CSNbbs

??

was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??

was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

So when do the black helicopters come to take him to a "safe house" for his own protection?

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??

was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.

I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??
was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??
was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

In your opinion, why is that the left always ignores that simple fact when proposing higher tax rates? Do they simply assume the money will stay as is or are they not thinking that far ahead? Or, is it simply to provide a sound byte?

(04-02-2019 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??
was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

In your opinion, why is that the left always ignores that simple fact when proposing higher tax rates? Do they simply assume the money will stay as is or are they not thinking that far ahead? Or, is it simply to provide a sound byte?

I think it's because the majority of their supporters are either very wealthy, in which case they love seeing the value of their shelters go up... or they are 'working class' for whom their only understanding of money is as a paycheck employee and not an owner. Throw in the idealists and you've got 90+% of the party

Note that just because someone owns a small business or makes good money doesn't mean they don't think like a paycheck employee.

(04-02-2019 01:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

In your opinion, why is that the left always ignores that simple fact when proposing higher tax rates? Do they simply assume the money will stay as is or are they not thinking that far ahead? Or, is it simply to provide a sound byte?

I think it's because the majority of their supporters are either very wealthy, in which case they love seeing the value of their shelters go up... or they are 'working class' for whom their only understanding of money is as a paycheck employee and not an owner. Throw in the idealists and you've got 90+% of the party

Note that just because someone owns a small business or makes good money doesn't mean they don't think like a paycheck employee.

IMO, it may have more to do with the sound byte. D supporters like to hear "tax the wealthy more" and more than often stop there and don't even care to actually understand what the new tax actually is. As long as it's aimed at the "wealthy" and not "them", that's all that really matters. So, I'll go with the sound byte to the masses.

(04-02-2019 01:55 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 01:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

In your opinion, why is that the left always ignores that simple fact when proposing higher tax rates? Do they simply assume the money will stay as is or are they not thinking that far ahead? Or, is it simply to provide a sound byte?

I think it's because the majority of their supporters are either very wealthy, in which case they love seeing the value of their shelters go up... or they are 'working class' for whom their only understanding of money is as a paycheck employee and not an owner. Throw in the idealists and you've got 90+% of the party

Note that just because someone owns a small business or makes good money doesn't mean they don't think like a paycheck employee.

IMO, it may have more to do with the sound byte. D supporters like to hear "tax the wealthy more" and more than often stop there and don't even care to actually understand what the new tax actually is. As long as it's aimed at the "wealthy" and not "them", that's all that really matters. So, I'll go with the sound byte to the masses.

I don't think we're far apart, but my response addresses how they usually come back, pointing out that many in their group are 'more educated' and 'make good money'

but of course a lot of that is because 'more educated' means a barrista with a masters in art is more educated than a plumber, mechanic or electrician with trade school... and 'make good money' means either entertainment or VERY wealthy, and thus not connected to most people's reality

550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

(04-02-2019 02:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

My guess is A LOT of that is real estate and other illiquid assets.

(04-02-2019 02:29 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 02:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

My guess is A LOT of that is real estate and other illiquid assets.

Exactly. They aren't taking money baths like Scrooge McDuck in a vault of coins.

The truly import figure is how MANY billionaires does your country make. That's the sign of a healthy economy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/15/the-coun...aires.html

(04-02-2019 02:29 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 02:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

My guess is A LOT of that is real estate and other illiquid assets.

Yeah a lot of it is.

(04-02-2019 02:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

If you confiscate every last penny of wealth of the 550 billionaires and issue it as a one time check to every man woman and child in the United States (~350b IIRC) and you managed to do all this without losing a single penny in overhead, waste, corruption, or fraud ... then the resulting check would be: $7,142.

You wiped out a ludicrous chunk of the capital in the market. And you ruined consumer and especially investor confidence. And you made it impossible to have private space travel. And you created 550 new welfare recipients. And all it got was a few months income at minimum wage.

When you put context to the number it's not so staggering.

(04-02-2019 02:29 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 02:15 PM)JDTulane Wrote: [ -> ]550 people have a net worth of $2.5 trillion. That is just an insane stat. to me.

My guess is A LOT of that is real estate and other illiquid assets.

which probably doesn't matter to JDs point, or to socialists who want to steal it

the thing they don't get is that there is value in scarcity... and a lot of this 'worth' comes from having something that literally nobody else does or can get...

like facebook or Microsoft or a 10,000 acre parcel of land within 30 minutes of San Francisco or a dozen Picasso's

Those things have great value... and they (or their ancestors) generally built them or bought them when they weren't as scarce

The idea that wealth should be capped at some arbitrary number presumes that wealth is finite. It's not. You can't copy facebook, but you CAN create something equally valuable from 'nothing'... and it doesn't have to decrease the value of facebook

This is a fun exercise and thread, but who's actually proposing we confiscate all the billionaires wealth?

<<crickets>>

It's about as meaningful as those taking our national debt and saying how much each citizen "owes".

(04-02-2019 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]It's about as meaningful as those taking our national debt and saying how much each citizen "owes".

That becomes pretty meaningful if nobody is willing to buy T-bills or even if they just start demanding higher yields for them.

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??
was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

This. Over and over and over again, this.

And I've said this repeatedly for a loooooong time now, We (we being the Feds) brings in a TON of money, a whole lot of money.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

As a percentage of GDP, we're careening off the cliff to neverland.

(04-02-2019 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:39 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)banker Wrote: [ -> ]??
was there suppose to be a link or referencing another thread?

Edited the accidental edit.

Thanks.
I have done this math before from a different angle. The institution of a top tax rate of 70% on earnings over $1MM would only add a couple hundred billion to the coffers, which is essentially a rounding error in government spending.

In reality, it would not add anything, and would probably subtract, because anyone facing that kind of tax rate could move that income elsewhere and pay half as much--or less--in taxes. And who gets hurt in that scenario is all the American lower and middle class workers who would have been employed to make that money in the US. This is really a case where making the rich poorer stands in direct contrast to making the poor richer.

In your opinion, why is that the left always ignores that simple fact when proposing higher tax rates? Do they simply assume the money will stay as is or are they not thinking that far ahead? Or, is it simply to provide a sound byte?

As the old saying goes:

"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it". Ask how the so called "Luxury tax" worked out for folks back near 30 yrs ago.

Also look who is proposing this stupidity...