It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
A 70% tax on the ultra rich doesn’t wipe out the middle class.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it (actually this will be my last), but nobody is turning down promotions because they enter a higher tax bracket.
Not a promotion, but I have turned down overtime. I turned down mandatory overtime before because of tax brackets.
At a job I used to have, there was a point where I would bring home x amount if I worked y number of hours. If I worked a half hour more, the take home amount would actually decrease. Once I found that, I simply explained to my boss at the time that I would not be working more than y hours and why. That included mandatory overtime. So sad, too bad; I do not work for free. I'll take that extra few hours and spend them sleeping before I do.
Your premise is unrealistic. Of course, no one would turn down a promotion that was simply a raise in salary because their taxes would go up. But we're (hopefully) not talking about that (I say hopefully because if we are, we're talking about overtaxing normal wage-earners at these ridiculous rates). Once a person passes a point in the corporate ladder, job a is not like job b. So if I were, let's use round numbers, making $3M a year doing job a, which required me to actually work maybe 50 hours a week, and I were offered a promotion making $4M a year working an average of 55 hours a week but with more headaches, I might consider that worth it; it's an extra million bucks a year. But now let's include taxes: If my take-home from the job I have is like $2M and the new job puts me in a higher tax bracket so I would only be making $2.5M after taxes... wait, I'm only really making 1/2 million extra for the extra time and headaches. No thank you!
Yeah, those numbers are probably blowing your mind right now... who in their right mind would turn down $500,000 a year?!? A lot of people would, if the money is superfluous (meaning they make a comfortable amount already) and they place high value on their time and peace of mind.
But even that's not the issue. The issue is this: If I have a small business and let's say I'm making that same $3M, bringing home $2M, with 20 employees, and I am thinking of expanding, what am I looking at? Well, each one of those 20 employees is a certain amount of headache. My expansion, let's say, involves me hiring 10 more employees and spending $10M. When it is done I am expecting to make $4M, but now after taxes I will only be bringing home $2.5M. You know, I already have a lot of stress and little time with my family, so screw that noise... we'll just stay with what we have. The extra money isn't worth it. So 10 people are now without a job, and they're paying zero in taxes (less, really, because they're probably getting government benefits).
That's what we are talking about. Your points are based on expected actions by those who would not even be directly affected by the taxation rates. As such, they are irrelevant. The effect of such a tax hike, in the example above, is that 10 less jobs will be created; the business owner will still make good money; $10M will not be spent stimulating the economy; and the government will lose out because they will collect no additional money and will still be saddled with providing assistance to 10 people. That's what you are advocating. The higher the proposed tax hike goes, the more likely it becomes that businesses simply will not expand.
I have seen these ideas come and go all my life. Every time they are tried in the slightest way, they fail. Every tax hike causes a slowdown in certain economic sectors. And yet, we have people still promoting the same tired old thinking, thinking they have come up with some new, exciting, never-before-thought-of solution to all the world's ills, all the while being as clueless as a blind cricket in a chicken pen.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
A 70% tax on the ultra rich doesn’t wipe out the middle class.
She wants to tax the wealthiest Americans. The wealthiest Americans include doctors, specialists, engineers, business owners, etc...
The claim always starts with "we will only tax the wealthiest..." Then when that is not enough "we need to tax the middle class too."
That's the same type of claim that socialists and communists made in Cuba, China, U.S.S.R., and one of the latest being Venezuela... We know exactly how this ends. Only people who lean to socialism or communism are stupid enough to want to "try this again."
Honestly that’s a lot to digest and well written.
I will state that throughout the history of this country, when taxes rise the overall economy does not shrink (see any president in history). The economy doesn’t shrink due to tax cuts either. The economy operates pretty independent of the tax code on a macro level.
Your example of the business owner not expanding due to tax implications is a very real one, but it’s a micro example. On a macro level, some other business will take the work and take on the tax liability.
In your example of overtime equating to less take home pay, that could very well be the case on a micro level.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer
Enjoy. I hear it tastes like chicken.
Make sure it's a Democratic crow.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer
Well crows are the most intelligent birds
Might take a while to find one, then. Good hunting.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Because nobody is advocating that...
Are you scared of people who earn over $10M entering into a 70% tax bracket?
So this earner will be taxed at 70% for earnings over 10 million, what tax would be paid for the money earned up to that 10 million, is it still a progressive tax or a flat rate?