
A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent - laurex
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70
======
aag2113
For anyone else who may be wondering, the Washington Post estimates that this
would affect ~16,000 households and generate (on the high end) $72 billion
annually in additional tax revenue.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-
co...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/05/ocasio-cortez-wants-
higher-taxes-very-rich-americans-heres-how-much-money-could-that-
raise/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.23b0363836a7)

~~~
thatoneuser
Doesn't seem like much of an impact then.

~~~
ceejayoz
The government is currently shut down over a $5B disagreement, so I'd say $72B
isn't something to scoff at.

~~~
Jach
The disagreement would likely persist even if it was $5M. I haven't heard
anyone object to the issue because of its price. The US government spent $4T
last year. So yeah, an extra $72B does seem like a drop in the bucket.

~~~
ceejayoz
7-8% of our budget deficit is not a small number. $72B would let you triple
the NIH's budget, quintuple NASA's...

~~~
Jach
Looked at from the deficit, I suppose. Though I'm not persuaded by arguments
based on what extra funds _could_ do; there's a lot we _could_ do by just
rearranging the already ginormous amount the government collects. It's not
going to happen, though.

------
porpoisely
This isn't going to do much but hurt professionals like doctors, lawyers,
software developers, traders, small business, etc who work for income.

The truly wealthy people do not gain their wealth through income. They get it
through capital gains ( stocks, homes, asset value increases ). Capital gains
( long term ) are taxed at 20%.

~~~
bronco21016
I find it hard to believe that any of the professionals you list make $10
million in taxable income. There are a few outliers but to act like all
lawyers and doctors would be poor from a 70% rate over $10 million is just
wrong.

Your sentiment that the truly rich make their money outside of a typical
paycheck is correct though. It’s a balancing act of how do we tax people who
have accumulated so much wealth in capital vs taxing capital so much that
people don’t invest in it.

I don’t pretend to have the answer there but spreading disinformation that
professional working people would be hurt by a 70% rate on every $1 over $10
million is pretty irresponsible.

~~~
porpoisely
Please, stop using talking points like "disinformation". So sick of it. The
point is that if you create a new tax bracket that is $10 million, there will
be many new tax brackets between $10 million and the current top tax bracket
of $500K. It is extremely naive to believe that creating such a high tax
bracket will be a one off and it's extremely naive to believe creating such a
high tax rate won't drag the lower ones a tad bit higher.

Just like lowering the highest tax bracket and tax rate lowered the tax
brackets and tax rates below it. Creating a new highest tax bracket will do
the opposite.

But then again, it's my opinion not "disinformation".

~~~
colonelxc
Why couldn't just a new tax bracket at 10mil be added? No need to stretch or
modify any others.

~~~
felipellrocha
Seriously. These are things that are defined. There is really nothing stopping
us from saying "Ok. Up to 500k is unmodified. Here is the curve that will be
created above that level".

------
dudul
I don't really follow this conversation, but just by eye-balling Twitter it's
astonishing how many people do not understand how marginal tax rates work.

~~~
shereadsthenews
It’s also amazing how many people on Twitter clearly do not remember the 90s
where we raised the top marginal rate and experienced an unprecedented run of
economic expansion.

~~~
jamesj1980
I remember the 90's. I think it takes a revisionist to say raising the top
marginal rate was what caused the economic boom. I would guess the big drivers
were low oil prices and that dot com thing.

~~~
tivert
> I remember the 90's. I think it takes a revisionist to say raising the top
> marginal rate was what caused the economic boom. I would guess the big
> drivers were low oil prices and that dot com thing.

But it doesn't take a revisionist to see that shows that raising the top
marginal rate won't doom the economy, like many incorrectly claim.

~~~
jamesj1980
No, it takes a person given to speculation. I think it's disingenuous to use
the dot com era as your example because of the shear magnitude of value that
was being created during that time period.

------
siffland
I find the poll kind of funny. Of course it is going to be in favor of taxing
people who make more that $10 million. Odds are if you polled for 70% tax rate
for people over $1 million it would swing the same way. Why?Because it does
not (directly) affect most of us as most dont make that much money. So it is
easier to let the people above us do the heavy lifting.

The estimates i have read online say that it should raise like $70 to $100
billion a year. However does anyone here really believe someone making $40 or
$50 million a year are not going to find tax shelters for their income and are
going to stand paying 70 cents on the dollar in taxes.

Also when the article states they make more they should give more. What about
a lottery ticket winner. Like the one who won $1.6 billion, so like $1.1
billion of that would be paid in tax. That is a great scheme for the
governement.

I just dont think it will generate the money people think it will and will
incite more class warfare.

~~~
Jach
> However does anyone here really believe someone making $40 or $50 million a
> year are not going to find tax shelters for their income and are going to
> stand paying 70 cents on the dollar in taxes.

You'd think so given how frequently the "it was once 91%!" phrase comes up.
Regardless of tax rates, the amount of GDP gathered from taxation revenue has
been pretty stable:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law)

------
drewg123
This would never pass due to Grover Norquist & Americans for Tax Reform's
strangle-hold on the Republican party. They have a "Taxpayer Protection
Pledge" they leverage Rep. candidates into signing. When they are elected, if
they ever vote for anything that could be viewed as a tax increase, ATR
campaigns heavily against them in the next election.

~~~
r00fus
This tactic may work in the 90s and 00s era where crowdsourced campaign
funding and modern online organizing didn’t yet exist.

Nowadays people can pressure their friends and family to vote and dilute
lobbying pressure.

How impactful was the Norquist crowd in 2018?

~~~
devonkim
A lot of the GOP seats that were held in this past cycle were in very, very
strongly held districts. Those are the politicians that are most worried about
upsetting the Norquist based SIG. Furthermore, as long as the Senate is still
majority GOP it really doesn’t terribly matter to the GOP even if it was 80%+
Democrat in the house. They should be generally comfortable that the judicial
branch is now solidly in their favor for decades even if they lose an entire
branch now.

You can talk about policies all you want but the GOP are substantially better
politicians than the DNC could ever hope to be.

------
kodablah
> Currently the top tax rate is 37%. Would you favor or oppose a tax proposal
> that would apply a 70% rate to the 10 millionth dollar and beyond for
> individuals making $10 million a year or more in reportable income?

This simple yes/no question doesn't allow an accurate response. How about
splitting it: Would you favor/oppose the rate hike if other tax rates were
reduced? Would you favor/oppose the rate hike even if other tax rates weren't
reduced? Or, to put it another way, would you favor giving the federal
government more money via more taxing on the rich without any reduction in
other taxes?

The difference in the answers will often tell you what side of the financial
political line people fall on and their confidence in government. Of course,
even this is too general of a question.

------
mamon
Even if this became the law no one with more than a half of brain would ever
pay 70% tax. People earning north of $10M usually have a team of tax advisors,
and a lot of options of avoiding income tax: offshore companies, charity
foundations, etc. The discussion about this is just a distraction from more
pressing matters.

~~~
tombert
So, in summary, what you're saying is "we shouldn't try do to anything about
it because the really rich people are going to find loopholes anyway"? I'm not
trying to be a jerk, I'm actually trying to confirm that that's your point.

~~~
JAlexoid
Close the loopholes, not hike the taxes.

~~~
jandrese
"Loopholes" are often things that benefit society though. It's sort of an
indirect tax. Like donating to a charity. Basically the government is saying
that they'll lower your tax burden if you use your money in a way that
benefits society as a whole instead of just enriching yourself.

~~~
mamon
Thing is, the very existence of a company benefits society as a whole: it
produces and trades goods that people need and want, and also gives stable
source of income for sometimes dozen thousands of its employees.

That's why we should be carefull with excessive taxes for bussiness - if some
companies go bankrupt, or lay off 20% of their workforce as a result it might
be a net loss to society.

And before you start arguing that sometimes companies make money on shady
things: yes, they do, but then you don't punish them for that with taxes,
there are criminal laws for such things.

~~~
jandrese
There are thousands are companies that exist solely as a tax dodge for some
other company or in order to prevent paying workers at a different company.
Some companies exist to just play games with money on the market, which has at
best only very indirect benefit to the society as a whole and has a definite
chance of being a harm to society. Some companies exist simply to drain all of
the money out of other companies before they go bankrupt.

None of this is illegal, but it's hard to argue a benefit to society in
general.

------
jtlienwis
If you frame it as a simple question, then sure almost everyone would say tax
someone else at a high rate and they will assume they will pay less tax. But,
if you go by how it actually will work out in the real world... Ask if you
support a 70% tax on the highest incomes, if it results in less tax being
collected on high incomes and MORE being paid by the lowest incomes, then it
probably would not get such a high percentage. Need to lower the tax rate for
higher earners, so that everyone works harder, pays more tax and yet gets
themselves into a LOWER bracket. If you want to tax something, tax luxury
goods and contributions to political candidates.

~~~
DFHippie
The motivation is the money, not the rate of taxation on your income above a
certain threshold. People still work to be somewhat richer even if there's a
headwind. History and logic demonstrate this. The point at which the rich say
"meh, screw it" is short of 100%, but it's not like we need a regressive set
of tax tables to get people to work.

~~~
devereaux
There are different sets of motivations for different people.

Saying this differently and with purposefully fake numbers, if (at your
current pre-tax income) increasing your income by 50% would only give you 5%
of that in cash you can use, would you really do that? Or do you have
alternative use of your time (like leisure) that would give you more
happiness?

You may say you would, but the reverse calculation then applies: if you would
lose 5% extra cash by cutting your pre-tax income by 50%, wouldn't you do it?
Many people would. Just look at the number of people who want to work 4 days
or less.

Of course this assume income is a function of time spent working but it is
very often the case.

The resulting elasticity will be different for everyone, but there will be a
non null elasticity at the population level.

~~~
DFHippie
I don't see where we disagree.

~~~
devereaux
We disagree in that at any non 0% tax rate, some people will respond by
adjusting the amount of work supplied.

The effect may only be measured at the population level to take into account
the difference between people, even if we can predict it is likely to be very
low close to 0% and very high close to 100

------
LinuxBender
It appears I am in the minority.

I do not support raising taxes on anyone. I support cutting spending and
removing most government programs. Raising taxes has always had the impact of
removing disposable income which impacts businesses and eventually impacts the
individual. [1] I would rather see all government expenses become fully
transparent, in addition to showing all money spent on lobbying down to the
cent. Every government project should have public documents that detail a full
project break-down and what money what spent specifically on what.

[1] - [https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social-
studies/fisc...](https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/social-
studies/fiscal-policy-and-economic-growth-governments-unique-situation)

~~~
jjtheblunt
You're not at all in the minority: the (interesting) US president was elected
in large part because enough people were sick of ever-expanding federal
government that they got to the polls and voted.

~~~
millstone
What a strange take.

The 2016 campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the
government. Trump's campaign promises included $550 billion federal investment
in infrastructure, deporting all illegal immigrants, and providing health
insurance for everybody, paid for by the government.

