But they're still not paying their "fair share!"

[K Frame]

Analysis of the Biden tax plan...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/19/tax-rates-could-top-60percent-und.html

[MechAg94]

Yet the official, combined tax rates of more than 60% for top earners would be the highest in more than 30 years, and well above the rates under the Obama administration. The main drivers of the increase in Biden’s plan are the hike in the top marginal tax rate, to 39.6% from 37%, and the added payroll tax of 12.4% for those making more than $400,000 a year, which is split between the employee and employer. Including other provisions in his plan, the top federal tax rate would be 49.338% under Biden, according to Walczak.

In the past, when Democrats would throw out ideas about taxing the rich, threshold would always creep down as they realize the new tax wouldn't net enough money.  Eventually, the threshold will be low enough to include most of the middle class. 

[dogmush]

DeSelby gave away the leftist's plans in several threads here over the years.  They want a return to the post World War II tax rates where the highest rate was in the mid 90's. 


For some reason the democrat planners think Tax Rates and Tax Revenue are linearly related.  They are not.

[K Frame]

"For some reason the democrat planners think Tax Rates and Tax Revenue are linearly related.  They are not."

We've raised our tax rates to make the "wealthy" pay their fair share, but now they're moving out of (insert name of liberal shithole here) and heading to where taxes aren't as high... THAT'S NOT FAIR!

[Pb]

Given what totalitarian leftist freaks most of our rich appear to be, I'm not feeling much sympathy for them.

[Ned Hamford]

Given what totalitarian leftist freaks most of our rich appear to be, I'm not feeling much sympathy for them.

Also the shamelessness of the tax evasion.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/billionaire-ceo-of-software-company-indicted-for-alleged-2-billion-tax-evasion-schemes/

Be flagrantly criminal in evading millions in taxes; pay thousands in fines years later.  No actual disincentive for the criminally inclined.  Absurdly low enforcement rate and absurdly light punishment with very few exceptions. 

I swear the US government always tries to make their enforcement on par or lower than what they bring in.  Different tangential rant, but now I'm angry about it; ditto with white collar crime, when they even bother to enforce it. 

[lee n. field]

"For some reason the democrat planners think Tax Rates and Tax Revenue are linearly related.  They are not."

We've raised our tax rates to make the "wealthy" pay their fair share, but now they're moving out of (insert name of liberal shithole here) and heading to where taxes aren't as high... THAT'S NOT FAIR!

Ill-i-noise has a measure on the ballot this time around, for a constitutional ammendment to allow a graduated income tax, instead of a flat income tax.   All the stops are out to get folks to vote for the "Fair tax".

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P. J. O'Rourke

[Ben]

They seem to not comprehend that the higher their tax rate, the less the really wealthy people that they target will pay.

Certainly those making billions per year will already have teams of CPAs and lawyers to work the tax laws, because the raw number of dollars they make per year is worth paying those salaries to avoid even lowish taxes.

Those making millions to tens of millions to maybe even hundreds of millions though: At 20%, they might be happy just hiring the one CPA to work the tax code, and if they have to pay the highwaymen.gov the 20%, they might just suck it up as the cost of doing business. At 70%, they'll pay more lawyers and CPAs to avoid that high rate, and will consider paying their tax guys a million dollars to offshore or whatever their money a bargain compared to sending $3 million to Uncle Sam.

This is just enlightened self-interest, and the progs don't get it (even though the wealthiest of them do the same thing).

[WLJ]

One theme they like to repeat over and over is how they intent t pay for all their feel good programs is by taking rich people's money away.
Me: But what about next year?
Them: What about next year?
Me: How are you going to pay for everything next year?
Them: We take the money from the rich
Me: What money? You already took it.
Seems they don't like that being pointed out and apparently I'm am an idiot and racist to boot.

[Ned Hamford]

One theme they like to repeat over and over is how they intent t pay for all their feel good programs is by taking rich people's money away.
Me: But what about next year?
Them: What about next year?
Me: How are you going to pay for everything next year?
Them: We take the money from the rich
Me: What money? You already took it.
Seems they don't like that being pointed out and apparently I'm am an idiot and racist to boot.

Well, I'd say that is typical covered by taxing Gains rather than Haves.  Taking a portion of new money.  As long as there is economic activity; there is something to tax.  We tend to ignore that a goodly chunk of folks just decide not to pay taxes and wouldn't you know it, that 'savings' lets them have the extra money to both buy other businesses suffering from that fault of paying taxes and general rule following and have enough left over to buy politicians. As you can imagine, that isn't a sustainable system; its a race to the bottom.   That late stage capitalism cannibal feast is coming. And it is comical, to avoid it, enforce the damn laws that already exist.  No need to switch over to socialism.  Just enforce the damn laws.  Publicize and shame these folks; tho shameless themselves, they tend to understand the value of image if not anonymity.

[MechAg94]

They seem to not comprehend that the higher their tax rate, the less the really wealthy people that they target will pay.

Certainly those making billions per year will already have teams of CPAs and lawyers to work the tax laws, because the raw number of dollars they make per year is worth paying those salaries to avoid even lowish taxes.

Those making millions to tens of millions to maybe even hundreds of millions though: At 20%, they might be happy just hiring the one CPA to work the tax code, and if they have to pay the highwaymen.gov the 20%, they might just suck it up as the cost of doing business. At 70%, they'll pay more lawyers and CPAs to avoid that high rate, and will consider paying their tax guys a million dollars to offshore or whatever their money a bargain compared to sending $3 million to Uncle Sam.

This is just enlightened self-interest, and the progs don't get it (even though the wealthiest of them do the same thing).

Wealthy people also have the freedom to move their money around to investments that don't generate income that is taxable or they park it in tax shelters.  They will also lobby their congresscritters to make sure those tax shelters and loopholes are in the law.  I seem to remember a story years ago about Pelosi(?) who was in favor of an income tax, but had all her wealth invested in tax free bonds that wouldn't be affected. 

People often forget that income =/= wealth.  The guy with the big income might just be that small business owner who had a good year.  He may not be wealthy and huge taxes on income make sure he never will be.  The wealthy don't like competition. 

[griz]

  They want a return to the post World War II tax rates where the highest rate was in the mid 90's. 

Why stop at a paltry 90 percent?  We shouldn't stop until the rate is over 100.

[230RN]

Dumb me.  I thought "fair" was everyone was treated equally.  I pay X%, you pay X%.  X=X.

I don't see I pay X% and you pay X+Y% as beng fair.  Or worse, you pay X% and I pay X+Y%.

Something must be wrong with my early schooling.

[HankB]

Just ask a liberal who's blathering about someone else paying "their fair share" this question:

What is your fair share of what someone else worked for?

[RoadKingLarry]

Just ask a liberal who's blathering about someone else paying "their fair share" this question:

What is your fair share of what someone else worked for?

Or even better: What is my fair share of what you have worked for?

[K Frame]

Why stop at a paltry 90 percent?  We shouldn't stop until the rate is over 100.

Funny you should mention that.

Astrid Lindgrin was a Swedish author of children's stories who became fairly wealthy.

At the same time she was becoming wealthy, Sweden was ramping up it tax rates, especially on the wealthy, to pay for their burgeoning cradle-to-grave society...

In 1976, Lindgrin's nominal tax rate was.... 102%.

Yep, she owed the government more than she earned, because she was double taxed because she was self employed.

So, she wrote a scathing short story about it... and a lot of people say that short story fueled growing discontent among the population that resulted in the Socialist "MOAR TAXES, MOAR FREE *expletive deleted*it!!!" Democratic party being crushed and swept from power for the first time in 40 years.


Tax laws were changed, but... Lindgrin continued to support the party that taxed her blind until she died in 2002.

[K Frame]

Just ask a liberal who's blathering about someone else paying "their fair share" this question:

What is your fair share of what someone else worked for?

YOU HORRIBLE RACIST NAZI TRUMP LOVER! HOW DARE YOU FLAUNT YOUR WHITE MONEY PRIVILEGE!

[griz]

At the same time she was becoming wealthy, Sweden was ramping up it tax rates, especially on the wealthy, to pay for their burgeoning cradle-to-grave society...

In 1976, Lindgrin's nominal tax rate was.... 102%.

Yep, she owed the government more than she earned, because she was double taxed because she was self employed.

Wow.  I was (hopefully obviously) only joking.  My assumption was that no sane person would accept a salary if they had to pay more to get it.  Was there some deduction system that allowed her to keep some of her pay?

[K Frame]

"My assumption was that no sane person would accept a salary if they had to pay more to get it. "

She was self employed as a writer. That's the critical distinction over someone who works for a company.

She fell into the high income tax category because of her earnings.

But because she was self employed she had to pay an additional set of taxes levied on employers on top of her income taxes.

That's what kicked her over into the 102% tax range.

From what I'm reading, that 102% was apparently the final tally of what she owed after any allowances. So, basically, a year's work for free.

[griz]

Seems she would have had a two percent raise by just giving back all her pay and declaring unemployment.

[Ben]

If you have an ATV or a boat, you're wealthy and need to pay your fair share!

Man, this Don Lemon guy is a major putz. Also, once again big city liberals know nothing about flyover country.

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/10/21/cnns-don-lemon-wants-well-off-trump-supporters-to-own-up-to-reason-they-dont-want-higher-taxes/