Bidenomics: US credit worthiness downgraded

[Port Tack]

When you talk about the tax rates of the '50's you can't just throw out a number like 80% without telling the whole story of how our system was structured at the time. It was very different in pass throughs, the way we taxed gains etc.

If you want to take it to a more extreme, why not tax people at 100%? That should certainly give the government the money it needs for all the programs we desire right? Most people would correctly say that would reduce incentive and make our system less productive and dynamic. Point being there are trade offs when you want to jack up tax rates.

Are you a MMT supporter? Because the belief there is we control the printing press and deficits don't matter so we can essentially print enough money to meet our needs if we so desire.

The fact remains that anyone in this country making 20 million/yr did so precisely because they are in this country. None of them would have been able to make that sort of income without the economy provided to them by the REST OF US right here. There is a certain "thank you" they need to give this country for providing them with that economy. That thank you is a tax rate that climbs with the amount of income they make. They always have the incentive to make more because the more they make the more they take home.

If the person making 20 million/yr were to pay a 75% tax rate that means they would be taking home 5 million/yr AFTER taxes. If the average American family makes $100,000/yr (which they don't) that means the guy taking home 5 million/yr after taxes makes more in one year than the average American family does in 50 fucking yrs and he's going to do it again next year! Is there anything that person cannot afford? How can anyone so much as hint that this country is being "unfair" to him or taxing him too much when we have millions of people in this country that cannot so much as afford healthcare? Joe Biden is spot on when he says we need to raise taxes on the rich and nobody here is going to have to pay a dime more if that increase is only for those making more than $400,000/yr. The conservative excuse that if they pay more then we all pay more is something only a dumbfuck swallows, that's why they are conservatives.

Your comment, why not tax people at 100% is ludicrously asinine. We have a capitalistic economy and even if the extremely rich were to pay a 95% tax rate they still would be taking home more than the person paying an 80% tax rate. The person making 20 million/yr still has the incentive to make 30 million. What sort of incentive is there if you tax him at your asinine 100%? As long as your tax rate is structured properly you will always take home more than what the guy grossing less is so that incentive is always there.

I'm not going to bother addressing your claim that it doesn't make any difference if govt revenue were to climb a few trillion dollars/yr because that too is asinine.

As far as being an MMT supporter? I would first have to know what the fuck that means.

 

[Port Tack]

Where did you see that the rate dropped?

Google is your friend.

 

[cawacko]

Google is your friend.

CPI is the face number generally used when we talk about inflation and it went from 3.0% to 3.2%. When that number goes up we usually refer to it as an increase. Does your Google call a number going up something else?

(CPI is of course not the only measure of inflation - other measures can be going down when CPI goes up and vice versa - but for public consumption CPI is the measure used)

 

[Port Tack]

CPI is the face number generally used when we talk about inflation and it went from 3.0% to 3.2%. When that number goes up we usually refer to it as an increase. Does your Google call a number going up something else?

(CPI is of course not the only measure of inflation - other measures can be going down when CPI goes up and vice versa - but for public consumption CPI is the measure used)

Generally if you look at what the inflation rate was one year ago and that number is lower today then the inflation rate has gone down.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Generally if you look at what the inflation rate was one year ago and that number is lower today then the inflation rate has gone down.

That's like saying a tire on your car is going flat but the rate at which it's doing it has decreased...

 

[cawacko]

Generally if you look at what the inflation rate was one year ago and that number is lower today then the inflation rate has gone down.

You won’t get an argument from me that people need to look beyond simple headlines, but in your snarky response implying I should Google the headlines show inflation increasing in July.

Feel free to post from your Google search data showing that to be incorrect

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The fact remains that anyone in this country making 20 million/yr did so precisely because they are in this country. None of them would have been able to make that sort of income without the economy provided to them by the REST OF US right here. There is a certain "thank you" they need to give this country for providing them with that economy. That thank you is a tax rate that climbs with the amount of income they make. They always have the incentive to make more because the more they make the more they take home.

If the person making 20 million/yr were to pay a 75% tax rate that means they would be taking home 5 million/yr AFTER taxes. If the average American family makes $100,000/yr (which they don't) that means the guy taking home 5 million/yr after taxes makes more in one year than the average American family does in 50 fucking yrs and he's going to do it again next year! Is there anything that person cannot afford? How can anyone so much as hint that this country is being "unfair" to him or taxing him too much when we have millions of people in this country that cannot so much as afford healthcare? Joe Biden is spot on when he says we need to raise taxes on the rich and nobody here is going to have to pay a dime more if that increase is only for those making more than $400,000/yr. The conservative excuse that if they pay more then we all pay more is something only a dumbfuck swallows, that's why they are conservatives.

Your comment, why not tax people at 100% is ludicrously asinine. We have a capitalistic economy and even if the extremely rich were to pay a 95% tax rate they still would be taking home more than the person paying an 80% tax rate. The person making 20 million/yr still has the incentive to make 30 million. What sort of incentive is there if you tax him at your asinine 100%? As long as your tax rate is structured properly you will always take home more than what the guy grossing less is so that incentive is always there.

I'm not going to bother addressing your claim that it doesn't make any difference if govt revenue were to climb a few trillion dollars/yr because that too is asinine.

As far as being an MMT supporter? I would first have to know what the fuck that means.

Does Sweden have a Capitalistic economy? Back in the 60's and 70's people there could be taxed at anything up to about 120% depending on income, occupation, etc. If the extremely rich were to be taxed at 95%, they'd simply change how they're doing things to avoid it, or they'd move and avoid the tax entirely.

33 INCREDIBLE MILLIONAIRE STATISTICS [2023]: 8.8% OF US ADULTS ARE MILLIONAIRES
https://www.zippia.com/advice/milli...ionaires globally, a 11.4% increase from 2020

For people making more than $1 million per year in the US it's about 30,000 people. Those making over $50 million, it's just 205 people.

There are 205 people in America who earn more than $50 million a year in wages alone.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...than-50-million-per-year-in-wages-2018-10-18/

So, let's just use that number, 50 million, and tax them at 95%. That's about $9.7 billion a year. That won't even fund some of the smaller pet projects the government has going. So, you ruin all the big income earners, and get a drop in the bucket in return. Eating the rich won't work...

 

[Port Tack]

Does Sweden have a Capitalistic economy? Back in the 60's and 70's people there could be taxed at anything up to about 120% depending on income, occupation, etc. If the extremely rich were to be taxed at 95%, they'd simply change how they're doing things to avoid it, or they'd move and avoid the tax entirely.

33 INCREDIBLE MILLIONAIRE STATISTICS [2023]: 8.8% OF US ADULTS ARE MILLIONAIRES
https://www.zippia.com/advice/milli...ionaires globally, a 11.4% increase from 2020

For people making more than $1 million per year in the US it's about 30,000 people. Those making over $50 million, it's just 205 people.

There are 205 people in America who earn more than $50 million a year in wages alone.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...than-50-million-per-year-in-wages-2018-10-18/

So, let's just use that number, 50 million, and tax them at 95%. That's about $9.7 billion a year. That won't even fund some of the smaller pet projects the government has going. So, you ruin all the big income earners, and get a drop in the bucket in return. Eating the rich won't work...

Your site says "There are about 22 million millionaires in the U.S." If they paid a 50% tax rate that would amount to 11 trillion in one year. So much for our debt inside of 3 years. You don't have to "eat the rich" just tax them a reasonable rate.

 

[Port Tack]

CPI is the face number generally used when we talk about inflation and it went from 3.0% to 3.2%. When that number goes up we usually refer to it as an increase. Does your Google call a number going up something else?

(CPI is of course not the only measure of inflation - other measures can be going down when CPI goes up and vice versa - but for public consumption CPI is the measure used)

The inflation rate was 9% 1 year ago, it's less than 3% today.

 

[cawacko]

The inflation rate was 9% 1 year ago, it's less than 3% today.

Maybe you need to take your own advice and use google yourself. CPI in July is 3.2%. That is an increase from June's year over year rate which was 3.0%. Thus the headlines saying the face rate for inflation increased. Hence my question to Nordberg.

Yet you are arguing 3.2% is less than 3%? I'm open to hearing how that is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Your site says "There are about 22 million millionaires in the U.S." If they paid a 50% tax rate that would amount to 11 trillion in one year. So much for our debt inside of 3 years. You don't have to "eat the rich" just tax them a reasonable rate.

It's an eat the rich scheme. Most millionaires in the US are so because of assets they own, not what they earn. That is, their home, property like cars, furniture, etc., and total cash assets exceed a million dollars. This could be someone who saved a lifetime, paid off their mortgage, and gets a social security check each month but has a net worth of over a million dollars.
By that standard, I'm worth several million dollars.

Would you tax such a person at 50% because they happen to be worth over a million dollars? Are you saying that people worth over a million dollars, regardless of actual income should be taxed at 50% of their net wealth?

People who MAKE over a million dollars a year amount to just 30,000 people. Let's go with that figure. That's $15 billion-a-year at 50% taxes. Again, a drop in the bucket.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's an eat the rich scheme. Most millionaires in the US are so because of assets they own, not what they earn. That is, their home, property like cars, furniture, etc., and total cash assets exceed a million dollars. This could be someone who saved a lifetime, paid off their mortgage, and gets a social security check each month but has a net worth of over a million dollars.
By that standard, I'm worth several million dollars.

Would you tax such a person at 50% because they happen to be worth over a million dollars? Are you saying that people worth over a million dollars, regardless of actual income should be taxed at 50% of their net wealth?

People who MAKE over a million dollars a year amount to just 30,000 people. Let's go with that figure. That's $15 billion-a-year at 50% taxes. Again, a drop in the bucket.

Are you a millionaire, Terry? You side with them all the time just like you side with corporations against their workers. No doubt you think they are too highly taxed too. While I agree 50% is too high, only a fucking moron thinks Trump can spend more money and cut taxes without raising the national debt.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you a millionaire, Terry? You side with them all the time just like you side with corporations against their workers. No doubt you think they are too highly taxed too. While I agree 50% is too high, only a fucking moron thinks Trump can spend more money and cut taxes without raising the national debt.

Pretty much, and unlike you I have a nice house, not live in a rented single-wide. As for government spending, it needs to go way down and it doesn't matter which party is in power, they both do that shit with reckless disregard for the debt they pile up.

 

[archives]

For only the second time in modern history, the US has had their creditworthiness downgraded. The first time was in April 2011 by Standard and Poor during the Obama administration. The second, was four days ago by Fitch Ratings.

https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...ings-to-aa-from-aaa-outlook-stable-01-08-2023

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...msn&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=msn_feed

Smoke and mirrors notwithstanding, Democrats are bad for the economy...

Due to a disfunctional Congress, especially with the budget due by the end of next month, no Biden’s policies

 

[Port Tack]

Maybe you need to take your own advice and use google yourself. CPI in July is 3.2%. That is an increase from June's year over year rate which was 3.0%. Thus the headlines saying the face rate for inflation increased. Hence my question to Nordberg.

Yet you are arguing 3.2% is less than 3%? I'm open to hearing how that is.

view post 140, the inflation rate was 9% 1 yr ago, it's less than 3% now

 

[Port Tack]

It's an eat the rich scheme. Most millionaires in the US are so because of assets they own, not what they earn. That is, their home, property like cars, furniture, etc., and total cash assets exceed a million dollars. This could be someone who saved a lifetime, paid off their mortgage, and gets a social security check each month but has a net worth of over a million dollars.
By that standard, I'm worth several million dollars.

Would you tax such a person at 50% because they happen to be worth over a million dollars? Are you saying that people worth over a million dollars, regardless of actual income should be taxed at 50% of their net wealth?

People who MAKE over a million dollars a year amount to just 30,000 people. Let's go with that figure. That's $15 billion-a-year at 50% taxes. Again, a drop in the bucket.

Did we used to eat the rich?

 

[Earl]

Due to a dysfunctional Congress, especially with the budget due by the end of next month, no Biden’s policies

Come now, Anchovies...if Trump were president, you would be screaming about the out of control inflation.



The Hill
https://thehill.com › finance › 590451-how-...
Jan 20, 2022 — … As Biden first set foot in the Oval Office, real GDP was growing at 6.3 percent, inflation was 1.4 percent, ...

 

[Earl]

Did we used to eat the rich?

Yes.

The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944 when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Pretty much, and unlike you I have a nice house, not live in a rented single-wide.

As for government spending, it needs to go way down and it doesn't matter which party is in power, they both do that shit with reckless disregard for the debt they pile up.

LOL Thanks for the brag.

That's been the Republican mantra since Reagan. How come every Republican since has increased spending, Terry? GHW Bush was correct about Voodoo Economics.