David Dayen

@ddayen

Author, Chain of Title. Goodman Fellow . Contributor to , . Newsletter:

Los Angeles, CA
Joined August 2007

Tweets

You blocked @ddayen

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @ddayen

  1. Pinned Tweet
    9 Dec 2018

    Fat Cat: The Steve Mnuchin Story, by me and , is out now! Not to be confused with my 3-volume set on Garfield. (Not James Garfield, the cat)

    Undo
  2. 7 hours ago
    Undo
  3. 10 hours ago

    FYI I deleted the older calculations in the thread to avoid confusion

    Show this thread
    Undo
  4. 10 hours ago
    Undo
  5. 11 hours ago

    The amount the U.S. loses in annual tax avoidance, at current rates, without having to raise them a penny, is simply staggering.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  6. 11 hours ago

    I would say you couldn't even realistically do this without a commitment to dismantle offshore tax havens.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  7. 11 hours ago

    For context, in 2011 PIRG estimates that offshore tax havens alone cost the U.S. $100 billion a year, roughly the same amount as what you might yield from this 70% top marginal tax bracket. And if the top marginal was that high, that number would grow.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  8. 11 hours ago

    Also my working assumption is that a wealth tax similar to the Revenue Act of 1935 would yield more than a marginal tax bracket. I defer to others on that.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. 11 hours ago

    Caveats: 1) I don't know the size of the GND investment being sought 2) I'm not adjusting the number for inflation so it would be higher over time 3) There might be marginal erosion at the top end as rich families hire accountants to avoid the 70% top marginal rate

    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. 11 hours ago

    Now these are some real numbers. You would get about $106 billion/year, or $1.06 trillion over 10 years. Significant!

    Show this thread
    Undo
  11. 11 hours ago

    That means $19.966 million would be taxed at 70% rather than 37% under the plan.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  12. 11 hours ago

    ADDENDUM! The numbers on the average income per household at $10 million or higher is actually in the chart I was looking at. It's a whopping $29.966 million.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. 11 hours ago

    Today, that would be taxed at 37%. Under the AOC plan it'd be 70%.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  14. 11 hours ago

    But let's go with a middle ground. Let's say on average the bracket hits $5 million of income per household. (that's maybe high, maybe low, I don't know)

    Show this thread
    Undo
  15. 11 hours ago

    To progressives, how much would you get out of a 70% bracket on 16,087 multi-millionaire households? It depends on how much more than $10 million these folks make on average. That statistic isn't available.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  16. 11 hours ago

    So to conservatives, you're recoiling at the horrors of a marginal tax increase on 16,087 in a country with 150,272,157 households.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  17. 11 hours ago

    According to the IRS, in 2016 the number of households making over $10 million was... 16,087

    Show this thread
    Undo
  18. 12 hours ago
    Undo
  19. 17 hours ago

    The conservative movement (Hannity/Newsmax) murmuring about giving the DREAM Act in exchange for a wall suggests they know this isn't playing well and are bargaining with Trump for a way out. Which he won't take in all likelihood.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. 18 hours ago

    This is the logical endpoint of politics by hostage taking.

    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. 22 hours ago

    So NBD, just a Senator who lobbied for 30 companies and organizations, 9 of which we still don't know about, right before joining the Senate.

    Show this thread
    Undo

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.

    You may also like

    ·