Soaking the Rich

[Trumptonium1]

Yeah to about 49-51% or limiting deductability to $100k, but the former only temporarily to solve deficit and debt issues, not as a long term moral position. That part being 40-45%.

Deductability should be limited and tax avoidance eliminated through various forms*, although I'm fine with tax avoidance by the self-employed.

Also removing the concept of tax residency. Income in a country should be taxed in a country, irrespective of whether 100 days have been spent there of 300.

* i.e. Fundamentally altering IFRS to consider royalties a post-EBIT process, like dividends, and hence treated as such for tax purposes.

[Diarcesia]

Any chance we could get a Other/Undecided choice in the poll?

I view this position as perhaps legitimizing indecisiveness. I really want to get a sense for if someone is more in favor or against raising taxes on the wealthy in general. I suppose I can add it in if there is enough demand for it, but this would reset the poll.

A better third option will be "Other - Will Explain in a Post". Sticking to yes or no is too black and white (gasp!) for this kind of issue.

Like what some said, a 40%-60% top bracket tax is the highest that I'm kind of comfortable in thinking it's not theft. A better view of this type of taxation is to consider it a mechanism to keep too much money from sitting idly in the coffers of the rich. To use it to tackle income inequality is a mistake, as this problem is more of a symptom than anything else. A more preferable metric is to compare the income of the poorest bracket versus the cost of living.

[Aclion]

A 70% income tax would hit people with high incomes, but people with high income are not necessarily rich, nor do people who are rich necessarily have high incomes. Also last time we tried something like this it was a major contributor to the great depression.

[Ifreann]

I have never heard this term before.

Neither have I tbh. When I saw the thread title I assumed it was going to be discussing pranks on wealthy people.

My thought was soaking the rich in blood a la those PETA "Fur is murder" stunts.

---

I'm surprised that you aren't aware that the US government has previously had tax rates that high before. Under Republicans.

America actually does tax its citizens who live abroad. For the rich to escape this tax they would have to renounce their US citizenships.

It's possible to disapprove of a policy despite previous implementation.

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

[Diarcesia]

Neither have I tbh. When I saw the thread title I assumed it was going to be discussing pranks on wealthy people.

My thought was soaking the rich in blood a la those PETA "Fur is murder" stunts.

---

It's possible to disapprove of a policy despite previous implementation.

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

Aren't Republicans the more leftist party at the time?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

What if the Republicans are red for a reason?

[Diarcesia]

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

What if the Republicans are red for a reason?

It was them all along...

[Saiwania]

I can't speak for if Republicans were in favor at the time, but FDR signed the Revenue Act of 1935 into law. It became popularly known back then as the "soak the rich" tax. This introduced a "wealth tax" which took up to 75% of the highest incomes. It was revised in 1937 to increase its effectiveness.

Throughout the 1940s there were some tax increases and the highest I've seen to date is the 1954 tax act which had a combined rate of 91% for people whose income level was at $200,000 or more. In today's money, this was equivalent to around $3.8 million.

[Ifreann]

My thought was soaking the rich in blood a la those PETA "Fur is murder" stunts.

---

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

Aren't Republicans the more leftist party at the time?

America doesn't have a leftist party.

---

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

What if the Republicans are red for a reason?

If they are then they're being commies really fucking badly.

---

I can't speak for if Republicans were in favor at the time, but FDR signed the Revenue Act of 1935 into law. It became popularly known back then as the "soak the rich" tax. This introduced a "wealth tax" which took up to 75% of the highest incomes. It was revised in 1937 to increase its effectiveness.

Throughout the 1940s there were some tax increases and the highest I've seen to date is the 1954 tax act which had a combined rate of 91% for people whose income level was at $200,000 or more. In today's money, this was equivalent to around $3.8 million.

The fuck is a combined rate?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

---

What if the Republicans are red for a reason?

If they are then they're being commies really fucking badly.

---

They probably would just be Maoists or Nazbols, nothing really that communist.

[Bear Stearns]

what would happen if the state of new jersey had a nuclear arsenal and used it on other states

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

what would happen if the state of new jersey had a nuclear arsenal and used it on other states

New Jersey doesn’t exist, so it wouldn’t be on the news. Also, why do you ask?

[Diarcesia]

Aren't Republicans the more leftist party at the time?

America doesn't have a leftist party.

---

Yeah I stand corrected. I tried to mean "more politically to the left"

[Bear Stearns]

Neither have I tbh. When I saw the thread title I assumed it was going to be discussing pranks on wealthy people.

My thought was soaking the rich in blood a la those PETA "Fur is murder" stunts.

---

It's possible to disapprove of a policy despite previous implementation.

I'm sure it is, but to call a Republican policy "Pinko nonsense" is...something strange.

Republicans have made mistakes before. They weren't always the best right-wingers.

[Bear Stearns]

what would happen if the state of new jersey had a nuclear arsenal and used it on other states

New Jersey doesn’t exist, so it wouldn’t be on the news. Also, why do you ask?

I posted this in the wrong thread

[Tobleste]

I'm all for increasing taxes on the rich, but 70%? 80%? Fucking 90%!? That's not tax; that's outright theft. Pinko nonsense. People have a right to their income, and the government has the right to a fraction of said income. Obviously it should be higher the wealthier you are, but not to such an extreme degree. All that will do is drive wealthy people to leave the country; which isn't a good thing, because then you can't tax them at all and rich people actually do contribute quite a bit to society as much as the average Socialist would like to believe otherwise.

Afaik, noones mentioned 80 or 90%. Also the 70% would only apply to whatever they earn above a certain margin. The amount below that margin would be taxed at a lower rate.

Corporate taxes were cut and barely any money entered the country. Raising it would not force them out, especially as people would have more reasons to stay in their country than a company would to pay taxes there. Considering high taxes are supposed to 'deter investment', lower taxes sure are useless at doing the reverse.

[Vetalia]

One thing people forget when they talk about the higher marginal brackets in the 1950's and 1960's in the United States is that deductions were much more aggressive than they are today; while the nominal brackets were a lot higher, they were offset by those deductions so that the effective tax rate for high earners was closer to 45% or so and far lower with aggressive tax planning.

In fact, that's the reason for the original imposition of the AMT; certain super-wealthy filers weren't paying anywhere near the stated rates and some weren't paying any tax at all!

So maybe a top tax bracket today of 45% would be reasonable?

That being said, It would be much more efficient and economically beneficial to massively simplify the code to just assess a flat tax across all sources of income based on standard brackets, but that would eliminate the various perks our Congress has seasoned into the Code in either a well-intentioned but misguided effort to direct taxpayers to desired activities or just plain corruption. In any case, we have a serious problem to address, though, when even the IRS can't quantify exactly how big the IRC is...early in my career, I decided to stay away from tax and focus on audit because that entire practice area is just a bunch of bullshit money games based upon pointless rules rather than delivering value to my clients to help them run their businesses more effectively, so that may cloud my opinion of taxation.

[Wabberjocky]

Well, the wealthy have so much more to take. It's better to rob the rich than the poor. More lucrative.

[Ifreann]

One thing people forget when they talk about the higher marginal brackets in the 1950's and 1960's in the United States is that deductions were much more aggressive than they are today; while the nominal brackets were a lot higher, they were offset by those deductions so that the effective tax rate for high earners was closer to 45% or so and far lower with aggressive tax planning.

In fact, that's the reason for the original imposition of the AMT; certain super-wealthy filers weren't paying anywhere near the stated rates and some weren't paying any tax at all!

So maybe a top tax bracket today of 45% would be reasonable?

Maybe eating the rich would be reasonable.

[Vetalia]

Maybe eating the rich would be reasonable.

If you eat them, though, then the next highest earners become the rich, then we eat them, and then the next...and eventually the world's poorest person ends up owning an empty planet alone. Admittedly, that might produce a very effective solution to many of human civilization's pressing problems, though.

[Pasong Tirad]

Forget 'Soak the Rich'. Eat the Rich works better.

Also, "eat" the rich. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Marry into wealth and have a dozen children so that they have to divide their wealth even further. Good praxis.

And hell yes, increase taxes for the super wealthy. It's time they paid their fair share. 70% or higher. And close any loopholes they may be able to use to lower their effective rate.

[Diarcesia]

Forget 'Soak the Rich'. Eat the Rich works better.

Marry into wealth and have a dozen children so that they have to divide their wealth even further. Good praxis.

Good old gavelkind, it is good to see you again.

[The Black Forrest]

Forget 'Soak the Rich'. Eat the Rich works better.

Are they free range?

[Ethel mermania]

Income taxes are high enough. Besides most of the "super rich" make their money on capital appreciation, not salery.

I would up both the short and long term capital gains rate 5%
I would eliminate the social security cap on high income wage earners.

That's it.

[Valrifell]

Forget 'Soak the Rich'. Eat the Rich works better.

Correct.