[quickConclusion]

"The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts [...] was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy [...] The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the world’s most successful companies are American — not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase."

The article fails to mention that even when the tax code was 90% on the highest earners, most of the successful companies were American, including Exxon Mobil, GM, Ford, DuPont, AT&T...

Anecdotally, I don't think I have ever met anyone starting a business thinking "If I don't make more than 2 million a year for myself, I won't have a successful business." So increasing tax rate beyond a couple of millions a year, or even before, seems a no-brainer to me, at least until everybody gets healthcare and free education.

[Consultant32452]

Anecdotally I have some involvement in a private school here in the US that caters to foreign exchange students from China. These are the cream of the crop with the best education from wealthy backgrounds and are highly intelligent. NONE of them plan on becoming doctors. Every single one of them is going to business school because doctors are paid relatively shit compared to what they will make on the business side. And being a doctor is itself a relatively high paying gig. The idea that the difference between $2 million and $20 million isn't going to impact the life choices of the greatest minds in the world is lunacy.

[quickConclusion]

Yes, the prospect of making big money attracts/motivate certain kinds of very smart people. But if your goal in life is to make gazillions of $, why would you want to become a doctor? This is the wrong job. And if you want to become a doctor in China, why would you want to come to the US to study? It makes more sense for business. And the good news is that to become a doctor, while you do need to be smart, there's no need to be the cream of the crop in intelligence or wealth.

[sol_remmy]

> So increasing tax rate beyond a couple of millions a year, or even before, seems a no-brainer to me, at least until everybody gets healthcare and free education.

How much money do you think that will take? I'm willing to bet your estimate is too low by a factor of 100. I've known multiple family friends who have easily used $500k+ a piece in government healthcare.

[quickConclusion]

>How much money do you think that will take?

Most developed countries pay $3,000 to $4,000 per capita, according to Wikipedia. US pays about $7,400 per capita. So that would be the costs I guess. Beware there are more "capita" than taxpayers, and that all taxes are not paid through income taxes.

Hopefully we can find ideas from other countries to pay less than current prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#International_co...

[carlob]

At the current American rates probably, but in countries with universal healthcare the costs are not ridiculously inflated by a Byzantine system.

[JSONwebtoken]

When the tax code was 90%, the effective tax rate was 10-15%. You clearly aren't informed in your history of American industry.

For an individual to make $2 million a year for himself at a 90% tax rate, he would have to own 100% of a company generating $20 million in profit.

Assuming the same individual's skills were worth $200k/yr in market salary, you would be suggesting that the individual must have had a greater than 10% chance of growing a $20 million profit business to achieve an expected value of $200k/yr in compensation. You would be wrong.

However, if the individual only had to generate $2.5 million a year in profit through their business to take home $2 million a year, that 10% success rate is more realistic.

[quickConclusion]

I am not sure where is the misunderstanding here. The article talks about marginal tax rate at 91% on the take home pay, not effective tax rate. So I am talking about marginal tax rate here too. So NN% (number to be argued) would apply after 500K, 1M, 2M, number(s) would need to be TBD, like the existing tax code.

I find progressive tax something really nice, since it helps you get started, and is a fair way for everyone to give back when they're super successful (e.g. healthcare, education). You state this is a cancer, but why?