2026 Mid-Term Elections

[thebeave]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

I agree that people who make more should pay more. However, if rates are set too high, it will encourage higher earners to move to locations that more want their business and economic development. I moved my small company from Oregon to Washington because Oregon just isn't business friendly anymore. I know many companies doing the same. I love Oregon, but they don't want business. Fine. Will go to somewhere that does. Same thing for personal taxes.

Is Washington really any better though? The new Seattle mayor doesn't seem very welcoming to the businesses that are trying to thrive in the city. Starbucks for example. But maybe that's just a Seattle issue and the rest of the state is pretty much okay?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

I agree that people who make more should pay more. However, if rates are set too high, it will encourage higher earners to move to locations that more want their business and economic development. I moved my small company from Oregon to Washington because Oregon just isn't business friendly anymore. I know many companies doing the same. I love Oregon, but they don't want business. Fine. Will go to somewhere that does. Same thing for personal taxes.

States don't just magically provide services. People would be best to remember, there is no status quo! Economics, local needs, etc... are changing every year. Businesses want to be treated likes gods because they are "job creators", but then the costs of maintaining the jobs is on the government.

Yes, competition is good, but there appears to be no cohesion between corporations and community. Community, corporations, and government should be working in kind with one another. Corporations struggle with competing with overseas and soon real AI, the people want stuff done but have been conditioned to think austerity is the path, and governments are becoming more entrenched and non-competitive, and at times at war with one another (red capitals versus blue cities).

But to be truthful, it isn't like there was a golden age of understanding between the parties involved. People got screwed out of their pensions. Businesses would leave town. Governments provided less back in the day.

I suppose in the end "it's just business".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

I understand the argument of people getting to vote for taxes they don't pay. If the rules aren't fair, someone is going to complain and justifiable so. My money from federal sources are not taxed at the state or local level. I do not feel I am entitled to vote on state or local taxes but I can. Make it fair first. Subsidies for those struggling should follow. We don't get to vote for taxes in a district we do not live in. Fair taxation we all vote for would be sales tax. Make that switch first. Then decide to what extent property taxes should be limited or eliminated and for whom and why.
My understanding is the problem with getting signatures for the property tax issue was there was no alternative funding source presented. This is what the lady in Home Depot was bending my ear about. It was my first question to her and I got the dear in the headlights look.

Yeah. I'm getting sick of this 'they have no idea what they are looking at doing' problem. They lowered states taxes, and my local taxes (income and property) went up to cover it. And the cities are strapped for funding. Transportation construction takes longer because ODOT has less money to use, so they string it out now.

Property taxes are usually school related. And property values go down when schools suck, but that doesn't stop a long line of property tax votes going down.

 

[Elixir]

The people living below the poverty line in point of fact use a great deal of common property

Unevidenced assertion, and unclear at that.
Is “a great deal” more or less than what a billionaire consumes? More or less than the average US citizen?
Pretty vacuous statement in the absence of any facts or figures.

 

[Toni]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

I agree that people who make more should pay more. However, if rates are set too high, it will encourage higher earners to move to locations that more want their business and economic development. I moved my small company from Oregon to Washington because Oregon just isn't business friendly anymore. I know many companies doing the same. I love Oregon, but they don't want business. Fine. Will go to somewhere that does. Same thing for personal taxes.

States don't just magically provide services. People would be best to remember, there is no status quo! Economics, local needs, etc... are changing every year. Businesses want to be treated likes gods because they are "job creators", but then the costs of maintaining the jobs is on the government.

Yes, competition is good, but there appears to be no cohesion between corporations and community. Community, corporations, and government should be working in kind with one another. Corporations struggle with competing with overseas and soon real AI, the people want stuff done but have been conditioned to think austerity is the path, and governments are becoming more entrenched and non-competitive, and at times at war with one another (red capitals versus blue cities).

But to be truthful, it isn't like there was a golden age of understanding between the parties involved. People got screwed out of their pensions. Businesses would leave town. Governments provided less back in the day.

I suppose in the end "it's just business".

A lot depends on the community/state and the corporation. My community bent over backwards when Walmart wanted to come to town. Filled in a wetland for them, built them an access road and named it after Walmart, gave them tax abatements for I don’t know how many years.

Walmart provides cheap goods, part time jobs with no benefits but the expectation that you will be available on demand or lose your job and the expectation that you will attend team meetings off the clock and without complaint. Benefits? Hah!

Several small local businesses including all but one local (plant) nursery have closed. But, and this is genuinely important: it does provide cheap goods for people in this town who don’t earn much money.

I read recently that Minnesota, currently demonized by the Rethuglians, ranks something like #10 in best business environments nationwide, largely because of the existing infrastructure, including education, making residents of the state valuable employees. It ranks pretty high up there for best places to live or raise a family, because of infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

So: good value for corporations for their tax dollars.

 

[Elixir]

The 80s called; they want their class war rhetoric back.

I answered. The 80s were jealous - everything they said is more true than ever.

 

[southernhybrid]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

But, nobody actually paid that high of a rate. I've looked it up and found that there wee so many deductions back in those days, that the actual highest rate was quite a bit lower.

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-high-income-americans-really-200011606.html

There's a common belief that wealthy Americans were heavily taxed in the 1950s, with a top income tax rate of 91%. But was this the case? Let’s breakdown what was happening with taxes back then.

The top federal income tax rate was 91% for much of the 1950s. However, this figure is a bit misleading regarding what the wealthy paid. The Tax Foundation explains that the 91% tax rate is only applied to incomes over $200,000, about $2 million in today's dollars.

This means only a tiny fraction of taxpayers reached this income level. The Wall Street Journal said fewer than 10,000 households fell into this top bracket.

Even for those who did earn more than $200,000, not all of their income was taxed at 91%. The 91% rate only applied to the portion of their income above the $200,000 threshold. When all taxes (federal, state, and local) are considered, the richest 1% paid an average of 42% of their income in taxes during the 1950s.

Wealthy Americans back then also had many ways to reduce their taxable income through deductions and shelters. For instance, a doctor could claim paper losses from real estate investments to greatly lower their taxable income.

Imagine a doctor in the 1950s who made $50,000 from his medical practice. He could use $50,000 in paper losses or property depreciation from real estate investments to reduce his taxable income to zero. Many professionals used these kinds of tricks to lower their taxes.

So, while the official tax rate was high, the amount of income subject to this rate was much lower due to different loopholes.

How does this compare to today? Despite lower official tax rates now, the tax burden on the wealthy hasn't changed as much as you might think. As the Tax Foundation writes, in 2014, the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average of 36.4% of their income in taxes — or about 5.6 percentage points less than in the 1950s.

 

[southernhybrid]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

I understand the argument of people getting to vote for taxes they don't pay. If the rules aren't fair, someone is going to complain and justifiable so. My money from federal sources are not taxed at the state or local level. I do not feel I am entitled to vote on state or local taxes but I can. Make it fair first. Subsidies for those struggling should follow. We don't get to vote for taxes in a district we do not live in. Fair taxation we all vote for would be sales tax. Make that switch first. Then decide to what extent property taxes should be limited or eliminated and for whom and why.
My understanding is the problem with getting signatures for the property tax issue was there was no alternative funding source presented. This is what the lady in Home Depot was bending my ear about. It was my first question to her and I got the dear in the headlights look.

Yeah. I'm getting sick of this 'they have no idea what they are looking at doing' problem. They lowered states taxes, and my local taxes (income and property) went up to cover it. And the cities are strapped for funding. Transportation construction takes longer because ODOT has less money to use, so they string it out now.

Property taxes are usually school related. And property values go down when schools suck, but that doesn't stop a long line of property tax votes going down.

In Georgia, if you're over 65, you get a big break on your property taxes because you no longer have kids in school. ( I suppose there are a few exceptions butt hey are rare ) For example, my rate is about 2400 per year. It would be about 4000 per year if I was younger. We do have a penny sales tax known as SPLOST that is used for all kinds of things, including parks, the senior center, schools and roads. It's voted on every few years. I love that tax as it goes for so many good things. I'm not sure when we vote on it again, but some idiots think having to pay an extra penny on the dollar is bad. I doubt they realize all the good things it goes to support.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

I understand the argument of people getting to vote for taxes they don't pay. If the rules aren't fair, someone is going to complain and justifiable so. My money from federal sources are not taxed at the state or local level. I do not feel I am entitled to vote on state or local taxes but I can. Make it fair first. Subsidies for those struggling should follow. We don't get to vote for taxes in a district we do not live in. Fair taxation we all vote for would be sales tax. Make that switch first. Then decide to what extent property taxes should be limited or eliminated and for whom and why.
My understanding is the problem with getting signatures for the property tax issue was there was no alternative funding source presented. This is what the lady in Home Depot was bending my ear about. It was my first question to her and I got the dear in the headlights look.

Yeah. I'm getting sick of this 'they have no idea what they are looking at doing' problem. They lowered states taxes, and my local taxes (income and property) went up to cover it. And the cities are strapped for funding. Transportation construction takes longer because ODOT has less money to use, so they string it out now.

Property taxes are usually school related. And property values go down when schools suck, but that doesn't stop a long line of property tax votes going down.

In Georgia, if you're over 65, you get a big break on your property taxes because you no longer have kids in school. ( I suppose there are a few exceptions butt hey are rare ) For example, my rate is about 2400 per year. It would be about 4000 per year if I was younger. We do have a penny sales tax known as SPLOST that is used for all kinds of things, including parks, the senior center, schools and roads. It's voted on every few years. I love that tax as it goes for so many good things. I'm not sure when we vote on it again, but some idiots think having to pay an extra penny on the dollar is bad. I doubt they realize all the good things it goes to support.

This is the kind of stuff I usually see, a couple pennies per for parks, libraries, and such that I probably have no business voting on because I’m not taxed at this level. I still do though. I’d vote for it if I were paying in. And I figure by doing so I can counteract the vote of the loud mouth skinflint behind me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

I understand the argument of people getting to vote for taxes they don't pay. If the rules aren't fair, someone is going to complain and justifiable so. My money from federal sources are not taxed at the state or local level. I do not feel I am entitled to vote on state or local taxes but I can. Make it fair first. Subsidies for those struggling should follow. We don't get to vote for taxes in a district we do not live in. Fair taxation we all vote for would be sales tax. Make that switch first. Then decide to what extent property taxes should be limited or eliminated and for whom and why.
My understanding is the problem with getting signatures for the property tax issue was there was no alternative funding source presented. This is what the lady in Home Depot was bending my ear about. It was my first question to her and I got the dear in the headlights look.

Yeah. I'm getting sick of this 'they have no idea what they are looking at doing' problem. They lowered states taxes, and my local taxes (income and property) went up to cover it. And the cities are strapped for funding. Transportation construction takes longer because ODOT has less money to use, so they string it out now.

Property taxes are usually school related. And property values go down when schools suck, but that doesn't stop a long line of property tax votes going down.

In Georgia, if you're over 65, you get a big break on your property taxes because you no longer have kids in school. ( I suppose there are a few exceptions butt hey are rare ) For example, my rate is about 2400 per year. It would be about 4000 per year if I was younger. We do have a penny sales tax known as SPLOST that is used for all kinds of things, including parks, the senior center, schools and roads. It's voted on every few years. I love that tax as it goes for so many good things. I'm not sure when we vote on it again, but some idiots think having to pay an extra penny on the dollar is bad. I doubt they realize all the good things it goes to support.

We have a Homestead Exemption that includes those over 65, among others.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

Of course they weren't. The 91% rate only applied to money earned in excess of X amount. Anybody who says they were do not know what they are talking about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

Of course they weren't. The 91% rate only applied to money earned in excess of X amount. Anybody who says they were do not know what they are talking about.

ENOUGH!!! ALL THAT IS RELEVANT IS THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE!!!

An apples to apples comparison is only through checking the effective tax rates.

 

[Toni]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

But, nobody actually paid that high of a rate. I've looked it up and found that there wee so many deductions back in those days, that the actual highest rate was quite a bit lower.

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-high-income-americans-really-200011606.html

There's a common belief that wealthy Americans were heavily taxed in the 1950s, with a top income tax rate of 91%. But was this the case? Let’s breakdown what was happening with taxes back then.

The top federal income tax rate was 91% for much of the 1950s. However, this figure is a bit misleading regarding what the wealthy paid. The Tax Foundation explains that the 91% tax rate is only applied to incomes over $200,000, about $2 million in today's dollars.

This means only a tiny fraction of taxpayers reached this income level. The Wall Street Journal said fewer than 10,000 households fell into this top bracket.

Even for those who did earn more than $200,000, not all of their income was taxed at 91%. The 91% rate only applied to the portion of their income above the $200,000 threshold. When all taxes (federal, state, and local) are considered, the richest 1% paid an average of 42% of their income in taxes during the 1950s.

Wealthy Americans back then also had many ways to reduce their taxable income through deductions and shelters. For instance, a doctor could claim paper losses from real estate investments to greatly lower their taxable income.

Imagine a doctor in the 1950s who made $50,000 from his medical practice. He could use $50,000 in paper losses or property depreciation from real estate investments to reduce his taxable income to zero. Many professionals used these kinds of tricks to lower their taxes.

So, while the official tax rate was high, the amount of income subject to this rate was much lower due to different loopholes.

How does this compare to today? Despite lower official tax rates now, the tax burden on the wealthy hasn't changed as much as you might think. As the Tax Foundation writes, in 2014, the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average of 36.4% of their income in taxes — or about 5.6 percentage points less than in the 1950s.

Yes that is true. One of the pitfalls of a high tax rate is that it is usually offset by various deductions and exclusions.

One of the reasons rates were lowered at the top levels were to try to simplify and avoid additional deductions and exclusions. Also to benefit those most ablr to successfully advocate fir changes most in their favor.

 

[Bomb#20]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

You tell me -- you're the one who said "We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.". Well, a 91% tax evidently does not eliminate billionaires. So apparently 91% wouldn't be enough confiscation to satisfy you. What would?

(In case you actually care about my moral judgment, the problem with a 91% tax now is that if somebody taxed me at 91% I'd hate it. As Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." But this isn't about me.)

 

[Elixir]

a 91% tax evidently does not eliminate billionaires

I’m okay with a few billionaires. If I lived another fifty years, I’d probably find trillionaires quite annoying. Right now I’d be delighted to see a top marginal tax rate in the 90 percents, regardless of how many whatever “illionaires” it enables or disables.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, a 91% tax evidently does not eliminate billionaires. So apparently 91% wouldn't be enough confiscation to satisfy you. What would?

Close enough.

 

[Elixir]

Their terrible impact upon the lifestyles of the “very rich” is just the high price the very rich have to pay' does not equal 'such condition permits the excesses of the very rich'. You appear to be doubling down on your character assassination.

Are you really that prickly about sarcasm?
Perhaps you’re the very billionaire whose character I am in fact impugning?
Get over it. You’re brighter than that.

 

[laughing dog]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

You tell me -- you're the one who said "We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.". Well, a 91% tax evidently does not eliminate billionaires. So apparently 91% wouldn't be enough confiscation to satisfy you. What would?

A marginal rate of 91% in a tax code without all the loopholes would probably do the trick. Not sure about the resulting economy.

But why are you hung up on an ultra literal interpretation? At least to me, it is pretty obvious from the discussion that Toni did not literally mean no one should have 1 billion dollars of wealth.

 

[Toni]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

You tell me -- you're the one who said "We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.". Well, a 91% tax evidently does not eliminate billionaires. So apparently 91% wouldn't be enough confiscation to satisfy you. What would?

A marginal rate of 91% in a tax code without all the loopholes would probably do the trick. Not sure about the resulting economy.

But why are you hung up on an ultra literal interpretation? At least to me, it is pretty obvious from the discussion that Toni did not literally mean no one should have 1 billion dollars of wealth.

I kinda do. Sure sure: inflation would move the boundary. But imo, in a properly functioning society, either it truly is equality under the law for all, under which circumstance not in existence despite the declared intent of such. Lacking that, we need to prevent any individual or small group of individuals from amassing so much wealth twinned with almost unimaginable influence.

We haven’t done a good job of either and we are teetering on the edge of oligarchy.

I understand that we cannot let the pursuit of the perfect destroy the good, but we’ve gone off the rails, significantly.

So either we put back guardrails on those with immense wealth and ensure that they are not given more power and influence than anyone ends or we change our laws regarding monopolies, corporate law/structure and corporate tax laws and campaign finance, and media conglomerates—or we don’t allow massive accumulation of wealth.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

But, nobody actually paid that high of a rate. I've looked it up and found that there wee so many deductions back in those days, that the actual highest rate was quite a bit lower.

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

Nobody really paid 91% tax rate or so I've read. I read about this years ago, but people still make the claim that some very wealthy people were paying 91% tax rate. They were not.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-high-income-americans-really-200011606.html

There's a common belief that wealthy Americans were heavily taxed in the 1950s, with a top income tax rate of 91%. But was this the case? Let’s breakdown what was happening with taxes back then.

The top federal income tax rate was 91% for much of the 1950s. However, this figure is a bit misleading regarding what the wealthy paid. The Tax Foundation explains that the 91% tax rate is only applied to incomes over $200,000, about $2 million in today's dollars.

This means only a tiny fraction of taxpayers reached this income level. The Wall Street Journal said fewer than 10,000 households fell into this top bracket.

Even for those who did earn more than $200,000, not all of their income was taxed at 91%. The 91% rate only applied to the portion of their income above the $200,000 threshold. When all taxes (federal, state, and local) are considered, the richest 1% paid an average of 42% of their income in taxes during the 1950s.

Wealthy Americans back then also had many ways to reduce their taxable income through deductions and shelters. For instance, a doctor could claim paper losses from real estate investments to greatly lower their taxable income.

Imagine a doctor in the 1950s who made $50,000 from his medical practice. He could use $50,000 in paper losses or property depreciation from real estate investments to reduce his taxable income to zero. Many professionals used these kinds of tricks to lower their taxes.

So, while the official tax rate was high, the amount of income subject to this rate was much lower due to different loopholes.

Those aren't "loopholes"; That's how tax brackets work.

How does this compare to today? Despite lower official tax rates now, the tax burden on the wealthy hasn't changed as much as you might think. As the Tax Foundation writes, in 2014, the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average of 36.4% of their income in taxes — or about 5.6 percentage points less than in the 1950s.

If a top bracket of 90%, or even 99% were introduced today, nobody would be taxed 90% of their entire income. That's not how it works, nor how it is supposed to work.

That "5.6 percentage points" is a hugely misleading figure. The difference between paying 36.4% of your entire income and paying 42% of your entire income is likely FAR greater than the difference between paying a top marginal rate of 36.4% vs paying a top rate of 42% (exactly how much greater depends on the threshold of that top bracket, and on the rates charged in the lower brackets).

That whole article seems to be arguing against a strawman idea that someone is proposing a 90+% total tax imposition on billionaire incomes. But nobody is doing that; The proposal is for this as the top marginal rate, as it was in the 1950s.

And yes, nobody pays the top rate on their whole income. That's basic maths, and must apply whenever two or more brackets exist with differing rates.