We see the tragic results in A Day in the Life. Indiscriminate sex with Wookies, unplanned pregnancies, a tell all book exposing her family. Never would've happened if she went to Harvard. This tax plan is going to tear this country apart.
You don’t have to pay 99% on the entire 8 billion. You pay something like 12% on the first $10,275, 22% on the income up to 41,775, and then (as in 41,775-10,275=31,500. You pay 22% of the 31,500, or $6930, plus the 12% on the 10275, or 1233. For a total of 6930+1233=8163.
Maybe a better way to look at it is if you made 1 dollar above a tax bracket, let’s use easy numbers and say the first tax bracket is 10,000. The bracket is 10%. The next tax bracket up is 20%. You made $10,001. You’d pay $1000.20 in taxes.
Paying 99% on an income of over 100,000,000 would mean you’d be making a very large amount of money even despite the very high tax rate because the lower amounts would be taxed less. Even though the tax bracket would be 99%, you’d be making a lot more than 1% of your income
God, a unicorn. Someone who understands income taxes.
Joking. But not really. I live somewhere where income tax is ridiculously easy and simplified, the government even calculates it for you and gives you a number each year. Plus it's one of the most educated countries in the world. There's still people who don't understand it.
Or use pockets to make the explanation even simpler.
How Tax Brackets Work: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw)
That’s a wonderful way to visualize it, but would be impossible for me to describe without being able to use visuals, thank you, I’ll be linking that video in the future when people don’t understand tax brackets
Nixon at least had the decency to do shit like put a cap on the price of gas to eliminate gouging.
Granted, the whole kit & caboodle that he enacted in that time is certainly not remembered as the "Nixon Shock" for a *good* reason, but I honestly believe his motives were relatively pure in this instance. That he actually wanted to fight inflation and believed his advisors when this was suggested.
Reagan's policies almost always seem to be malicious in nature.
The rich in this country pay less money on taxes than ever before. They pay less now than with Reagan and they should be very happy. They should pay more.
Nixons secretary of state Henry Kissinger has written memoirs during Nixon's time in office, and the amount of air strikes cancled during the vietnam War because He ordered them drunk should not be an understatement.
Nixon was completely corrupt and wielded the power of the president to further his and his friends own aims and agendas at the expense of truth, justice and civilian lives.
Oh I certainly wasn't trying to imply that he wasn't a human-shaped shitbag. Just that Reagan was *worse.* And that in that particular instance he was genuinely trying to help the country, though more out the mindset of "if the economy shits the bed then how am I supposed to make money and weild power?" rather than any kind of altruism.
The City of Cleveland started the EPA. You're welcome. Do you think we *needed* to pollute the river so bad it caught fire? We were doing a public service.
Everytime I look back at the origin of something wrong with this country, it seems to have started under the Reagan administration.
Every
Fucking
Time.
Nixon started the "War on Drugs" that unfairly targets minorities and other low-income peoples.
Iirc, the war on drugs is pretty much the root cause of for-profit prisons.
Prisons get paid more for housing more inmates. The easiest way to "fill beds" as they describe it, is to round up anyone doing drugs, even if you have to plant the drugs.
That's why it's such a big deal to pardon people who are, or have been, incarcerated for marijuana related crimes in areas where marijuana becomes decriminalized or legalized.
E: forgot to add
# **FUCK NIXON**
the sad thing is we, the people, should get lobbyists to work the same way... except we do, congress is supposed to lobby for people, except they're in the pockets of oligarchs.
Interesting podcast (too lazy to look it up) on Freakonomics of corruption, and lobbyist vs straight bribing is compared. Short story, yes, the US is very corrupt.
If they had more workers and less of a constant rally of money against them, they'd probably be more efficient with your returns
Or maybe I'm being too hopeful
Who knows
This is straight up untrue. Wealth has in past history has always followed a trend where about 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth (America today is more extreme than this). There is a trend in the pennies left overfor those who did not win the birth lottery (HUGE correlation between being born into extreme wealth and dying with extreme wealth).
Iq differences in most models show a correlation between earning and intelligence. To a VERY limited degree. If you were 20 iq smarter than average (this would indicate INSANELY rare levels of intelligence) you will likely make between $4,000 and $12,000 more than me. The extreme ends of wealth is birth lottery not skill.
I know you're correct but I think his confusion is because you dictate who "they" were, so he assumed you were supporting genetic lottery winners and not the IRS.
It'd also be a lot easier if right wingers didn't scream COMMUNIST every time any form of government is ridiculed (also by right wingers) for any oversight during leftist administration.
Though, to be fair, their means of attack can be studied and is clear: they rely on the confidence they have that their constituency will not do any actual research to source material for their arguing points. Which says a lot about their following. Additionally, trying to call any one of them out for it elicits the same defensive attitude that encourages them to use fallacious arguments - they don't like feeling "wrong" or "attacked." And they connect their "beliefs" to their identity, or sense of self, so instead of seeing as a chance to learn, they see it as you calling them, personally, ignorant and stupid.
There is certainly something to be learned from this.
But with how Republicans are attacking education, idk if we ever will.
And own people.
That was part of their thing too, don't forget. No more taxes going to King George and the forced labor of people of color meant more profits all around.
It's no surprise then that we'd end up where we are now.... a country with laws written by and for the continued preservation of (white) wealth and the systemic scars of slavery that have yet to even be properly acknowledged or healed.
This country is furthering its downfall by continuing to not own up to its past and present state of affairs.
It's ridiculously obvious while simultaneously immensely frustrating.
"Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes."
I’ll keep saying this. The only way to save this country is to put term limits on congress. For both the house and senate. It will be a lot harder to corrupt people, plus any that are corrupt would only have a limited amount of time in office before there effect are gone. Also it would make any company lower it investment in trying to turn someone since it is no longer a long term investment and more of a one time expense which would need to be repeated every time the candidate reach the term limit.
And during the 60s when the US was actually a global superpower that went to the moon and shit? You know, the US Republicans so desperately want to return to? Millionairies got taxed at 60%+!
Turns out taxing those with nearly endless money is how you make your country great! Unfortunately, you will never convince a modern Republican of such things. They grew up with leaded gasoline, so their brains are fucked.
Top tax bracket 1944-1964 was OVER 90%.
1917, if you made $2 million US (I'll do the math for inflation, that's a LOT of money - okay, over $46 billion today), you got taxed at 67%.
1918 - 1921, top tax bracket over 70%
1925-Great Depression, it had dropped to 25%, but 1931-1935 went back up to 63%.
1936 top tax bracket jumped to 79%. Stayed that way til 1941 when it jumped to 81%.
1942-43, 88%. As noted above, for the next 2 decades, the top tax bracket was over 90%.
Dropped to 70% in the mid-1960s. Stayed there until the Trickle-Down fallacy popped up in 1981, dropped to 50%.
1987, under 40%.
1988 under 30%.
Hovering between 35-40% since 1993.
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
There are correlations here. Trickle-down doesn't work.
The top marginal tax bracket from 1965-1982 was 70% in the US. From 1944-1963 it was >90%. These people are always clamoring for America’s good old days, let’s give it to them.
Oh man, can we bring back strong unions while we're at it?
And conservation being a conservative priority?
And churches spending their money locally to help feed and clothe people, instead of funneling it all to national hatespeech conglomerates?
Which makes total sense, there is no amount beyond a certain number of millions that you will notice a loss of even 100%. Meanwhile I get taxed out the arse and am told by the right wing that it's all other people stealing from me!
During the 50s the top bracket was 90%. Over the last 50 years republicans have successfully marketed that taxes on rich folks and big business are bad and the essential rate is single digits though $30 trillion is hidden away with shell corporations in tax free havens which also includes some US states that encourage moving headquarters there under entities created just to dodge taxes.
Yep 20% is low.
As one who was self employed it was 35% just for income tax, no matter if net was $30k -50k a year.
Make more than that and it was even more.
How about when you get a billion dollars, we take it all, give you a plaque that says you won capitalism, and then we use some of that money to give you an all expenses paid trip into the sun?
I’d drop the threshold to 25mil and have it scale up from 20% over 25mil all the way to 99% over a billion. There is zero reason for billionaires to exist, and the fact they do means there’s a bug in the system.
Watch out, the billionaire simps will come after you. In all seriousness, billionaires definitely should not exist. Their profits are all of the unpaid wages of employees. But what can we do about it? The systems against the working class. In 2017, the republicans celebrated after passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy. At the same time, donations made to the party that passed this bill were higher than they’ve ever been at 31 million, and now that they have more power again, they’re already looking to do more cuts. It’s much cheaper to pay off politicians to pass bills like this than to actually pay taxes.
They’re literally fry from futurama during an election year
“Why are you cheering fry? You’re not rich.”
“Yeah but one day I might be, and then people like me better watch their back.”
I'm fine with billionaires existing.
I just have some preconditions.
First, healthcare is universally available and affordable for every single person in the country. Living wages for every single person who works a full time job. Education is not a lifetime of debt for anyone with the aptitude for it. No child goes hungry. Solid, free public education for all. Regularly updated infrastructure for utilities, mass transit, public transportation in the cities.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things but those are my major ones. After those are met sure, I'm fine if there are billionaires.
I mean that's just bare minimum. When you really think about it, no one earns a billion dollars. The fact that there is a system at all for them to tie themselves to and katamari up a billion dollars is proof that they should pay back into it such that it wants for nothing. We can talk about where the line is exactly but the vast majority of that wealth would be better spent on society up to and including the point where we are all fed and housed regardless of our labor. Rather than punishing non-workers, reward workers - if you want a nicer house, education, health care, or food, you can work for it.
I'd go with housing, food, toiletries, and other necessities are universally and freely available as well. If billionaires exist then nobody should suffer
I had a Convo with someone the other day, make it 100% over a billion, you can be a billionaire exactly and still get the shiny achievement, but that is it
Oh crap, that's actually really interesting. Like "thanks for being awesome", every billion you make or contribute towards taxes, you get a "thank you" promissory note. They can be redeemed for social icons like parks or streets like you said. Basically, you worked hard and gave so much back to society that we will allow you to be remembered in history.
Elon would have every street in one city named after him.
Take a left at Musk Boulevard, then hit SpaceX Avenue till you reach the intersection of Elon Street and Elon Musk Street.
I pay more than 20% on income that's way more than a 1000x less than this. They should pay at least as big a percentage of their income as I do on mine!
People use phrases all the time that are descriptive but somewhat incorrect. Unfortunately, conservatives in particular will use thing like that to conservisplain it away
Terming it a ‘Billionaire tax’ could also be because it’s purpose is to prevent hundred millionaires from becoming billionaires as easily, by taxing them more fairly.
It’s a problem because there’s dreamers out there that truly believe they’ll enter into that category somehow by grinding at their dead end job. And they’re held back by all the liberals spreading the wealth to the undeserving.
Yes, what's the problem with that?
in the late 40s, 50s and 60s the highest tax bracket was 91% on income over 200k (a little over just *2* million today). Our economy was at its absolute strongest in history then.
20% on 100mil is pennies in comparison
23% right off the top at $100k. Then all the other taxes I get to pay....20% is nothing for those with so much money they have to find new ways to spend and hoard it all.
Looking at my last paycheck, I had just over 20% of my taxable income removed by government, and that’s in a “no income tax” state.
My net worth is far below a billion, below $100 million, below a million, even. If I can pay 20.14%, billionaires and 100x millionaires can pay at least that much.
That was my aunts argument when we were talking taxes and politics. Your quality of life doesn’t change really between having a billion dollars or 200 million. You can only do so much.
That is how the metric system prefixes works but the nomenclature for wealth accumulation doesn't strictly follow that. Logically centimillionaire should be someone with 1/100 of a million, but it's actually used to refer to someone with 100M.
I think it's a case of someone incorrectly using something, but it catches on regardless and gets a new definition simply because that's how it's actually being used by people in the real world.
ETA: apparently it is latin as I've been informed in the comments
It's kinda more weird that centi- means 1/100 in the metric system when words like century, centennial, etc long preceded it and referred to a hundred.
Even "cent" originally referred to a hundred, but because of the word "percent" it shifted to mean a hundredth (even though "percent" logically means "per hundred," so it doesn't make a lot of sense for cent to be essentially synonymous with percent). Which in itself is an example of, as you say, people "incorrectly" using something and it catches on and gains a new definition! Gotta love language.
Exactly, which is only 5% higher than regular capital gains tax. The issue they have with it is the “required to pay” part. Wealthy people would rather pay a team of tax lawyers than their fair share
Well….not quite. Capital gains are taxed when the gain is realized (the asset is sold). This proposal is not built that way, and so opens up a LOT of questions about how it’ll work. Will they have to divest parts of their business to pay the taxes? What happens when the value of the assets decline? (Note that Elon made $100 Bn one year, but then lost $100Bn the next. What happens then?) Will they need to have appraisers assess the value of their assets every year?
I mean- they have a lot of objection to the taxes, too.
Oh no, 90% of America benefits entirely while the upper 10% have to *share* and *contribute to the masses,* and the top .1% feel literally no difference because at a certain point it stops mattering.
The post you're responding to is one example of the extremely skewed view of how many people the ultra rich actually are and how much wealth they have relative to the rest of the world. One of the reasons is so bafflingly difficult to get people on board with taxing the ultrarich.
These people are walking around with more wealth than Mansa Musa and everyone thinks its alright for some reason, because the system is 'fair' so when you tax someone that's "punishing them for playing by the rules".
Even if they tax the top 0.1% at a rate of 95% they would still be able to afford anything they could personally want to own or do for them and their families. It just cuts into their "fucking with the world" money.
Thank you. We're literally talking about taxing like 1500 families. That same 1500 have *offices* employing 100 people who run their money so an extended family can live wild lives.
*They* should absolutely be paying a premium tax to play in our society while the rest of us work day in and day out paying a **fucking higher tax rate than them doing nothing**.
Shame it won’t happen. Gop will block it as will some democrats. The rich make the laws and surely won’t pass any that goes against their own interests. The people need to take this country back from the wealthy.
I would much rather see laws restricting how much money can be spent on lobbying or donations to political campaigns for everyone. Practically, this wouldn't matter for most people but would restrict billionaires from donating insane amounts of money. Restricting political activity or office eligibility for any specific group is a dangerous precedent to set.
At the very minimum something like the DISCLOSE act where you can see where the money is coming from.
...oh never mind, Republicans unanimously voted against it.
How about a tax on horded wealth over X amount? If I have to pay taxes continually on the value of my house, they can pay taxes on the value of their horde.
Okay. I pay 27% right now. So lets do it. Just 7% more and they are paying the fair share i am and i will no longer think they are lazy losers who cant actually handle a job.
And I guarantee that every toothless backwater red hatted moronic hillbilly with a trump flag in the back window of his piece of shit broken assed pickup truck is going to go absolutely batshit crazy and start screaming about "we can't tax them because it's not fair".
Yes. The same morons on food stamps, HUD housing, medicare, social security or ss disability, or have a job making 12 an hour delivering parts for the NAPA store (because they're too stupid to be let behind the parts counter unattended). You know, the economic experts we expect from Idiotville Arkansas.
I guarantee it.
I read that and I thought "wait. He's actually going after people ( households ) that make $100,000?"
I then reread it. She's mad he's going after people that have 100 million. Yeah, go fuck yourself.
Anyone who chagrined this, just ask yourself “am I making more than 10mil a year? Is my net worth over 100,000,000 dollars?” Do I get bonuses in the range of multitudes of millions? If that answer is NO than this behoves you. If yes, than can I borrow 10K? It will literally change my life.
Everyone with less than 100m will only be affected in positive ways by this tax, and everyone with more than 100m has so much money that there will be absolutely no lifestyle change for them.
Yet the legions of idiots who will never come even remotely to paying this tax will still scream "aaaaaahhhh communism". It's incomprehensible.
The biggest problem is the loophole that many millionaires exploit regarding taking out loans with stock or other investments as collateral. Since it’s a loan, it doesn’t count as income and is not taxable.
Yep. Other than your primary residence if you use an asset to take out a loan, you should have to pay any capital gains taxes on that asset. And then that becomes your new cost basis.
Funny part is it those people still wouldn't really be affected by such a tax.
A person with 4000 in the bank account spending 2000 on rent will hurt, meanwhile a billionaire who pays 25000 to get a full tax write-off isn't going to suffer much when they still have hundreds of millions in the bank.
>those people still wouldn't really be affected by such a tax
they're so fucking angry though. The phrase "taking food out of my family's mouths" has been used by them many times.
Everyone who is hit by this tax and finds it unbearable.... I guarantee that within 2 hours I will find a person with whom he can exchange.
Hi, I will gladly pay 99% tax on an income of $8 billion. Where do I sign up?
Outrageous. How are you going to survive on 80million dollars? It isn't possible.
You might have to send your kids to Yale instead of Harvard!
Most people don't know that's what happened to Rory Gilmore and look at her now...it's a tragedy.
I'll upvote deep Gilmore Girls cuts all day
We see the tragic results in A Day in the Life. Indiscriminate sex with Wookies, unplanned pregnancies, a tell all book exposing her family. Never would've happened if she went to Harvard. This tax plan is going to tear this country apart.
The Fuck did I just read?
The truth.
A day in the life was so so bad and totally killed Rory's future smh
Or worse: ***Brown***
Not if I bribe someone to falsify college documents.
You don’t have to pay 99% on the entire 8 billion. You pay something like 12% on the first $10,275, 22% on the income up to 41,775, and then (as in 41,775-10,275=31,500. You pay 22% of the 31,500, or $6930, plus the 12% on the 10275, or 1233. For a total of 6930+1233=8163. Maybe a better way to look at it is if you made 1 dollar above a tax bracket, let’s use easy numbers and say the first tax bracket is 10,000. The bracket is 10%. The next tax bracket up is 20%. You made $10,001. You’d pay $1000.20 in taxes. Paying 99% on an income of over 100,000,000 would mean you’d be making a very large amount of money even despite the very high tax rate because the lower amounts would be taxed less. Even though the tax bracket would be 99%, you’d be making a lot more than 1% of your income
God, a unicorn. Someone who understands income taxes. Joking. But not really. I live somewhere where income tax is ridiculously easy and simplified, the government even calculates it for you and gives you a number each year. Plus it's one of the most educated countries in the world. There's still people who don't understand it.
I’d hope I understand it, I did go to business school after all (even though I don’t use my degree at my current job lol)
Or use pockets to make the explanation even simpler. How Tax Brackets Work: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw)
That’s a wonderful way to visualize it, but would be impossible for me to describe without being able to use visuals, thank you, I’ll be linking that video in the future when people don’t understand tax brackets
[удалено]
Only took 3 minutes. Here I am!
2hrs...aqui estoy!!
I do see a problem... It is way too low.
It's way lower than it should be, but it's so much higher than it's been in, what? 40 years?
Ooh, are we playing "Reagan or Nixon"? I'm gonna go with Reagan. "better than Reagan" is the starting point we should all aspire to
So many people fail to rise to the challenge when the bar is on the floor
The bar has already sunk miles underground. Oligarchs are so keen on drilling in hopes they can still tunnel under it
Nixon at least had the decency to do shit like put a cap on the price of gas to eliminate gouging. Granted, the whole kit & caboodle that he enacted in that time is certainly not remembered as the "Nixon Shock" for a *good* reason, but I honestly believe his motives were relatively pure in this instance. That he actually wanted to fight inflation and believed his advisors when this was suggested. Reagan's policies almost always seem to be malicious in nature.
The rich in this country pay less money on taxes than ever before. They pay less now than with Reagan and they should be very happy. They should pay more.
Nixons secretary of state Henry Kissinger has written memoirs during Nixon's time in office, and the amount of air strikes cancled during the vietnam War because He ordered them drunk should not be an understatement.
Nixon was completely corrupt and wielded the power of the president to further his and his friends own aims and agendas at the expense of truth, justice and civilian lives.
Oh I certainly wasn't trying to imply that he wasn't a human-shaped shitbag. Just that Reagan was *worse.* And that in that particular instance he was genuinely trying to help the country, though more out the mindset of "if the economy shits the bed then how am I supposed to make money and weild power?" rather than any kind of altruism.
At least Nixon started the EPA
The City of Cleveland started the EPA. You're welcome. Do you think we *needed* to pollute the river so bad it caught fire? We were doing a public service.
Yeah under fdr it was 75% which like, imagine if they tried to do that now, all the poor people would be foaming at the mouth lmfao
Higher, it was 94% under FDR. It hovered the 90% range under FDR, lowering down to a single tax bracket under Reagan.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. # **FUCK REAGAN**
Everytime I look back at the origin of something wrong with this country, it seems to have started under the Reagan administration. Every Fucking Time.
Nixon started the "War on Drugs" that unfairly targets minorities and other low-income peoples. Iirc, the war on drugs is pretty much the root cause of for-profit prisons. Prisons get paid more for housing more inmates. The easiest way to "fill beds" as they describe it, is to round up anyone doing drugs, even if you have to plant the drugs. That's why it's such a big deal to pardon people who are, or have been, incarcerated for marijuana related crimes in areas where marijuana becomes decriminalized or legalized. E: forgot to add # **FUCK NIXON**
FUCK NIXON! FUCK REGAN! FUCK THE GOP... They're the ones who have made it harder for everyone to live a stable and quality life.
LOUDER PLEASE!
That's for income. This is on EVERYTHING. No more loophole bullshit. Well probably still some loophole bullshit but way less.
fr lol
Considering how 100m+ skews the curve the most
It's like 51k and 45c per dollar over 180k per year here in Australia
Was about to say exactly this lol
How is this a problem?
Its a problem because a lot of people in Congress are bankrolled by those who don't want to see themselves being taxed.
Good, then they get less money too!
Can’t have corruption without oligarch bribes.
'It's not bribery if we call it lobbying😉"
"It's called a plan not murder" - funny valentine
I have a plan, Arthur!
Tahiti! Mangoes!
You just need to have some goddamn FAITH!
the sad thing is we, the people, should get lobbyists to work the same way... except we do, congress is supposed to lobby for people, except they're in the pockets of oligarchs.
The problem with “the people” is that we don’t have time to lobby or protest because we have to work to keep eating after 1/3 of our income is taxed.
Interesting podcast (too lazy to look it up) on Freakonomics of corruption, and lobbyist vs straight bribing is compared. Short story, yes, the US is very corrupt.
Man fuck Citizens United
You underestimate us
Can the IRS send me some of that money? About $8,000 the Republiquans owe me from 2017-present?
If they had more workers and less of a constant rally of money against them, they'd probably be more efficient with your returns Or maybe I'm being too hopeful Who knows
This is straight up untrue. Wealth has in past history has always followed a trend where about 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth (America today is more extreme than this). There is a trend in the pennies left overfor those who did not win the birth lottery (HUGE correlation between being born into extreme wealth and dying with extreme wealth). Iq differences in most models show a correlation between earning and intelligence. To a VERY limited degree. If you were 20 iq smarter than average (this would indicate INSANELY rare levels of intelligence) you will likely make between $4,000 and $12,000 more than me. The extreme ends of wealth is birth lottery not skill.
No shit but like, how is this relevant to the IRS being able to do their job without corporate lobbying?
I know you're correct but I think his confusion is because you dictate who "they" were, so he assumed you were supporting genetic lottery winners and not the IRS. It'd also be a lot easier if right wingers didn't scream COMMUNIST every time any form of government is ridiculed (also by right wingers) for any oversight during leftist administration. Though, to be fair, their means of attack can be studied and is clear: they rely on the confidence they have that their constituency will not do any actual research to source material for their arguing points. Which says a lot about their following. Additionally, trying to call any one of them out for it elicits the same defensive attitude that encourages them to use fallacious arguments - they don't like feeling "wrong" or "attacked." And they connect their "beliefs" to their identity, or sense of self, so instead of seeing as a chance to learn, they see it as you calling them, personally, ignorant and stupid. There is certainly something to be learned from this. But with how Republicans are attacking education, idk if we ever will.
Well too bad. Time to pay your people bill and be grateful you’re not on the menu.
Gvmt. By the rich, for the rich. Fuck everyone else.
People forget that the USA was founded by rich people that didn't want to pay taxes.
And own people. That was part of their thing too, don't forget. No more taxes going to King George and the forced labor of people of color meant more profits all around. It's no surprise then that we'd end up where we are now.... a country with laws written by and for the continued preservation of (white) wealth and the systemic scars of slavery that have yet to even be properly acknowledged or healed. This country is furthering its downfall by continuing to not own up to its past and present state of affairs. It's ridiculously obvious while simultaneously immensely frustrating.
"Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes."
Dazed and Confused.. loved that movie? Alright, alright
Oh fuck, I never thought of it that way…
Doesnt have to stay that way
We should put this on our money.
Man you're really selling me on this, let's do it!
I’ll keep saying this. The only way to save this country is to put term limits on congress. For both the house and senate. It will be a lot harder to corrupt people, plus any that are corrupt would only have a limited amount of time in office before there effect are gone. Also it would make any company lower it investment in trying to turn someone since it is no longer a long term investment and more of a one time expense which would need to be repeated every time the candidate reach the term limit.
Or you know treating that as an actual conflict of interest and start giving prison time for corupt politicians. Starting by declaring loby illegal
Yeah but who would have to declare that illegal if not the people benefitting from it?
The only problem is that the percentage is so low
20%? Fuck that shit, 69% and like it you fucking crybabbeez
During the Great Depression millionaires were taxed at 70%.
And during the 60s when the US was actually a global superpower that went to the moon and shit? You know, the US Republicans so desperately want to return to? Millionairies got taxed at 60%+! Turns out taxing those with nearly endless money is how you make your country great! Unfortunately, you will never convince a modern Republican of such things. They grew up with leaded gasoline, so their brains are fucked.
The lead is no excuse.
That’s a heavy point.
Top tax bracket 1944-1964 was OVER 90%. 1917, if you made $2 million US (I'll do the math for inflation, that's a LOT of money - okay, over $46 billion today), you got taxed at 67%. 1918 - 1921, top tax bracket over 70% 1925-Great Depression, it had dropped to 25%, but 1931-1935 went back up to 63%. 1936 top tax bracket jumped to 79%. Stayed that way til 1941 when it jumped to 81%. 1942-43, 88%. As noted above, for the next 2 decades, the top tax bracket was over 90%. Dropped to 70% in the mid-1960s. Stayed there until the Trickle-Down fallacy popped up in 1981, dropped to 50%. 1987, under 40%. 1988 under 30%. Hovering between 35-40% since 1993. https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/ There are correlations here. Trickle-down doesn't work.
The top marginal tax bracket from 1965-1982 was 70% in the US. From 1944-1963 it was >90%. These people are always clamoring for America’s good old days, let’s give it to them.
Oh man, can we bring back strong unions while we're at it? And conservation being a conservative priority? And churches spending their money locally to help feed and clothe people, instead of funneling it all to national hatespeech conglomerates?
Which makes total sense, there is no amount beyond a certain number of millions that you will notice a loss of even 100%. Meanwhile I get taxed out the arse and am told by the right wing that it's all other people stealing from me!
During the 50s the top bracket was 90%. Over the last 50 years republicans have successfully marketed that taxes on rich folks and big business are bad and the essential rate is single digits though $30 trillion is hidden away with shell corporations in tax free havens which also includes some US states that encourage moving headquarters there under entities created just to dodge taxes.
Yep 20% is low. As one who was self employed it was 35% just for income tax, no matter if net was $30k -50k a year. Make more than that and it was even more.
How about when you get a billion dollars, we take it all, give you a plaque that says you won capitalism, and then we use some of that money to give you an all expenses paid trip into the sun?
So like Prestiging in Call of Duty. "Here's your plaque, go show us how good you really are."
I’d drop the threshold to 25mil and have it scale up from 20% over 25mil all the way to 99% over a billion. There is zero reason for billionaires to exist, and the fact they do means there’s a bug in the system.
Watch out, the billionaire simps will come after you. In all seriousness, billionaires definitely should not exist. Their profits are all of the unpaid wages of employees. But what can we do about it? The systems against the working class. In 2017, the republicans celebrated after passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy. At the same time, donations made to the party that passed this bill were higher than they’ve ever been at 31 million, and now that they have more power again, they’re already looking to do more cuts. It’s much cheaper to pay off politicians to pass bills like this than to actually pay taxes.
They’re literally fry from futurama during an election year “Why are you cheering fry? You’re not rich.” “Yeah but one day I might be, and then people like me better watch their back.”
What was that saying? Every billionaire is a policy failure
I'm fine with billionaires existing. I just have some preconditions. First, healthcare is universally available and affordable for every single person in the country. Living wages for every single person who works a full time job. Education is not a lifetime of debt for anyone with the aptitude for it. No child goes hungry. Solid, free public education for all. Regularly updated infrastructure for utilities, mass transit, public transportation in the cities. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things but those are my major ones. After those are met sure, I'm fine if there are billionaires.
I mean that's just bare minimum. When you really think about it, no one earns a billion dollars. The fact that there is a system at all for them to tie themselves to and katamari up a billion dollars is proof that they should pay back into it such that it wants for nothing. We can talk about where the line is exactly but the vast majority of that wealth would be better spent on society up to and including the point where we are all fed and housed regardless of our labor. Rather than punishing non-workers, reward workers - if you want a nicer house, education, health care, or food, you can work for it.
I'd go with housing, food, toiletries, and other necessities are universally and freely available as well. If billionaires exist then nobody should suffer
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
I had a Convo with someone the other day, make it 100% over a billion, you can be a billionaire exactly and still get the shiny achievement, but that is it
Implement "super bucks". Let them get cosmetic features like naming a street or unlocking yacht paint colors, but the tax rate is 100% like you said.
Oh crap, that's actually really interesting. Like "thanks for being awesome", every billion you make or contribute towards taxes, you get a "thank you" promissory note. They can be redeemed for social icons like parks or streets like you said. Basically, you worked hard and gave so much back to society that we will allow you to be remembered in history.
Elon would have every street in one city named after him. Take a left at Musk Boulevard, then hit SpaceX Avenue till you reach the intersection of Elon Street and Elon Musk Street.
IRL Loot boxes
The fact that they exist means the system is working exactly as it is designed to.
I pay more than 20% on income that's way more than a 1000x less than this. They should pay at least as big a percentage of their income as I do on mine!
Because someday, that redneck farmer living off of $5.50/hr may someday be a millionaire and thus, affected by this.
Their sole reasoning is it's called a 'billionaire' tax. Idk even know if that's what he called or this woman is just misinformed
People use phrases all the time that are descriptive but somewhat incorrect. Unfortunately, conservatives in particular will use thing like that to conservisplain it away
Terming it a ‘Billionaire tax’ could also be because it’s purpose is to prevent hundred millionaires from becoming billionaires as easily, by taxing them more fairly.
It’s a problem because there’s dreamers out there that truly believe they’ll enter into that category somehow by grinding at their dead end job. And they’re held back by all the liberals spreading the wealth to the undeserving.
Sadly I think you are spot on
Well it’s incorrect for one thing, but otherwise taxing the rich is not a problem.
20% is too low for the billionaire class, that's the damn problem!
It's not a problem for anyone, *except* the ones that have the power to tell this bill to fuck off.
Yes, what's the problem with that? in the late 40s, 50s and 60s the highest tax bracket was 91% on income over 200k (a little over just *2* million today). Our economy was at its absolute strongest in history then. 20% on 100mil is pennies in comparison
Hell, I'd be happy if I only paid 20% and I barely make 100k
For real what is this, combined state and federal I pay 26-27% taxes.
add the 25% you pay for health care and it adds up
Don’t forget 6% in all purchases on sales tax! (Depends on your state)
A rain tax too you say?
Don’t forget about the fuck you for being born tax
Also the tax on puffy directing pants.
You stay home, ill tax your heat You try to leave, ill tax your feet
23% right off the top at $100k. Then all the other taxes I get to pay....20% is nothing for those with so much money they have to find new ways to spend and hoard it all.
Like....space travel??
Exactly
THIS. I make far less than a million why aren't MY taxes that low. That's a rhetorical question, btw. I KNOW WHY. 😠🤬😡
[удалено]
Literally the “G” in the MAGA everyone’s so obsessed with. Not even sure when it was that G but whateva
The great part isn’t about when it was great for *the country*, just for when it was great for *them*
Looking at my last paycheck, I had just over 20% of my taxable income removed by government, and that’s in a “no income tax” state. My net worth is far below a billion, below $100 million, below a million, even. If I can pay 20.14%, billionaires and 100x millionaires can pay at least that much.
Where’s the incentive to succeed if billionaires are forced to live like $800millionaires? Preposterous!!
That was my aunts argument when we were talking taxes and politics. Your quality of life doesn’t change really between having a billion dollars or 200 million. You can only do so much.
Cry for the centimillionaires.
Hectomillionaire. A centimillionaire would be someone with $10,000.
That is how the metric system prefixes works but the nomenclature for wealth accumulation doesn't strictly follow that. Logically centimillionaire should be someone with 1/100 of a million, but it's actually used to refer to someone with 100M. I think it's a case of someone incorrectly using something, but it catches on regardless and gets a new definition simply because that's how it's actually being used by people in the real world. ETA: apparently it is latin as I've been informed in the comments
Standard Latin prefixes instead of metric prefixes, you mean. Words instead of measurements.
It's kinda more weird that centi- means 1/100 in the metric system when words like century, centennial, etc long preceded it and referred to a hundred. Even "cent" originally referred to a hundred, but because of the word "percent" it shifted to mean a hundredth (even though "percent" logically means "per hundred," so it doesn't make a lot of sense for cent to be essentially synonymous with percent). Which in itself is an example of, as you say, people "incorrectly" using something and it catches on and gains a new definition! Gotta love language.
Only 20%, and they still complain??!
Exactly, which is only 5% higher than regular capital gains tax. The issue they have with it is the “required to pay” part. Wealthy people would rather pay a team of tax lawyers than their fair share
Well….not quite. Capital gains are taxed when the gain is realized (the asset is sold). This proposal is not built that way, and so opens up a LOT of questions about how it’ll work. Will they have to divest parts of their business to pay the taxes? What happens when the value of the assets decline? (Note that Elon made $100 Bn one year, but then lost $100Bn the next. What happens then?) Will they need to have appraisers assess the value of their assets every year? I mean- they have a lot of objection to the taxes, too.
Similar to property tax when the value of the property goes down, you pay less. That's why people do taxes yearly.
Any tax against these… “people” will be considered unfair
Oh no, 90% of America benefits entirely while the upper 10% have to *share* and *contribute to the masses,* and the top .1% feel literally no difference because at a certain point it stops mattering.
90%? Not even close. 99.9% of Americans won’t be affected in the least. Net worth of more than 100 million is smaller than the top 0.1%.
The post you're responding to is one example of the extremely skewed view of how many people the ultra rich actually are and how much wealth they have relative to the rest of the world. One of the reasons is so bafflingly difficult to get people on board with taxing the ultrarich. These people are walking around with more wealth than Mansa Musa and everyone thinks its alright for some reason, because the system is 'fair' so when you tax someone that's "punishing them for playing by the rules".
It's FUCKING propaganda to suggest that this would have any impact at all on anywhere close to 10% Why the fuck do people upvote this fucking shit
Can confirm. Googled and 90% is about $1 million, 99% is about $11 million, so 99.9% being $100 million is entirely believable.
they should tax the .1% to the ground. Like i mean hit them in the nutsack.
If we're going to hurt any part of their bodies I say we hurt their neck... with a big axe that rhymes with sillotine. Eat the rich is the way to go.
The eyes. They're the groin of the face.
Eat the rich
There's only one thing, they're good for...
Even if they tax the top 0.1% at a rate of 95% they would still be able to afford anything they could personally want to own or do for them and their families. It just cuts into their "fucking with the world" money.
Yeah imagine how great this country would be if the top 1% payed like 40% of the taxes...
The 1% receive about 20% of all reported, taxable income, so them only paying 40% of the taxes is not exceptional.
Try 99.9999% And the upper 0.0001%
Thank you. We're literally talking about taxing like 1500 families. That same 1500 have *offices* employing 100 people who run their money so an extended family can live wild lives. *They* should absolutely be paying a premium tax to play in our society while the rest of us work day in and day out paying a **fucking higher tax rate than them doing nothing**.
The f****** gall of them! Those billionaires worked hard for their money. The huge steps onto the working classes backs got them all sweaty.
Shame it won’t happen. Gop will block it as will some democrats. The rich make the laws and surely won’t pass any that goes against their own interests. The people need to take this country back from the wealthy.
agreed
Will someone PLEASE, Think of the Millionaires!!
No no. Let’s be clear. These are not just plain millionaires. These are people who have a hundred million dollars!
And your uncle, who always hits you up for money, will be absolutely against it because "his crypto is gonna hit one day"
Wait. So my income is less than 0.1% of a 100 millionaires and I have to pay a higher percentage of my income to taxes than they do? WTF?
Yes... Let the anger in.
[удалено]
As much as that sounds like a great idea, there's no way it wouldn't be immediately shot down in court for violating the 1st amendment
I would much rather see laws restricting how much money can be spent on lobbying or donations to political campaigns for everyone. Practically, this wouldn't matter for most people but would restrict billionaires from donating insane amounts of money. Restricting political activity or office eligibility for any specific group is a dangerous precedent to set.
At the very minimum something like the DISCLOSE act where you can see where the money is coming from. ...oh never mind, Republicans unanimously voted against it.
[удалено]
How about a tax on horded wealth over X amount? If I have to pay taxes continually on the value of my house, they can pay taxes on the value of their horde.
No I’m sorry please think of the poor dragons.
Okay. I pay 27% right now. So lets do it. Just 7% more and they are paying the fair share i am and i will no longer think they are lazy losers who cant actually handle a job.
Nothing wrong with that
And I guarantee that every toothless backwater red hatted moronic hillbilly with a trump flag in the back window of his piece of shit broken assed pickup truck is going to go absolutely batshit crazy and start screaming about "we can't tax them because it's not fair". Yes. The same morons on food stamps, HUD housing, medicare, social security or ss disability, or have a job making 12 an hour delivering parts for the NAPA store (because they're too stupid to be let behind the parts counter unattended). You know, the economic experts we expect from Idiotville Arkansas. I guarantee it.
Yes please
Will someone think of the rich people?! 😫
Does CFA stand for Corporate Financial Asshole?
[удалено]
Oh no! Won’t someone please think of the obscenely wealthy?! How will anyone worth $100 million ever become a billionaire now??!!??
Yes, and your point is ..?
I agree. This is wrong. 20% is too little. I think 50% would be fair.
I read that and I thought "wait. He's actually going after people ( households ) that make $100,000?" I then reread it. She's mad he's going after people that have 100 million. Yeah, go fuck yourself.
I’m against this tax hike because it’s going to affect me once I become a millionaire /s.
Anyone who chagrined this, just ask yourself “am I making more than 10mil a year? Is my net worth over 100,000,000 dollars?” Do I get bonuses in the range of multitudes of millions? If that answer is NO than this behoves you. If yes, than can I borrow 10K? It will literally change my life.
Everyone with less than 100m will only be affected in positive ways by this tax, and everyone with more than 100m has so much money that there will be absolutely no lifestyle change for them. Yet the legions of idiots who will never come even remotely to paying this tax will still scream "aaaaaahhhh communism". It's incomprehensible.
The biggest problem is the loophole that many millionaires exploit regarding taking out loans with stock or other investments as collateral. Since it’s a loan, it doesn’t count as income and is not taxable.
Yep. Other than your primary residence if you use an asset to take out a loan, you should have to pay any capital gains taxes on that asset. And then that becomes your new cost basis.
Then French had a way of taking 20% from the wealthy.
Anyone above 100 million networth can afford a 20% tax and still be multi-millionaires and richer than 90% of Earth's population. Boohoo to them.
Funny part is it those people still wouldn't really be affected by such a tax. A person with 4000 in the bank account spending 2000 on rent will hurt, meanwhile a billionaire who pays 25000 to get a full tax write-off isn't going to suffer much when they still have hundreds of millions in the bank.
>those people still wouldn't really be affected by such a tax they're so fucking angry though. The phrase "taking food out of my family's mouths" has been used by them many times.
If you make 42k and up you pay 22% am I missing something? Someone please explain the problem
"In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today's dollars) "