Why Do Democrat Politicians Prefer To Spend Other Peoples Money?


#45

Then I think you should suggest it to your PM


#62

You posted it in Table 1. It’s self explanatory. I would be against any new tax bracket at 70%, but it would affect very few people. Even very few rich people as most of their income would be taxed as Cap. Gains or under the business tax.


#63

Why dude is useless why we have a Queen.


#64

does Cortez and the Liberals want a 70 percent for each individual that makes over 10 mil.
or businesses also and corporations?

Why would anyone bust their buns to make over 10 mil if they’re going to get taxed that much anyways? What’s their incentive?

Rich people always find away around things.

It would ultimately hurt the economy more than help it.


#67

It’s a tax on income made after the first 10 million. A corporate tax is separate. But I agree, there is little incentive to make 30 cents on the dollar. Then when you add other deductions…

An example would be sports athletes. Many of them make well over 10 million. By the time it’s all said and done, 70% in federal taxes and state taxes from every state they play in, among other deductions, they’d almost be playing for nothing after that 10 million mark.


#70

It is my understanding that the proposal is for salaries starting at 10 million dollars per year. So it would only impact any in that salary bracket, in other words a tiny fraction of the population. The concern by those who oppose that marginal rate is that they believe it would hurt the economy because they see that that money would be invested economically. This is why I believe that Democrat Governors should start doing this at the state level and see how it goes. If it goes well then there is a model for other states to follow.


#71

What would likely happen is that anyone who is compensated at that level would negotiate other means of compensation like stock options, company car, etc.


#73

I’m trying to figure out how it would work at the state level. To me that sounds like an incentive to move out of the state. People with that kind of income would have the means to easily do it too.


#74

Why did you create this thread then? You should do more reading.


#75

Do you know what “marginal utility” is?

If you did, you would understand why the bolded in your quote is a fallacious argument.

Make an argument against the marginal tax rate hike…there are countless real arguments you could make, but stop making the false dumb one that rich people would “work less hard”. It’s completely untrue.


#76

NJ has marginal tax rates that top out at 8.97%, and only $500,000.

https://www.tax-brackets.org/newjerseytaxtable

Murphy could propose an additional rate of say 15% on incomes above $1,000,000 and another of 20% on incomes above 3,000,000 to help fund NJ’s inner city schools. You do raise a valid point about people with that income moving out but there are those who argue that would not be the case because it might not be that easy for all in that income level to do so.


#77

Couple things:

  1. How fortunate that the National Review was able to criticize Bernie Sanders’ personal income tax return during the 2016 election. BECAUSE HE RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE EXCEPT THE MANCHURIAN CANTALOUPE!

  2. Your headline is pure fantasy. BOTH Republicans and Democrats spend other people’s money. That’s how federal government spending works. The differences are in how much for what. The Republicans just finished two years of COMPLETE control by increasing the budget AND the national debt. So spare me the prattle about how the GOP is the party of fiscal conservatism. Let me know when they’ve voted to decrease spending in ALL areas, including, yes, entitlements.


#78

In Michigan, the republican prefer to spend my money over the rich guy’s money. I have less money, so they take more of it. They then cut the rich man’s taxes and we still have less but pay more for it.


#79

Oh, And they have gerrymandering and ripped up our state constitution so I can’t override the legislature. So I also don’t get a say.

Republicans are cool…


#80

No, he clearly doesn’t know what it is.


#81

Republicans have proven over and over again that they like spending other people’s money just as much as Democrats do. They just like to spend it on different things.

The one arena that I give Democrats credit for is that at least they want to actually have a way to pay for the crap they want. The Republicans just want to keep adding it all to the Federal Credit Card and pretend that everything is fine.

If you really don’t like the government spending too much money, maybe you should quit bending over for Republicans and find a 3rd party to support. Otherwise, you just sound like a hypocrite.


#82

70% tax on incomes beyond $10,000,000 would be neither egregious or bad for the economy. It would affect .05% of US citizens. Our economy was doing fantastic in the 60s when this same rate hovered closer to 90%.


Why don't they just raise taxes on the rich? Topic - LA teachers strike
#83

If you look into that 90% tax bracket you’ll find out rarely was anyone paying it. I think there is a little footnote next to the number saying exactly that. People would try to claim their income on business or personal income tax based on which was lower.


#84

Well sure, but that’s not 70%. It would also greatly depend on if they can have the same income in another nearby state. They may have to stay due to that, not for a lack of monetary means.

I make about 80k a year. If New Jersey decided to make a state tax of 20% over 50k, I have the means to move out, but I need to know I can find an equal paying job. People making income between 1 and 10 million I would imagine would command a similar wage elsewhere. At least they would have a better shot than I, a high school grad.


#85

Those things are taxable too.