Most Americans want a 70% tax rate on earnings over $10,000,000

Originally published at:


My favorite part of this debate are the bootlickers who insist that it’s impossible to tax rich people because they’ll just hire procurers and enablers to hide their money in the Irish Sea, the English Channel, the Caribbean, Luxembourg, Wyoming, and Delaware.

This argument is akin to a kid who says “I don’t like green beans!!” who has never tried green beans before.
How do you know it won’t work until you first try it first?


Another typical argument–it won’t be worth it to earn that money if 70% of it will be taken away in taxes. Counter argument: would you rather have 30% of a million dollars, or nothing at all?


A newly released Hill-HarrisX poll found that 59% of registered US voters support the proposal, and that breaks down to 62% of women, 55% of men, 57% of southerners, 56% of rural voters, 60% of independents, 71% of Democrats, and even 45% of Republicans.

Which still leaves us with a moronic and delusional ~40.5% of the electorate that thinks there’s any reasonable chance they’d ever be affected by a marginal tax rate of 70% on annual earnings over $10-million/year (and, sadly, many of these deluded souls do know how marginal tax rates work). That’s a lot of unlicensed plumbers using fake names awaiting the day that they, too, will be Fortune 500 CEOs, iBank fund managers, A-list professional athletes or celebrities, or heirs to $250-million+ bequests.


Caveat: Americans of every political stripe like the idea when it’s explained correctly. Progressive taxation is generally not on the high school curriculum at all.


She’s killing it with every opportunity they give her.


I think we should definitely implement this tax bracket.

However, there is less taxable money in this bracket than people think there is. Of course, the IRS doesn’t publish the exact numbers, but consider this:

The greater than 1 million dollars per year tax filers from 2016 (last complete records available, when I checked) totals 1.36 Trillion dollars across 424,870 filers. If you figure the majority are under 10mm/yr. filers, no matter how you slice that, you’re only talking tens of billions of dollars in funding. Possibly less than 10 billion, although we don’t know for sure.

Which is a start! But not quantities of federal funding that will fix anything.


In tandem with reinstating the 70% bracket, introduction of progressive taxation for capital gains is required. Money that does nothing to grow the economy (investment income) should never be taxed at a lower rate than money that does (income from labor).


Absolutely. What this easy-to-digest proposal does is open the door to grown-up discussions about corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, discussions that have been gradually made taboo in mainstream public discourse in the U.S. since 1980.

It’s similar to what the Occupy movement did. For all the criticisms I have about it, Occupy (perhaps despite itself) got a real discussion about growing economic inequality into the mainstream, laying the groundwork for politicians like AOC to get elected and follow up.


then there’s Scott Walker, Koch Bros backed former Wisconsin governor, who takes his straw man argument to 5th graders:


I know that I could live very comfortably and happily on 30% of a million dollars.
Back in the good old days there was a reason the company president didn’t make all that much more than the regular workers and given perks like a company car and club memberships cause if the actual income got better he got taxed at 90%.
And honestly if my after taxes pay was 10% of a million dollars I could still live pretty fucking nicely.


If you say “70% on income over 10 million” it’s real easy for people to mishear that as “70% of 10 million.”

How you ask the question matters.


“or some kind of witchy, indefinable charisma.”

As a Fox news analyst, I’m going to interpret that statement a fact supporting AOC’s being an actual, spell-casting witch, using dark magic to gain her office and sway the minds of the American people.


@gracchus, @IronEdithKidd

Re: Capital gains. I’ll admit, I haven’t looked into the stats on how much your average American benefits from it vs. The obscenely wealthy. But, it’s a big part of some middle class people’s retirement planning.

Larger scale societal change may alleviate the impact of this reform on the non-wealthy, such as better public healthcare options, fixing social security, or other social programs.


I’d like to see that 70% rounded up a lil, oh I dunno, maybe to 100%? Yeah, 100%. That sounds about right.


And, as with most Fox attacks, that just makes me like her more


Now if only most Americans had fuck all to say when it comes to policy making in the world‘s leading „democracy“.


A reasonable discussion would take that into account. The problem is that the entire topic has been declared verboten since Reagan, and the potential funds raised by such a tax – implemented not to hurt middle-class retirement planning and retirees – will make a much bigger difference than those raised by this 70% marginal. As will higher corporate taxes and closing all sorts of loopholes that the neoliberal consensus deems “necessary.”

You’re correct here, too, but those programmes have to be funded. The same conservative philosophy that bars discussion of effectively raising those funds is also busy at work fighting against serious consideration of single-payer universal health insurance, taking measures to secure SSI, and any welfare programme that might benefit the “undeserving” (i.e. minority groups).


If we are going to fantasize, can we also bring back Glass-Steagall in it’s full, 1950’s glory?


If I have never been bullied and will never be bullied then I am delusional for calling the bullying of others wrong?


1 Like