2y ago

$1.5 billion in estimated revenue: A look at the Massachusetts 'millionaire's tax' first year taxing the rich

www.wbur.org $1.5 billion in estimated revenue: A look at the Mass. 'millionaire's tax' first year

Advocates promised the new tax would bring in over $1 billion a year in new revenue. And they quickly saw their predictions surpassed: the state Department of Revenue estimates it will generate over $1.5 billion this fiscal year.

BrainWorms @lemm.ee

www.wbur.org /news/2023/12/28/mass-fair-share-millionaires-tax-anniversary-revenue

71 3

You're viewing a single thread.

105 comments

"Meanwhile, overall state revenue collections are falling short of expectations, despite the new money from the millionaire's tax.
State finance analysts point to larger macroeconomic trends, like a drop-off in the purchasing of durable goods and a slowdown in hiring."
Government Intervention 101, unfortunatly. Where's that econ graph of this exact thing?
- Crazy that a millionaire tax in MA could cause this trend countrywide. Just crazy. /s
  
  This is a well known econ effect. When you tax something, markets become less efficient
  
  Cool. We would like less millionaires and billionaires hoarding wealth until the minimum standard of living in America isn't homelessness and food insecurity. So why is it a bad thing to tax the hoarding of wealth?
  This trickle down shit hasn't worked in 40 years, restore the tax rates to before that started fucking up our country, give them the incentive to pay their employees rather than the government.
  
  What's going to happen if tax rate increases keep decreasing revenue?
  
  The top tax rate bracket in the US was over 90% from 1944-1963. A median single income worker could own a home, have healthcare, food, and afford kids. GDP was doing just fine, I assume that's what you mean by revenue.
  The top tax rate now is 37%, and a median single income earner can sometimes afford a 1 bedroom without relying on a 2nd set of income. Can't afford buying a home. Food scarcity is getting worse. Healthcare is fucked beyond belief. And kids are just flat out of the question.
  As a country we aren't getting our fair share of the value of our labor. Ideally the benevolent job creators would create good paying jobs, and make the middle class stop struggling. When this doesn't happen, we need to give them an incentive. I'm not saying we should increase taxes, unless there is no other option.
  What ideas besides taxes do you have to make the billionaire class give us a minimum standard of living that isn't dystopian?
  
  The price of rent is caused by wildly popular limits on construction of new housing.
  "The top tax rate bracket in the US was over 90% from 1944-1963."
  Discussing this without mentioning the ridiculous loop holes is either ignorance or bad faith. And I don't care for either.
  
  The loop holes exist today too. But sure, let's ignore that.
  What do you have in mind to eliminate the disparity in wealth that plagues us, reducing the American standard of living to subsistence and poverty? I'm sure ya have one, right?
  
  The loopholes of that tax code certainly do not exist today.
  
  You're right, we have new ones. There's a reason why the billionaire class pays a less than 10% effective income tax, and that's just on the income that's realized.
  Still, no answer to the question of whether you see any solution other than doing nothing and accepting our doom?
  Edit: Figured as much, anti human chumps like this guy are programmed to know why they can't try to do anything, but never had a thought in their head as to what would help that their masters would be ok with.
  
  Tax rates that reduce revenue are far, far greater than any current tax rate in the US, not that rates should be set to optimize revenue. People that try to use the Laffer curve as justification for reducing taxes in the US lack both practical and theoretical understanding of taxes.
  
  I was referring to this, not the laffer graph
  
  So when you asked "What’s going to happen if tax rate increases keep decreasing revenue?" you were referring to something that doesn't involve revenue? And that doesn't have to do with income tax? In a conversation about income tax? That's even worse.
- Larger macroeconomic trends means that the trends are countrywide so your point kind of completely fails.

105 comments