Democrats getting a lesson in Economics 101

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't ever let this man get near the oval office.

..... and $73 Billion deficit.

How many do we need to explain that this deficit is tied to the vicissitudes of the tech and media economy in California? When IPOs and VC were hot, they had a huge budget surplus. This is really no different and definitely not because it's Newsom's fault. You conservatives really are that ignorant.

You can’t keep taxing the 1% while providing more and more benefits like health insurance to all undocumented migrants, free residential drug rehab for anyone in the country who enters CA and says they are going to stay (the vast majority aren’t successful and way too many end up as homeless addicts in the streets), etc. The highest tax rate in CA is now over 14%. It is by far the highest in the country. So many very wealthy CA are leaving the state. So the state was counting in getting those taxes no longer are. 75,000 people left CA in 2023.

They hold over 30% of the wealth in the US, why the hell can't or shouldn't we? Tax the hell out of them and if they try to leave the country exit tax the hell out of them. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Hell, hundred-millionaires shouldn't exist when people are on the streets and going hungry. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

+1, actually, we once did this and radically narrowed inequality in this country. Too bad you MAGAs only want to make America great with the racial segregation and LGBTQs in the closet and your own brand of McCarthyism (except you now love the Russians) of the 1940s and 1950s instead of the tax structure of the times.

Why do idiot Democrats constantly point out to ‘90% TaXes iN tHE 1950s!!’….


As if they are making some point. No dimwits, why don’t you also tell us what the tax code at the time was as well? That’s because if you actually took those tax brackets in their historical context relative to the tax code at the time you’d realize it is a nothing burger. Back then, the tax code was also infinitely more complex and there were tons and tons of more tax breaks and write offs. Virtually zero people were paying 90% rates after you factor in the tax code, but Dems never tell you that.


Taxes as a percent of total GDP have stayed remarkably consistent for decades, which is also a fact Dems never tell you when they try to say we need more taxes like we used to in the past. The only problem is that we really didn’t have more total taxes in the past. What is different is the current mentality for more free govt handouts and spending.


Learn some facts:

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant.

Even if the tax rate for rich people had always been 0% that doesn't mean we shouldn't tax the hell out of them now. They make every dollar they have off the backs of the working class and every dollar they make is thank to government infrastructure. They can afford it, they should pay it.

Ok comrade.


Or you could stop being a lazy rag, start your own company, and then pay yourself west you think you’re worth. But of course it’s always easier when someone else does all of the heavy lifting and creates a job for you.


You’re a lazy bum.

You understand that most of these billionaires started out on 3rd base, right? If you really want everyone being judged and compensated on their own intellect and drive, then everyone should have the same starting point, right?

Bill Gates started his company out of a garage, dimwit. Bezos didn't grow up in a remarkable household. Howard Schultz didn't even grow up with running water.

You just sound like a good little lazy commie. Too lazy to start your own company. Every excuse in the book why you can't do it. The solution of course is to take from what others created, because you 'deserve' it.

What a bum.

[Anonymous]

Reminds me of head of ALCOA who was Treasury Secretary vs KKK Senator engaged in a poor-off. I use that phrase because actual name is banned here, people keep bringing up that he was in KKK.

"I grew up in a house without water or electricity, I do not cede to you the high moral ground of knowing what life is like in a ditch"

"I married a coal miner's daughter. I had a wooden outhouse."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fast food restaurants in California are raising prices and laying off workers since the $20 minimum wage for FF workers into effect on April 1st. What did they expect? That restaurants would pay this wage and graciously not raise prices? Those jobs were never meant to provide a living wage. Just causes more inflation and those workers are right back to where they were. Let’s see how many of those workers come off social safety net programs with the higher wages. I’m betting very few. Why don’t democrats understand how capitalism works?

If they were smart they wouldn't be Democrats. They are all about emotion & what SHOULD be.

[Anonymous]

Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't ever let this man get near the oval office.

..... and $73 Billion deficit.

How many do we need to explain that this deficit is tied to the vicissitudes of the tech and media economy in California? When IPOs and VC were hot, they had a huge budget surplus. This is really no different and definitely not because it's Newsom's fault. You conservatives really are that ignorant.

You can’t keep taxing the 1% while providing more and more benefits like health insurance to all undocumented migrants, free residential drug rehab for anyone in the country who enters CA and says they are going to stay (the vast majority aren’t successful and way too many end up as homeless addicts in the streets), etc. The highest tax rate in CA is now over 14%. It is by far the highest in the country. So many very wealthy CA are leaving the state. So the state was counting in getting those taxes no longer are. 75,000 people left CA in 2023.

They hold over 30% of the wealth in the US, why the hell can't or shouldn't we? Tax the hell out of them and if they try to leave the country exit tax the hell out of them. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Hell, hundred-millionaires shouldn't exist when people are on the streets and going hungry. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

+1, actually, we once did this and radically narrowed inequality in this country. Too bad you MAGAs only want to make America great with the racial segregation and LGBTQs in the closet and your own brand of McCarthyism (except you now love the Russians) of the 1940s and 1950s instead of the tax structure of the times.

Why do idiot Democrats constantly point out to ‘90% TaXes iN tHE 1950s!!’….


As if they are making some point. No dimwits, why don’t you also tell us what the tax code at the time was as well? That’s because if you actually took those tax brackets in their historical context relative to the tax code at the time you’d realize it is a nothing burger. Back then, the tax code was also infinitely more complex and there were tons and tons of more tax breaks and write offs. Virtually zero people were paying 90% rates after you factor in the tax code, but Dems never tell you that.


Taxes as a percent of total GDP have stayed remarkably consistent for decades, which is also a fact Dems never tell you when they try to say we need more taxes like we used to in the past. The only problem is that we really didn’t have more total taxes in the past. What is different is the current mentality for more free govt handouts and spending.


Learn some facts:

The part you're missing, moron, is the composition of those taxes. That is, who is paying them. Let's look - capital gains tax and corporate tax rates were much higher during that era (https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-capital-gains-rates). So was the estate tax (https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-estate-and-gift-tax-rates). As you can see from this chart, individuals, rather than corporations are paying a much larger portion of the Federal taxes over time: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/composition-of-federal-revenue-over-time/.

Still don't believe me? Then, let's just look at average tax rate by percentile of income since 1980 (since that data is available): https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2021 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)

In 1980, the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 34.5%.
In 2021, the top 1% paid 25.9%. The 0.1% are paying even less at 25.7% and much, much higher income.

We don't even need to go back to the 1950s. Let's just move back to the average tax rates for the wealthiest pre-Reagan for starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast food restaurants in California are raising prices and laying off workers since the $20 minimum wage for FF workers into effect on April 1st. What did they expect? That restaurants would pay this wage and graciously not raise prices? Those jobs were never meant to provide a living wage. Just causes more inflation and those workers are right back to where they were. Let’s see how many of those workers come off social safety net programs with the higher wages. I’m betting very few. Why don’t democrats understand how capitalism works?

If they were smart they wouldn't be Democrats. They are all about emotion & what SHOULD be.

Wow you really have us all figured out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

You have to define a "living wage" for me.

Is it the same regardless of work or product or service provided?

Is it the same in all places?

Is it a number that rises or falls? How? Based on what?

What is it based on? Is it seasonal?

Who is the decider of this "living wage"?

Is it the same or different depending on education?

Is it the same regardless of the number of persons in the household and dependents?

Is it a published number that is the same over the entire country, continent, or world?

What is the effect of foreign currencies, arbitrage and the global economy on this "living wage"?

Is there a legal definition for a "living wage"?

Is one business that adheres to a "living wage" at a disadvantage over business that doesn't adhere to this "living wage"?

Does it have a legal definition in legal texts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

You have to define a "living wage" for me.

Is it the same regardless of work or product or service provided?

Is it the same in all places?

Is it a number that rises or falls? How? Based on what?

What is it based on? Is it seasonal?

Who is the decider of this "living wage"?

Is it the same or different depending on education?

Is it the same regardless of the number of persons in the household and dependents?

Is it a published number that is the same over the entire country, continent, or world?

What is the effect of foreign currencies, arbitrage and the global economy on this "living wage"?

Is there a legal definition for a "living wage"?

Is one business that adheres to a "living wage" at a disadvantage over business that doesn't adhere to this "living wage"?

Does it have a legal definition in legal texts?

Why would a living wage be the same regardless of work or product or service? Your first question starts out stupid and obstructionist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

You have to define a "living wage" for me.

Is it the same regardless of work or product or service provided?

Is it the same in all places?

Is it a number that rises or falls? How? Based on what?

What is it based on? Is it seasonal?

Who is the decider of this "living wage"?

Is it the same or different depending on education?

Is it the same regardless of the number of persons in the household and dependents?

Is it a published number that is the same over the entire country, continent, or world?

What is the effect of foreign currencies, arbitrage and the global economy on this "living wage"?

Is there a legal definition for a "living wage"?

Is one business that adheres to a "living wage" at a disadvantage over business that doesn't adhere to this "living wage"?

Does it have a legal definition in legal texts?

Why would a living wage be the same regardless of work or product or service? Your first question starts out stupid and obstructionist.

DP

Eh, the way some communities have implemented a living wage doesn’t really distinguish work product or service. Flipping burgers is the same as sweeping floors or working a cash register or scooping ice cream or pumping gas.

Basically, hourly workers get a big boost.

Here’s the rub: google starting salaries for entry level public school teachers or nurses or nurse techs or even legal aid lawyers…jobs that require college and then some. There’s not a big difference for the hourly worker without a degree and those who are better educated and have tough jobs that require a mental capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

You have to define a "living wage" for me.

Is it the same regardless of work or product or service provided?

Is it the same in all places?

Is it a number that rises or falls? How? Based on what?

What is it based on? Is it seasonal?

Who is the decider of this "living wage"?

Is it the same or different depending on education?

Is it the same regardless of the number of persons in the household and dependents?

Is it a published number that is the same over the entire country, continent, or world?

What is the effect of foreign currencies, arbitrage and the global economy on this "living wage"?

Is there a legal definition for a "living wage"?

Is one business that adheres to a "living wage" at a disadvantage over business that doesn't adhere to this "living wage"?

Does it have a legal definition in legal texts?

It's fine to ask what a living wage is and how it is determined. But you're either stupid or deliberately obtuse if you ask if a living wage in a published number that is the same in rural India and Switzerland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, wages impact costs and the increase is passed along to customers.

#NoDuh

But even Hobby freaking Lobby (owned by bible-beating/stealing Uber conservatives) were waaaaaay ahead of the curve when it came to implementing a living wage for their workers. Why? Their faith drove them to do the moral thing.

I don’t know what the solution is. The reality is CA has a very high cost of living. It will probably take some very creative solutions (eg: incentives for Californians to move to less populated states) coupled with big steps by the government (eg: stop the influx of immigrants, prevent noncitizens from buying real estate and land), disrupt the AirBnBs that commoditized the housing market, etc.) to fix the underlying housing problem that prompted the dramatic wage increase.

PS - McDonalds and the like aren’t owned by big corporations. They are mostly owned by regular people as franchises. I had a friend whose dad owned a couple in MoCo. They had a solid middle class lifestyle in Silver Spring. Kids went to public schools. If you subscribe to the whole “eat the rich” narrative, then educate yourself on who the rich actually are.

You have to define a "living wage" for me.

Is it the same regardless of work or product or service provided?

Is it the same in all places?

Is it a number that rises or falls? How? Based on what?

What is it based on? Is it seasonal?

Who is the decider of this "living wage"?

Is it the same or different depending on education?

Is it the same regardless of the number of persons in the household and dependents?

Is it a published number that is the same over the entire country, continent, or world?

What is the effect of foreign currencies, arbitrage and the global economy on this "living wage"?

Is there a legal definition for a "living wage"?

Is one business that adheres to a "living wage" at a disadvantage over business that doesn't adhere to this "living wage"?

Does it have a legal definition in legal texts?

It's fine to ask what a living wage is and how it is determined. But you're either stupid or deliberately obtuse if you ask if a living wage in a published number that is the same in rural India and Switzerland.

Nope. I'm asking YOU to lay out the details and define it so that there is no misunderstanding. Now get on with it and stop stalling. Answer the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't ever let this man get near the oval office.

..... and $73 Billion deficit.

How many do we need to explain that this deficit is tied to the vicissitudes of the tech and media economy in California? When IPOs and VC were hot, they had a huge budget surplus. This is really no different and definitely not because it's Newsom's fault. You conservatives really are that ignorant.

You can’t keep taxing the 1% while providing more and more benefits like health insurance to all undocumented migrants, free residential drug rehab for anyone in the country who enters CA and says they are going to stay (the vast majority aren’t successful and way too many end up as homeless addicts in the streets), etc. The highest tax rate in CA is now over 14%. It is by far the highest in the country. So many very wealthy CA are leaving the state. So the state was counting in getting those taxes no longer are. 75,000 people left CA in 2023.

They hold over 30% of the wealth in the US, why the hell can't or shouldn't we? Tax the hell out of them and if they try to leave the country exit tax the hell out of them. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Hell, hundred-millionaires shouldn't exist when people are on the streets and going hungry. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

+1, actually, we once did this and radically narrowed inequality in this country. Too bad you MAGAs only want to make America great with the racial segregation and LGBTQs in the closet and your own brand of McCarthyism (except you now love the Russians) of the 1940s and 1950s instead of the tax structure of the times.

Why do idiot Democrats constantly point out to ‘90% TaXes iN tHE 1950s!!’….


As if they are making some point. No dimwits, why don’t you also tell us what the tax code at the time was as well? That’s because if you actually took those tax brackets in their historical context relative to the tax code at the time you’d realize it is a nothing burger. Back then, the tax code was also infinitely more complex and there were tons and tons of more tax breaks and write offs. Virtually zero people were paying 90% rates after you factor in the tax code, but Dems never tell you that.


Taxes as a percent of total GDP have stayed remarkably consistent for decades, which is also a fact Dems never tell you when they try to say we need more taxes like we used to in the past. The only problem is that we really didn’t have more total taxes in the past. What is different is the current mentality for more free govt handouts and spending.


Learn some facts:

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant.

Even if the tax rate for rich people had always been 0% that doesn't mean we shouldn't tax the hell out of them now. They make every dollar they have off the backs of the working class and every dollar they make is thank to government infrastructure. They can afford it, they should pay it.

Ok comrade.


Or you could stop being a lazy rag, start your own company, and then pay yourself west you think you’re worth. But of course it’s always easier when someone else does all of the heavy lifting and creates a job for you.


You’re a lazy bum.

You understand that most of these billionaires started out on 3rd base, right? If you really want everyone being judged and compensated on their own intellect and drive, then everyone should have the same starting point, right?

Bill Gates started his company out of a garage, dimwit. Bezos didn't grow up in a remarkable household. Howard Schultz didn't even grow up with running water.

You just sound like a good little lazy commie. Too lazy to start your own company. Every excuse in the book why you can't do it. The solution of course is to take from what others created, because you 'deserve' it.

What a bum.

Meh. They can part with some of their loot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't ever let this man get near the oval office.

..... and $73 Billion deficit.

How many do we need to explain that this deficit is tied to the vicissitudes of the tech and media economy in California? When IPOs and VC were hot, they had a huge budget surplus. This is really no different and definitely not because it's Newsom's fault. You conservatives really are that ignorant.

You can’t keep taxing the 1% while providing more and more benefits like health insurance to all undocumented migrants, free residential drug rehab for anyone in the country who enters CA and says they are going to stay (the vast majority aren’t successful and way too many end up as homeless addicts in the streets), etc. The highest tax rate in CA is now over 14%. It is by far the highest in the country. So many very wealthy CA are leaving the state. So the state was counting in getting those taxes no longer are. 75,000 people left CA in 2023.

They hold over 30% of the wealth in the US, why the hell can't or shouldn't we? Tax the hell out of them and if they try to leave the country exit tax the hell out of them. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Hell, hundred-millionaires shouldn't exist when people are on the streets and going hungry. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

+1, actually, we once did this and radically narrowed inequality in this country. Too bad you MAGAs only want to make America great with the racial segregation and LGBTQs in the closet and your own brand of McCarthyism (except you now love the Russians) of the 1940s and 1950s instead of the tax structure of the times.

Why do idiot Democrats constantly point out to ‘90% TaXes iN tHE 1950s!!’….


As if they are making some point. No dimwits, why don’t you also tell us what the tax code at the time was as well? That’s because if you actually took those tax brackets in their historical context relative to the tax code at the time you’d realize it is a nothing burger. Back then, the tax code was also infinitely more complex and there were tons and tons of more tax breaks and write offs. Virtually zero people were paying 90% rates after you factor in the tax code, but Dems never tell you that.


Taxes as a percent of total GDP have stayed remarkably consistent for decades, which is also a fact Dems never tell you when they try to say we need more taxes like we used to in the past. The only problem is that we really didn’t have more total taxes in the past. What is different is the current mentality for more free govt handouts and spending.


Learn some facts:

The part you're missing, moron, is the composition of those taxes. That is, who is paying them. Let's look - capital gains tax and corporate tax rates were much higher during that era (https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-capital-gains-rates). So was the estate tax (https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-estate-and-gift-tax-rates). As you can see from this chart, individuals, rather than corporations are paying a much larger portion of the Federal taxes over time: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/composition-of-federal-revenue-over-time/.

Still don't believe me? Then, let's just look at average tax rate by percentile of income since 1980 (since that data is available): https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2021 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)

In 1980, the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 34.5%.
In 2021, the top 1% paid 25.9%. The 0.1% are paying even less at 25.7% and much, much higher income.

We don't even need to go back to the 1950s. Let's just move back to the average tax rates for the wealthiest pre-Reagan for starters.

You have to factor in S-Corps paying personal income tax.

[Anonymous]

Are you willing to pay in taxes 60% of income over $70,000?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you willing to pay in taxes 60% of income over $70,000?

Why? This is a stupid question. How about we just apply a marginal tax to income over $1 million or maybe $2 million at 60% and apply a wealth tax of 1% annually to anyone with net assets over $500 million. And while we're at it, we eliminate the cap on social security taxes to make sure it's fully funded while ring fencing contributions so Congress can't dip into them going forward.