A 70% tax on income over $10m is designed to correct inequality, not raise revenue

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/29/70pct-at-10m.html


The real goal of tax policy should be to raise tax revenue collected from the middle/working class: by the mechanism of increasing the middle/working class’s income, and this is certainly a step in the right direction. But I think it underestimates the culture of financial spite in America, and I think other mechanisms to reward businesses for paying workers and and punish them for overpaying owners are needed.


Why not both? I can remember when we could put a man on the moon.


Now use the money collected to house the homeless, and feed the hungry.

Or pay off some of the national debt.

Not a cent of this should go to Three Letter Agencies (Intellegence, Defense…)


Just as the purpose of a tobacco ^tax is not

1 Like

AOC is scaring the monied classes, and I love that.


Reason is scared

But dig into these papers , and you’ll find the results reflect philosophy as much as economics. These economists think they can plan the distribution of income to maximize “social welfare.” But they arrive at the decision to impose extremely high top marginal tax rates because they uniformly decide to put almost zero weight on the welfare of the rich.

what a scandal. The same article proposes moving the Overton window.

If we were philosophically opposed to redistribution altogether, the optimal rate tumbles to 3 percent. What counts as optimal varies tremendously based on the philosophical assumptions the economist starts with.

If. If? Why so coy?


the answer is absolutely BOTH.


The example of the corporate boards as to the effect of wealthy people overpaying other wealthy people is very insightful. Board members are usually active or retired executives themselves, so without a moderating mechanism like this tax they’re inclined to pay as much as they can to executives because they know the executive they’re paying today may be a board member at a company where they (or their kid) is an executive to-morrow. This sort of decision also often places the interests of shareholders in second place.

They and others in the Kochs’ portfolio of Libertarian noise machines are, especially since it’s very difficult to make an, errr, reasonable reality-based case against this tax to the average American (who makes 99%+ less and somehow manages to survive) .


There are lots of things with “nobel” intents… Somehow they never seem to fulfill those intents.

1 Like

I’m always wary of two statements,
“revenue neutral”
" broaden the base"
If you ever hear those talking points to push
Plug your ears
La la la

1 Like

the only way you are ever going to get these kinds of taxes passed is to have a very clear simple single sentence explaining it’s on an absurdly high level of income (ONLY the part ABOVE $10M) and state specifically what is going to be used for

ie. TAX RICH PEOPLE (idiots who imagine someday they are going to be millionares don’t like this idea and vote against it)

vs. income BEYOND $10 Million, take 70% tax for HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE

seriously just imagine everyone actually not having to worry about how they are going to see doctor and instead going into work sick, or what if their kid gets a broken arm and emergency room wants $5,000, or $10,000 for an ambulance ride to bankrupt you forever


Damn. I wish I was affected by this proposal.


Why does she want to punish success and hard work!

random “communist/socialist” statement.

Oh yeah, let’s just see what happens to the economy when you punish the job creators!

(and other random nonsense)


Here’s some handy history…


Reason sure gets silly ideas sometimes. It shouldn’t even need to be said but rich people, unlike most any other subgroup, CAN’T be oppressed.

When society makes life unbearable for poor people or LGBT people or brown people or women then there’s very little that those people can do to escape that treatment. When society makes life unbearable for rich people they can simply forgo their excess wealth and live like everyone else.


citizen louis capet didn’t last long.

Or they can move, along with their wealth and production value…

If the object is to correct inequality, then why not a 100% marginal rate on income over some sufficiently obscene sum?

1 Like

While I agree with a much, much higher marginal tax, and that the rich should be considerably less so, you can absolutely oppress the rich because they, too, are people. If you started killing them and their families, say, that would count as oppression by anyone’s metric. And it’s not like it hasn’t been tried a time or two.