth."

            There's no such thing as a wealth tax, just an income tax, which has been found consistently to be entirely constitutional - at least since the 16th.

            It's so cute how wingers make up these new terms for existing concepts, then, being unable to grasp metaphor, point out how the literal words in a given fictitious term aren't in the constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional.

            Well, guess what? The constitution doesn't say the words "gun ownership." As a matter of fact, it doesn't use the word "gun" at all. It does say you can have arms, though. Therefore if you're a double amputee, it is constitutional to (a) keep your arms in a box somewhere and (b) tie them on with a piece of string.

            In the mean time, owning guns is clearly unconstitutional, since the words aren't in there, and thus would require a constitutional amendment to become legal. I'm sure you'll get right on it...

            Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

            by mataliandy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site