People like Bill Gates do wonderful things with their money. Why do you think taking it away from them and giving it do our government is a great idea. I don't get it.
-
-
-
Betsy devos bought 11 yachts, now that i don't get.
-
Someone had to build them, someone sold them. They paid a tax on each purchase. The government collected their cut every step of the way.
-
She has them in foreign waters to avoid tax. Just saying, a few people do good like gates, most buy another yacht.
-
Which proves my point, the more you tax people the more they will look for ways to avoid the taxes. Better to have lower taxes/flat tax
-
They are already avoiding all they can, maybe they'll bribe some more in government to change more rules.
-
As taxes rates go lower, tax avoidance decreases since the incentive to avoid taxes is just not worth the risks. Since they cut the corporate taxes, how many companies have you heard of moving their HQ overseas? Zero.
-
You’re thinking theoretically. Sure, reducing taxes SHOULD incentivize the rich not to outsource jobs, but it doesn’t...
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
What is rarely reported well is that the top rate is on “earnings over x amount.” It’s not nearly 70% of all earnings; a misunderstanding that many are all to glad to use politically.
-
She actually said this in the interview, that it wouldnt be that rate on all the money
-
Correct. Everyone pays the same rate up to X, then an increased rate on earnings above that up to Y...etc
-
So, you want to disincentivize people from having the initiative to make more money, because the more they make, the more you take?
-
That's not how this works. If you make 50,000 and your co-worker makes 100,000, you and your co-worker would be paying the same amount of on the first 50,000. Your co-worker will then be charged on the higher bracket on the rest of the 50,000. Not all of it.
-
Okay, but WHY. 20% of 100k is still greater, in fact double, than 20% of 50k. Why the need to step up the bracket, too? They’re already paying twice as much if they make twice as much. We get how it works; we just think it’s stupid.
-
I don't think you understand
-
Oh no, I do understand. My argument here is that people making exponentially more, still pay exponentially more, even under a flat tax. Hiking up the percent in the name of “paying their fair share” isn’t necessary.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
it can also be 100% as no one will stay in N.Y to pay it ... "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" Margaret Thatcher
-
If there was a 70% marginal tax rate, anybody who got to pay it would be lucky. If the marginal rate started at a 10 million dollars I’d pay the 70 cents on every dollar after 10 million dollars.Thatcher, socialism have nothing to do with good economics
-
It’s good economics because it would distribute money hoarded by the super rich back into the economy so we could all prosper. Also investments would be more preferable than paying the higher tax rates. After tax IRR would be relevant!
-
I'm glad that you have used the term "hoarded" because it is what all this boils down to.
-
It could be called a hoarding tax. I mean if after 1 mil in income you get 70% confiscated you’d be more likely to invest in business and startups and keep the money flowing out to the economy. Rather than hoard.
-
That money influx would serve as a relieve for the government from having to provide assistance to the small businesses.
-
This “hoarding” is 99% delusion. Very rich people spend a lot of money. What they don’t spend is invested. It’s not in mattresses. Punishing success is bad for everyone, though I get how it feels good to people who think of themselves as failures.
-
Thanks for the ad hominem and the lesson on economics.Being rigorous the money put in the bank is used for investments(sub primes among others) instead of filling vaults for bank managers to dive in a la Scrooge McDuck.We, inferior beings were meaning something less like a trust.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.