thehogshotgun wrote:IkeTG wrote:thehogshotgun wrote:Her “A just society” is built on faulty data and has many issues, but the one that I mainly know of is her suggestions of up to 70, 80% tax rates for the rich, due to America having such rates for a long time, ignoring the fact that the tax codes in that era had a ton of tax breaks and exceptions, something most tax historians would tell you. Of course AOC doesn’t care because she believes in eat the rich
you're just making this up entirely cause you dont like women
That video's description wrote:
But John Stossel interviews economic historian Phil Magness, of the American Institute for Economic Research, who says that progressives miss an important fact: high tax rates that America had in the past actually didn't bring in much revenue.
When rates were at 70%, Magness tells Stossel, "a millionaire on average would pay 41%."
That's because rich people find loopholes. When America had its highest top tax rates, newspapers ran ads like "cruise for free … $2499 value."
Magness explains: "Basically [you could] take a vacation around the Caribbean, but while you're onboard the ship, you attend, say, an investing seminar or a real estate seminar -- then write off the [whole] trip."
Stossel says that deductions became so complex that rich people, instead of inventing, say a precursor to the iPhone, hired accountants and tax lawyers to study the tax code. Some also worked less.
This led President Reagan, with bipartisan support from Democrats, to lower rates and remove deductions. That began the path to the 37% top rate that rates that we have today.
Despite the lower rates, federal government revenue -- as a percentage of the economy -- is still about the same as it was when the top rate was 70%. It's even about the same as it was when the rate was 90%.
Progressives still say, "raise taxes on the rich.” Stossel asks Magness about the claim that: "the government will collect more, and do good things."
"You're asking for an economic disaster," Magness replies. More money will be wasted in the hands of government. "Do we leave it in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?"
So basically if you believe this they closed the loopholes that were being exploited in exchange for lowering the tax rate, and effectively it did nothing. But according to economic historian Phil Magness, increasing tax rates on the rich would be an economic disaster because of corrupt politicians. The only way to avoid this is to keep money out of the hands of the government and in the private sector, where the market decides what happens to it.
Obviously nonsensical fearmongering that the type of people who watch these sorts of YouTube videos love to hear and not the real reason he doesn't want to see the rich taxed more.
Is AOC a self-deluded narcissist in the vein of Donald Trump and an ignorant idealist whose policies don't stand up to the light of day? The jury's still out but if America's period of high taxes on the rich really was plagued with loopholes they exploited that doesn't mean that raising taxes on the rich isn't practical today. Maybe just not to that level.
