Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez aims to make air travel obsolete, aid those ‘unwilling’ to work

[jg121783 3,921]

McConnell is so concerned about the environment that he believes we shouldn't delay and this must be passed immediately.

[Ban Hammer 13,756]

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

Many economists agree with her. Don't worry, a 70% tax rate doesn't actually mean you will pay 70%. I just thought I would clear that common misconception among Republican voters. You are welcome.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Many economists agree with her. Don't worry, a 70% tax rate doesn't actually mean you will pay 70%. I just thought I would clear that common misconception among Republican voters. You are welcome.

Link us to these “many” economists who agree with her, please?

 

So what DOES a 70% tax rate mean then?

Edited February 14, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Póg mo 1,749]

3 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Link us to these “many” economists who agree with her, please?

 

So what DOES a 70% tax rate mean then?

It usually means that at a certain level of income, and after certain amount of deductions you will begin a set amount of tax income in excess already mentioned deductions. In this case, I believe you can make up to 10 million dollars before you begin paying the 70% tax rate. 

 

I am surprised people are so ignorant of this. I had learned about tax bands etc,by the time was in the 9th grade, in Ireland.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

8 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

It usually means that at a certain level of income, and after certain amount of deductions you will begin a set amount of tax income in excess already mentioned deductions. In this case, I believe you can make up to 10 million dollars before you begin paying the 70% tax rate. 

 

I am surprised people are so ignorant of this. I had learned about tax bands etc,by the time was in the 9th grade, in Ireland.

What advanced schooling you must have had, how lucky for you, at least you are using your superior knowledge to raise us from our ignorance

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  Seems we are confusing average tax rate with marginal tax rate. Well some of us anyway.

 

  While I understood what was said, it's still a crazy number. It's so high, even many of the wealthy who support a higher tax bracket have spoken to how crazy it is. The current highest rate is 37% for income above $500,000. Not sure how you really get to 70% from that and expect to get any support. Maybe try 40% at 5 million and up. Or something along that line, and see how that goes. Once you get too far out on the limb, all you can do is fall.

[Ban Hammer 13,756]

[Póg mo 1,749]

Paul Krugman, Mark Mazur, Peter Diamond, Christina Romer, Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, to name a few economists who would support a 70% tax rate.

Even a majority of fox news viewers said they supported higher taxes for the wealthy.https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-news-hosts-horrified-learn-172222093.html

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

30 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

It usually means that at a certain level of income, and after certain amount of deductions you will begin a set amount of tax income in excess already mentioned deductions. In this case, I believe you can make up to 10 million dollars before you begin paying the 70% tax rate. 

 

I am surprised people are so ignorant of this. I had learned about tax bands etc,by the time was in the 9th grade, in Ireland.

Perhaps you pay your taxes in Ireland.  I pay mine in the US, where we have a marginal tax rate (that caps out at 37%), and an Alternaitve Minimum Tax for incomes in excess of around $1 mil (married filing joint), and is even then only 26% or 28%.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Paul Krugman, Mark Mazur, Peter Diamond, Christina Romer, Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, to name a few economists who would support a 70% tax rate.

Even a majority of fox news viewers said they supported higher taxes for the wealthy.https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-news-hosts-horrified-learn-172222093.html

 

 

  There are already higher taxes on the wealthy. I think we all realize that. Almost every country in the world works that way. Progressive marginal tax systems are the norm in the modern world, and that's not really the issue here. The question is how high should they be. I don't know the answer, but I do know it's not 70%. Not at any level. 

[Boiler 46,418]

Well there is a very valid point about income inequality, societies with massive inequality do not tend to fair well. Even more so in the world we live in.

 

Begs the question  the US is too big and too disparate to be governed.

 

Now how you address it is another matter, income tax becomes semi voluntary for those who have the means to adjust their finances, we are certainly in the age of the Digital Robber Barons, no way you will deal with it using crude tools.

 

 

 

 

[eieio 1,594]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  There are already higher taxes on the wealthy. I think we all realize that. Almost every country in the world works that way. Progressive marginal tax systems are the norm in the modern world, and that's not really the issue here. The question is how high should they be. I don't know the answer, but I do know it's not 70%. Not at any level. 

Its more about punishing the wealthy. They also want to eliminate billionaires. You can't look at it with common sense. You need to understand how the wealthy are evil and must pay. Rich=bad...poor=good. Get rid of the rich and everyone will be good.

[Póg mo 1,749]

27 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  There are already higher taxes on the wealthy. I think we all realize that.

I am in no doubt about that. However, I do get the impression that when someone says, AOC wishes for 70% tax on the wealthy, they think that means the government will take 70% of a rich person's income. 

 

27 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

Almost every country in the world works that way. Progressive marginal tax systems are the norm in the modern world, and that's not really the issue here. The question is how high should they be. I don't know the answer, but I do know it's not 70%. Not at any level. 

Why not? The top rate on the wealthy used to be as high as 90%, so from where I stand a 70% tax rate is being generous, considering it only effects people after they make more than 10 million dollars. 

Currently the tax system designed to reward people for holding everyone else's feet to the fire. Firing or keeping employees on low pay does tend to become very attractive, if you know you own personal income will sky rocket and you are in a position to game the tax code.  

[Póg mo 1,749]

34 minutes ago, eieio said:

Its more about punishing the wealthy. They also want to eliminate billionaires. You can't look at it with common sense. You need to understand how the wealthy are evil and must pay. Rich=bad...poor=good. Get rid of the rich and everyone will be good.

No, no it's poor = lazy, and the rich = hard workers. Get it right