Billionaires in Davos hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% tax on the rich

[RunInRed 16,438]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

44 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

I may have a heart attack. You quoted a FoxNews poll

[DKW 86 7,431]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Where and when has it worked over time?

It has worked for decades in Europe etc. It worked for decades here in the Eisenhower, JFK, JBJ Administrations

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

BUSINESS

Quote

 

Jeff Bezos gives a pitiful amount of his $160B fortune to charity

 

For the world’s richest man, charity begins — and stays — at home.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has given only a tiny fraction of his $160 billion fortune to philanthropic causes, falling far behind fellow billionaires such as Bill and Melinda Gates and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, public records show.

Although Bezos, 55, and his estranged wife MacKenzie recently pledged $2 billion to a new charitable initiative, their previous giving amounts to a total of just over $145 million or .0906 percent — far less than one percent — of their net worth. Out of $100,000, that would be like spending $90.06 on charity.

 

I used to say that the rich did substantial good works with their fortunes. In reality, they dont.

[auburn41 492]

12 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Does this surprise you?  It's called human nature.  Notice the last line in the table....80% opposed increasing taxes when they thought THEY would have to give more of THEIR money to the Gov't.   Like I said in an earlier post, the bottom 50% of income earners in the US pay only 3% of the income taxes.  Why would anyone in that group oppose raising taxes on people in the higher tax brackets?  

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

the bottom 50% of income earners in the US pay only 3% of the income taxes

What percentage of the income do they earn? More than 3%?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

It has worked for decades in Europe etc. It worked for decades here in the Eisenhower, JFK, JBJ Administrations

 

In Europe that's debatable. In the U.S maybe but  the gov't grew and grew. I am of the school that less money we give to the gov't the better

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

What percentage of the income do they earn? More than 3%?

Probably so lets just have a flat tax rate.....same % for everybody.

[auburn41 492]

23 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

What percentage of the income do they earn? More than 3%?

You know, a fart smeller, I mean a smart feller like you should be able to use Google.......Just this once, I'll do it for you....the bottom 50% earned over 11% of the total income (from 2015, this is the first table I saw in google).  I've got a real job and a bunch of people are depending on me to keep earning money so I can keep paying taxes, so I can't be messing on Google for you anymore.  Of course, if I were a nit picker I would point out that the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of income taxes while only earning 20% of the income....but I'm not a nit picker so I won't point that out 😂

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

You know, a fart smeller, I mean a smart feller like you should be able to use Google.......Just this once, I'll do it for you....the bottom 50% earned over 11% of the total income (from 2015, this is the first table I saw in google).  I've got a real job and a bunch of people are depending on me to keep earning money so I can keep paying taxes, so I can't be messing on Google for you anymore.  Of course, if I were a nit picker I would point out that the top 1% of income earners pay 40% of income taxes while only earning 20% of the income....but I'm not a nit picker so I won't point that out 😂

 

Ahh. AGI. Which includes numerous types of income (and subtracts others) that are taxed at different rates and which affect more people as you slide up the wealth scale. 

I don't fully grasp all of it but it's not an apples to apples comparison of wage taxes. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Probably so lets just have a flat tax rate.....same % for everybody.

Flat taxes hurt poor/lower income people disproportionately.  Let's say it's 25% and you have a single mom raising a kid on a $30k/year salary (my mom did exactly this, so dollars are real).

Now she's paying $7.5K a year in federal taxes, leaving her $22,500 to still pay SALT taxes plus live.

However, the person making $100K with a kid will pay $25K in taxes, leaving $75k for SALT and living expenses.  Much easier to do that and still have a nice life.

The tiered structure makes sense and works.  As has been stated, wealth in this country is concentrated at the top.  Of course you tax that more, because that's where the money is located.  And doing that also has less chance of hurting the economy, as average everyday consumers aren't being hit with more money being taken out of their pockets.  Folks who make less tend to spend more and save less too, meaning that money is staying in the market through shops, goods, and services.  And it's those people who drive the economy because they constitute the bulk of the spending.

[homersapien 11,394]

On 1/24/2019 at 4:11 PM, AUloggerhead said:

Did you forget the "no basis in reality" part of my statement? 

Sanders is a lifelong socialist/communist/marxist -- no hope for him to learn from history if he hasn't already at this point..... 

Irony. 

[auburn41 492]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Ahh. AGI. Which includes numerous types of income (and subtracts others) that are taxed at different rates and which affect more people as you slide up the wealth scale. 

I don't fully grasp all of it but it's not an apples to apples comparison of wage taxes. 

Income is income.  Not sure what you are trying to say here.  Adjusted Gross Income means the difference between your Income and your deductions.  All income is taxed via the US tax code tax brackets.

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Flat taxes hurt poor/lower income people disproportionately.  Let's say it's 25% and you have a single mom raising a kid on a $30k/year salary (my mom did exactly this, so dollars are real).

Now she's paying $7.5K a year in federal taxes, leaving her $22,500 to still pay SALT taxes plus live.

However, the person making $100K with a kid will pay $25K in taxes, leaving $75k for SALT and living expenses.  Much easier to do that and still have a nice life.

The tiered structure makes sense and works.  As has been stated, wealth in this country is concentrated at the top.  Of course you tax that more, because that's where the money is located.  And doing that also has less chance of hurting the economy, as average everyday consumers aren't being hit with more money being taken out of their pockets.  Folks who make less tend to spend save less too, meaning that money is staying in the market through shops, goods, and services.  And it's those people who drive the economy because they constitute the bulk of the spending.

My Mom did too after my Dad died when I was 8. We didn't live in luxury but she made it. Different levels of living/luxury have been the norm forever.  I don't disagree with the richer paying a higher % but 70% is ridiculous. That harms the incentive for people to make a lot of money.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

My Mom did too after my Dad died when I was 8. We didn't live in luxury but she made it. Different levels of living/luxury have been the norm forever.  I don't disagree with the richer paying a higher % but 70% is ridiculous. That harms the incentive for people to make a lot of money.

I see the 70% thing as a negotiating tactic.  It's a pipe dream.  But maybe the real number is 50%.  And remember, it's after the first $10M, so effective tax rate won't be close to 50% at all.

[McLoofus 35,182]

23 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Income is income.  Not sure what you are trying to say here.  

AGI has components that affect some taxpayers and not others. Poor people don't have investments for the most part. When you remove those components and compare the components that are left, I'm curious what the difference is. 

You can say income is income but when certain types of income are only a reality for certain tax payers, and if it's those components that are primarily responsible for the widening wealth gap, then maybe more discussion is warranted. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

I see the 70% thing as a negotiating tactic.  It's a pipe dream.  But maybe the real number is 50%.  And remember, it's after the first $10M, so effective tax rate won't be close to 50% at all.

OK, so I'm good up to 10M? Breathing a sigh of relief

[auburn41 492]

38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

AGI has components that affect some taxpayers and not others. Poor people don't have investments for the most part. When you remove those components and compare the components that are left, I'm curious what the difference is. 

You can say income is income but when certain types of income are only a reality for certain tax payers, and if it's those components that are primarily responsible for the widening wealth gap, then maybe more discussion is warranted. 

Just for my curiosity, how old are you?  Maybe a better way to ask would be, how long have you been paying taxes?  Income is income.   You can get income in different ways like, your paycheck, or capital gains (taxed differently to encourage people to sell stocks and houses and such) to keep the money involved in the market.  Is that what you are trying to articulate?

If you go back and look at one of my prior posts, I am an advocate of a flat tax where no tax is paid by the lower echelons of the income brackets and all deductions are done away with.  This would mean that all the rich people (I certainly hope and aspire to be one soon) could not write off all of their investment losses and home mortgage interest  and the like.  The down side of this is that having the write-offs encourage rich people to invest their money.  This causes them to do things like start businesses and hire people, and invest their money in things like the stock market and such.  Some people on here will tell you that middle income people are the driving factor in spending (one has stated that in this thread)...I will tell you that most middle income people work for someone considered rich by the rest of us.  So because these "rich" people invest their money and start businesses (to have more Income) that gives the majority of us wishing to be rich people jobs.  If these investment write-offs are taken away, we run the risk of hurting job growth.  It is a very fine line.  In other words this stuff is not easy to implement.  I generally fall on the side of letting the people keep more of the money that they earned.  This allows them to invest it to try to become one of the "rich" people.  

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get a face palm from "I can't hear you" and I will smile when it happens.  Have a good day....I've got taxes I need to pay....It's not May yet.

[McLoofus 35,182]

27 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Income is income.   You can get income in different ways like, your paycheck, or capital gains (taxed differently to encourage people to sell stocks and houses and such) to keep the money involved in the market.  Is that what you are trying to articulate?

That is not what I am trying to articulate. It's what I did articulate. Twice. 

Your attempts to patronize are misdirected. 

Enjoy the well earned face palm. 

[auburn41 492]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

That is not what I am trying to articulate. It's what I did articulate. Twice. 

Your attempts to patronize are misdirected. 

Enjoy the well earned face palm. 

Patronize you?  I am truly sorry if that is how our exchange appeared to you.  That was not my intention.  I was just trying to understand what you were saying and thoroughly explain my beliefs and state my beliefs in such a way to minimize the chance for the snipers to snipe!  If I get a face palm on this post......I give up!