Do tax cuts increase government revenues?

Mike Rowe spoke about something he saw at the Reagan Ranch. Ronald Reagan decided he was done doing movies because he was paying 92% of every dollar he made on films. It was just math, it did not make any sense to make more films. That is the problem with the soak the rich policy. The rich, more than others, can stop working, or move. It will not be the rich taken to the cleaners for long.
 
Another thing that these idiots don't take into account is that for many of these "Rich", their worth is tied up in stocks and other investments, working, many of companies that they created, not sitting in a bank somewhere. If they suddenly were to have to pay 50% of their wealth in an intangible tax, they can't send shares of stock or other investments to the government, so they are going to have to sell them.

An idiot in the NYTimes states:

The wealthy would still have more money than they could ever spend: Jeff Bezos would have had $87 billion in 2018 if Warren’s wealth tax had been in place all along, rather than $160 billion, according to calculations of Saez and Zucman. But we would be, I think, a fairer and better nation.

So Bezos still owns over 57 million Amazon shares, or about 12% of the company. He's already selling about a billion dollars worth a year to fund Blue Origin. If he was forced to sell another 2-5% of the company to pay a wealth tax, I would expect Amazon stock price to drop, seeing as it would suddenly flood the market. This will cause many others to have a loss, rather than a gain, and reduce actual taxed income that way as well as reducing his "wealth" so that the next year's wealth tax revenew would be reduced.

When he sold approx 2 billion shares in August of this year (The Blue origin payment and some other) Amazon stock dropped nearly 12% from 7/30 to 8/5, while the Dow average only dropped 5.4% in the same period.

Now imagine many other rich also having to sell their company stock at the same time. It would be market free fall.

Is that what they want?
 
Another thing that these idiots don't take into account is that for many of these "Rich", their worth is tied up in stocks and other investments, working, many of companies that they created, not sitting in a bank somewhere. If they suddenly were to have to pay 50% of their wealth in an intangible tax, they can't send shares of stock or other investments to the government, so they are going to have to sell them.

An idiot in the NYTimes states:



So Bezos still owns over 57 million Amazon shares, or about 12% of the company. He's already selling about a billion dollars worth a year to fund Blue Origin. If he was forced to sell another 2-5% of the company to pay a wealth tax, I would expect Amazon stock price to drop, seeing as it would suddenly flood the market. This will cause many others to have a loss, rather than a gain, and reduce actual taxed income that way as well as reducing his "wealth" so that the next year's wealth tax revenue would be reduced.

When he sold approx 2 billion shares in August of this year (The Blue origin payment and some other) Amazon stock dropped nearly 12% from 7/30 to 8/5, while the Dow average only dropped 5.4% in the same period.

Now imagine many other rich also having to sell their company stock at the same time. It would be market free fall.

Is that what they want?
"But it's not fair...."
We have adult citizens on par with children... they know nothing of history or how socialism has never worked.

Try Russia where everyone was given a job... how did that work out? That is what Bernie is promising... a job for everyone with a living wage. What he proposes has been done is Russia. The state takes over what is now private industry and gives everyone a job. However that takes away incentive and no one works more than required because even if they do, they get nothing more. The shelves in stores were empty and people were starving.. Yet Russia is the country Bernie is closely in love with... went on his honeymoon there.
 
Back
Top