Re: Klarman worried about political divide

[stahleyp]

I love the idea of a 70% income tax.

I think it's insulting when conservatives are like "take from those that earn it and give to those that don't! that's fair!"

What do you call it when a state gives money to a corporation to relocate there? Does Amazon really need billions of dollars to help their business? What do you call when a city builds a stadium for a sporting event and increasing taxes on people? What do you call when the government bails out the economy? Is this not the "havenots" giving to the haves?

Do you really think that a baseball player would stop playing baseball if he were taxed at 50%? Do you think a CEO would not take a job? Do you think a hedge fund manager might be like "well, I'm not going to do that because I don't want to pay 70% taxes". Highly, highly doubtful.

The US operated with a 90% income tax and people still worked.

[rb]

Hey all:

I am a little concerned about the talk of "some people have too much".

As long as they didn't do anything illegal/highly unethical, what difference does it make to me (or anybody else) HOW much wealth they have?

Of course, the mega rich should pay their "fair" share of taxes...and maybe that should be a higher percentage than your nursing home CNA, fry-O-lator operator, or small business person.  HOWEVER, at rates approaching OR exceeding 50%, I've got a problem with that.  How is it ethical that the government gets/takes MORE of the money that YOU make?

Well are you concerned about the ethics of an x% marginal tax rate or are you concerned about instability/political divide?

[cubsfan]

Hey all:

I am also worried about the political divide.  Say what you will...but it is certainly WORSE now than it was in 2010.

I am also distressed about the rise & seeming popularity of that Occasio Cortez from NY.  The vast majority of what she spouts is simply ignorant.  So many young people are NOT getting any type of education in finance or economics.  This has been going on for a LONG time, decades perhaps.

SO, if people have little to no understanding of economics, business, or finance, is it any wonder that they don't know how the system works/functions.  They are also scared and or skeptical of capitalism...and then think well geez, socialism is promising free healthcare, education, and TONS OF FUN!  Why not?  What could possibly go wrong?

Couple that with ignorance of current events and history. 

What could possibly go wrong?

AOC has a degree in economics and her policies are pretty much the standard in the Western World (sans the USA).  What are you talking about?

AOC hasn't learned a thing. She may have a degree, but she doesn't understand economics or capitalism. She is pretty and extremely naive - the stuff that comes out of her mouth shows complete ignorance. But elected she is!
Scary.

[LC]

LC are you Octazio Cortez's boyfriend?

She can do better than me 

[LC]

Of course, the mega rich should pay their "fair" share of taxes...and maybe that should be a higher percentage than your nursing home CNA, fry-O-lator operator, or small business person.  HOWEVER, at rates approaching OR exceeding 50%, I've got a problem with that.  How is it ethical that the government gets/takes MORE of the money that YOU make?

Fair is the operative word. Winners in our capitalist society take advantage of both societal norms and public services. How to quantify that is difficult.

[stahleyp]

Personally, I think the huge government deficits are evidence that something is broken.

On a note of the "fair" issue, is it fair that if a normal person doesn't do a good job, they're fired but a CEO walks way with millions (or hundreds of millions?) Is it fair that a company produces a product that harms people, but the CEO keep his pay for all of the years of profits?

[Tim Eriksen]

I love the idea of a 70% income tax.

I think it's insulting when conservatives are like "take from those that earn it and give to those that don't! that's fair!"

What do you call it when a state gives money to a corporation to relocate there? Does Amazon really need billions of dollars to help their business? What do you call when a city builds a stadium for a sporting event and increasing taxes on people? What do you call when the government bails out the economy? Is this not the "havenots" giving to the haves?

Do you really think that a baseball player would stop playing baseball if he were taxed at 50%? Do you think a CEO would not take a job? Do you think a hedge fund manager might be like "well, I'm not going to do that because I don't want to pay 70% taxes". Highly, highly doubtful.

The US operated with a 90% income tax and people still worked.

Apparently you don't realize you have almost everything wrong.  The US never operated with a near 90% income tax.  It had a near 90% marginal income tax rate, not income tax.  Effective rates were pretty close to today's effective rates.  If you study the issue, the "deficit" on the revenue side is not due to taxing the rich less.  It is due to taxing the poor and lower middle class less.  That is the result of Republican policies.       

Regarding stadiums and public assistance to corporations.  If the "have nots" are not paying taxes (and they are not, at least not to the level to cover their respective costs) then it is not the "have nots" supporting the haves.  It is the haves supporting other haves and the "have nots."
     

[JSArbitrage]

"AOC has a degree in economics and her policies are pretty much the standard in the Western World (sans the USA).  What are you talking about?"

Taxing anything above $10 million at 70% rate is standard?

You are the one who should learn about what you are talking about!

Cardboard

Yes - it is.

I'd have to see what the PF impact of a 70% marginal tax rate above $10mm USD would be, but I can tell you that the US is pretty close to dead last in tax revenue as a percent of GDP relative to other Western nations.  Of course, we all tax sales/incomes/capital gains/etc. differently so you can't just Copy + Paste "70% marginal tax rate" and compare, you'd have to see how much additional revenue that would raise relative to GDP.

You honestly didn't know the US is vastly under-taxed relative to the rest of the Western world?

[JSArbitrage]

Hey all:

I am also worried about the political divide.  Say what you will...but it is certainly WORSE now than it was in 2010.

I am also distressed about the rise & seeming popularity of that Occasio Cortez from NY.  The vast majority of what she spouts is simply ignorant.  So many young people are NOT getting any type of education in finance or economics.  This has been going on for a LONG time, decades perhaps.

SO, if people have little to no understanding of economics, business, or finance, is it any wonder that they don't know how the system works/functions.  They are also scared and or skeptical of capitalism...and then think well geez, socialism is promising free healthcare, education, and TONS OF FUN!  Why not?  What could possibly go wrong?

Couple that with ignorance of current events and history. 

What could possibly go wrong?

AOC has a degree in economics and her policies are pretty much the standard in the Western World (sans the USA).  What are you talking about?

AOC hasn't learned a thing. She may have a degree, but she doesn't understand economics or capitalism. She is pretty and extremely naive - the stuff that comes out of her mouth shows complete ignorance. But elected she is!
Scary.

Riiigghttt.  That's why her policies are much closer to what a consensus of Ivy League economists would suggest relative to Trump (as an example.)  Because she, professional economists and every other Western country (which have way better quality of life metrics) just don't get it!

[stahleyp]

I love the idea of a 70% income tax.

I think it's insulting when conservatives are like "take from those that earn it and give to those that don't! that's fair!"

What do you call it when a state gives money to a corporation to relocate there? Does Amazon really need billions of dollars to help their business? What do you call when a city builds a stadium for a sporting event and increasing taxes on people? What do you call when the government bails out the economy? Is this not the "havenots" giving to the haves?

Do you really think that a baseball player would stop playing baseball if he were taxed at 50%? Do you think a CEO would not take a job? Do you think a hedge fund manager might be like "well, I'm not going to do that because I don't want to pay 70% taxes". Highly, highly doubtful.

The US operated with a 90% income tax and people still worked.

Apparently you don't realize you have almost everything wrong.  The US never operated with a near 90% income tax.  It had a near 90% marginal income tax rate, not income tax.  Effective rates were pretty close to today's effective rates.  If you study the issue, the "deficit" on the revenue side is not due to taxing the rich less.  It is due to taxing the poor and lower middle class less.  That is the result of Republican policies.       

Regarding stadiums and public assistance to corporations.  If the "have nots" are not paying taxes (and they are not, at least not to the level to cover their respective costs) then it is not the "have nots" supporting the haves.  It is the haves supporting other haves and the "have nots."
   

Well, you're right. If I recognized I had everything wrong, I would have to change that opinion.

With that said, I'm fully aware they were marginal income tax rates. I didn't feel the need to clarify that (I didn't think people thought everyone had a 90% rate). My error I suppose. I am interested in what you say about Republican polices taxes the poor and lower middle class lower though. Would you elaborate?

The "have nots" that I mentioned were basically the middle/upper middle class. I didn't mean the poor (who typically pay little taxes). I think we may be agreement here. Perhaps a better way to put it is the "haves" giving to the "have nots" and "have lots?"