- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Marginal Tax Rates
Posted on 1/6/19 at 11:59 am
Posted on 1/6/19 at 11:59 am
I keep hearing this on especially on Twitter in reference to Alexendria Ocasio Cortez 70% tax increase. It seems all the of lefties are for it and said it was successful in 50s. I call bs but what do y’all think?
This post was edited on 1/6/19 at 12:02 pm
13
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:01 pm to Tigahhs97
I don’t understand your confusion. Do you know what marginal tax rates are?
This post was edited on 1/6/19 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:05 pm to Mo Jeaux
Yes but all the lefties say they would work. But I’m not buying it.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:06 pm to Tigahhs97
I still don’t get it. We have marginal tax rates now. Again, do you know what they are?
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:12 pm to Tigahhs97
What the sam hill you talking about boy?
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:15 pm to Tigahhs97
I’ve seen the 60-70% rate mentioned for a tax bracket at $10 million. That’s more than most CEOs. More than most NFL players. More than anyone that any of us probably know. Seems silly because people with that kind of money are going to get around it. Plus it’s just not a big population of people.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:18 pm to Tigahhs97
If you earned $10,000,001 you would pay 70% on the one dollar. The $10m would be taxed at your current marginal rate.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:20 pm to cahoots
Cahoots is correct. It has been about ten years but I did a research project on this.
The problem (ten yrs ago) is there aren't enough rich people. You could tax them 100% and it wouldnt balance the budget at current spending level.
I imagine the situation isnt much different now.
The problem (ten yrs ago) is there aren't enough rich people. You could tax them 100% and it wouldnt balance the budget at current spending level.
I imagine the situation isnt much different now.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:21 pm to Tigahhs97
quote:
I keep hearing this on especially on Twitter in reference to Alexendria Ocasio Cortez 70% tax increase. It seems all the of lefties are for it and said it was successful in 50s. I call bs but what do y’all think?
There were very high marginal tax rates in the 1950s up to 90%, but there were also many more deductions, and ways to shelter income so that no one paid anywhere close to their marginal rate. I have no clue to what she means by "successful".
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:22 pm to Tigahhs97
There were many more tricks and deductions available then too.
Even credit card interest was deductible.
No one paid 70%.
Even credit card interest was deductible.
No one paid 70%.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:30 pm to cahoots
quote:
Seems silly because people with that kind of money are going to get around it. Plus it’s just not a big population of people.
This is exactly what will happen and guess who'll end up paying for it...
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:33 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
What the sam hill you talking about boy?
The classiness of Dem voters.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:39 pm to Tigahhs97
Taxes are high enough now. Cut spending as much as possible, everywhere possible.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:40 pm to Tigahhs97
Is her 70% threshold number $10mill? I could see her aiming for a much lower figure, possibly six digits even. Oddly, her own city will be one of the most affected areas.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 12:40 pm to Tigahhs97
Pretty sure She Guevara isn’t talking about marginal tax rates.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 1:15 pm to Tigahhs97
It was not necessarily successful way back when.
I read the other day that NBC Radio (before TV was big -- think Jack Benny, Frank Sinatra, et al) lost almost its whole stable of talent to CBS Radio because CBS allowed their stars to be paid as corporations, thus avoiding the punitive tax.
There were multiple loopholes.
I read the other day that NBC Radio (before TV was big -- think Jack Benny, Frank Sinatra, et al) lost almost its whole stable of talent to CBS Radio because CBS allowed their stars to be paid as corporations, thus avoiding the punitive tax.
There were multiple loopholes.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 2:52 pm to Tigahhs97
I think it is pretty safe to say that commie, socialist and libtards have never been very good at maximizing the use of everyone's money they confiscate.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 2:58 pm to Tigahhs97
If you believe that government is responsible for growth and innovation, then by all means yes. But the reality is that private industry is responsible for growth and innovation. And the less money they have (taken away via taxation) the less growth and innovation. Government doesn’t create their own revenue. They have no accountability. Ever been to the dmv? Or any other government service?
I don’t see how anyone wants to give them more money than they already get.
I don’t see how anyone wants to give them more money than they already get.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 5:14 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Cut spending as much as possible, everywhere possible.
The problem is that not everyone is going to agree on what to cut.
Posted on 1/6/19 at 5:16 pm to foshizzle
quote:
The problem is that not everyone is going to agree on what to cut.
There is something that can be cut from every office, agency, bureau, and department in local, state, and national government.
This post was edited on 1/6/19 at 5:19 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News