(Replying to PARENT post)
No-one who is caught by them will pay them.
If I'm Michael Dell, and my marginal rate is 70%, or 90% or even 100% (whatever) then I'm incentivized to take that money in another way, be it in stock, deferred bonuses, or even in leaving the capital in the business without issuing a dividend.
The reason this is such a problem is that regardless of whether you manage to close every conceivable loophole, you're still talking about personal taxes. The corporation is making the lion's share of the money, and that's where the tax would need to be applied to raise the revenues required by the Green New Deal.
Thing is, that's never worked for a state because the biggest companies are multi-national corporations that can (and do) shift their taxable income to the most favourable jurisdictions, which is why nation states keep trying to undercut each other on CT rates (Apple and Google are notorious for the lengths they go to in order to avail of this, for example). The state can't close that kind of loophole because it doesn't have the authority to (unless it goes down the road of sanctioning other countries due to their tax rates).
I've not seen a solution to wealth distribution yet that acknowledges that we exist in a global economy, regardless of local policies (however well intentioned they are).
Thing is, most people don't really seem to want wealth re-distribution to anyone poorer than them. Unless you're planning to pay a living wage to everyone in India/Thailand/China/wherever then why shouldn't they undercut your taxation rates as much as is needed to attract local jobs?
(Replying to PARENT post)
Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year behave the same? Do they help, buy overpriced luxury goods they don't need, or park their money in some financial product.
His foundation does much work outside of the USA. That's commendable, but it's not up to the individual to decide what they fund. For a good reason.
He really came as arrogant and uninformed. And where was the push back from the host?
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Other countries do this successfully: wrong, other countries are far less progressive than the US with many more paying top rates. The lazy "we can be Sweden" thinking also indicates a fairly weak understanding of political theory.
Assuming no reductions in revenue, the only solution is raising taxes substantially on the wealthy below 1%. Simple.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007.[2]
So...yeah, marginal rates have been 70% or higher...but the Federal government has never successfully collected that much, due to write-offs, tax shelters, and other schemes that were largely closed in 1986 with...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986