Why Do Democrat Politicians Prefer To Spend Other Peoples Money?


So they should run with that. Say 8% state tax, and 2% local tax… in addition to that 90% federal tax. Can someone tell me abt that equals?


This is a great post.

The formula is simple…if tax revenues go down, and the deficitbis also held constant or reduced, government services must go down too.

Even government services you might like…or government services that benefit the economy.

It’s time people understand this…it’s not just “the other side’s” policies that cost money.


Were rich people going broke in the 60s because of 100% taxation?


I think he meant to have payment be in a form that would go under capital gains as opposed to income. Anything to avoid 70%. Because it’s not just 70%. We have payroll taxes, State taxes, the agent takes a percentage, among other deductions. You can’t expect players to accept 10-20 cents on the dollar. That’s flat out robbery. I know I wouldn’t do it.


Again, you don’t seem to understand how marginal tax rates work.

This isn’t rocket surgery.


There are two types of stock options. One is taxable at ordinary income the other is not as long it’s held for more than a year. A company car is taxable at ordinary income.


Do you know what marginal utility is?


So 100% taxation above $10 mil is fine with you? That’s as much as anyone should make?


I guess there is no discussing the political points if you’re going to start making arguments like this.

Obviously, 100% is too much for almost the entire population!! Only the most radical of the radical of the radical would want a 100% tax rate. Is that the number you want to be the top marginal tax rate?


Somebody asked if people were not making money with a 90% federal income marginal rate. Add on state and local taxes, property taxes… very easily 100% could be going to taxes at that threshold. Is that what liberals want? A maximum amount someone is allowed to make?


Math is hard…

You probably think that 2-25% discounts on Dad jeans equals a 50% discount!


But, if you go back to that type of tax system you also need to go back to when rich people like that had all kinds of right offs so they never got close to paying that tax rate. It basically forced rich people to put their money back into the economy instead of saving and investing it. It’s the only time in US tax history that “trickle down” made any sense.


Rich people are smart enough that they would always find away around that 70percent.

Even if that meant taking their business, or money elsewhere.

Just like Socialism the 70percent may sounds good and look good on paper.
But in reality, it doesn’t make any logical sense to do in America.


Math isn’t hard. If you have a federal tax rate of 90% and a state tax of almost 9% like in NJ, what does that amount to? What are you left with?


Democrats like to spend other people’s money for the exact same reason that Republicans like to spend other people’s money.

Spending other people’s money is a lot more fun!


I just want to respond to the thread title.

All politicians spend other people’s money.
No government is funded by donation from the legislators.

All politicians like their job. (They work hard enough to win an election). They like the job of spending other people’s money.

All politicians.

The difference is in what they want to spend the money on, not their liking of OPM.


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%.

No, it was stagnant in the early 60s. Kennedy knew how to give it a jump start, that was with the tax cut.

The Kennedy tax cuts

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.


https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates The above is from here


In your example…You are left with 1% but that is not how marginal tax rates work.


But that would not be taxable at 70% (assuming that was the new marginal rate enacted). It would be taxed at whatever the capital gains rate at the time they sell the shares, correct?