SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a panel moderator asked Michael Dell, America's 17th-richest man, what he thought about the idea of raising the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent.
This idea has been in the headlines since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez floated it in a 60 Minutes interview on January 6 as a way to pay for a Green New Deal.
The Davos panel found the question hilarious. When the laughing died down, Dell, the founder and CEO of Dell Technologies, dismissed the idea out of hand, claiming it would harm U.S. economic growth.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
For Dell's Billionaire CEO, Taxing the Ultra-Rich is a Joke
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 62 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
spagmumps, n.:
Any of the millions of Styrofoam wads that accompany mail-order items.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @07:33PM (6 children)
I wonder if perhaps they found the question so funny because they know they already own sufficient (if not all) members of Congress to make sure nothing like that would ever happen. Whether it would be bad for the economy is just the cover story they use as an excuse to dismiss the question.
All institutions in the West are corrupt to the core, and the Davos crowd performed most of the corruption. They have little to fear from any of those institutions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @07:52PM (2 children)
Why isn't a part of this proposal at least to give the money directly to poorer people or something? What good does giving it to the government do for anyone but those who control it? I think it is meant as a joke, just shifting the wealth from left to right pocket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:10PM (1 child)
I can't be bothered to find a link right now but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the uber-wealthy give substantially less to charity than those in the middle class. (By percentage of income I assume.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @11:21PM
I'm talking about this idea where corrupt puppets of the super rich and corporations get more money in some scheme purported to decrease wealth inequality. It makes no sense except as a scam, probably why they all laugh at it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 15 2019, @08:25PM (2 children)
It's a self-defeating idea. What happens when you raise taxes to punitive levels on those most able to flee the juridiction?
They flee the jurisdiction, of course. Taking their money with them.
So you raise taxes but wind up with less revenue - because your tax base just shrank.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @11:11PM (1 child)
1) punitive levels
70% for all above 10 000 000 or so. I do not think you know what that first word means.
2) The idea sort of is to implement this in most of the civilized world
3) if you want to live in a 3rd world country with all your $$$, be my guest, it might enlighten you. At least you also do not get to profit from our tax money.
4) A punitive (hey look at that word) fee for fleeing the jurisdiction can be implemented.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2019, @11:38PM
2. National interest and economic interest mitigate against it.
3. GFYS. Seriously, that sentence is nothing but a compound series of unfounded and factually incorrect assumptions. You're a cabbage.
4. Sig Heil!