Then your employees aren’t very smart.
Funny thing is I’m not talking about employee making 50k a year. I am talking about a CEO making 50 million. I am also talking about your 50k per year employee and whether they would stop striving to be an CEO due to a 50% marginal tax bracket above 10 million.
Not a single one of your employees would say they would stop working towards being a CEO due to the tax rate on 10million
For 5 years they made far more than you.
The ACA was the finals straw. I [paid them 10K each a year for healthcare. When 2 of them came to me saying they needed more as the ACA insurance cost them more, it was the final straw.
p.s. Even the office manager was smarter than you, she made 70K a year plus healthcare.
Obeying the Constitution should be the priority of the government. People’s circumstances no matter how dire are not amendments to the Constitution. The 10th Amendment is therefore the controlling Law as it forbids all possible powers the government might exercise that are not part of the small set of delegated powers enumerated in the Constitution. These forbidden powers are reserved to others besides the federal, to take them without being given them by Law is a kind of theft.
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. There are only a handful of CEO’s in the entire country and most of the wealthy aren’t in that category.
No matter what your income level is when you are losing progressively more of it in taxes there is less and less incentive to push for the upper limits.
Something they never seem to comprehened.
Which came first, the “general welfare” clause or the 9th and 10th Amendments?
And I wasn’t talking about an additional tax burden on your low/middle class ex employees.
I said that your ex employees would still have the same incentive to reach 10 million dollars a year with our current rates or a 50-70% marginal tax bracket on incomes 10million and above.
None of your employees would say, “damn I have no incentive to be a CEO because my 20 million dollar salary will be taxed marginally at 50%”
I used CEO as an example. Of course they aren’t the only rich people in this country.
99.8% of the population, who make less than 20 million, would kill to have a 20 million dollar salary… even with a 50% marginal tax rate.
Don’t be silly.
…
99.8% of the country has nothing to offer worthy of a 20m salary and the first thing they’d do if they had one is crap their pants when they had to cut a check to the gov’t for 40% of it.
The next thing they’d do is say it isn’t worth it to work so hard to have to then give almost half of it back.
Even if we taxed your imaginary 1.2% at 100% the revenue generated couldn’t begin to erase the deficit much less fund any new massive social program.
Actually, the clause is there to delegate a power to levy certain forms of taxes. The mention of “general welfare”, like the mention of providing for the common defense or paying debts is part of a justifying clause and NOT a delegation of power at all.
Justifying causes are used elsewhere, such as in the 2nd Amendment when the Militia is mentioned. In the 2nd no power to regulate the Militia is being given, that was already covered in A1:S8.
Similarly all the enumerated Powers to provide for the general welfare are found in A1:S8 after C1 just as the delegated Powers for providing for the common defense or paying of debts are (just to be clear, if the Constitution authorizes acquiring debt it necessarily authorizes repayment of debts, otherwise it would be authorizing demanding tribute or gifts).
When, in Marbury, John Marshall labored to discuss the original right to make Law he spoke of the act of Ratification as establishing permanent principals that are not to be departed from. There can be no doubt that those who Ratified the Constitution well understood that the meaning of the language was as Madison in particular specified: that “general welfare” was a reference to the enumerated powers rather than a power in its own right.
Hamilton himself, before Ratification was a done deal, composed so stirring a defense of the absolute nature of the doctrine of delegated Powers that he opined that the enumeration of further “rights” could be used as a pretext by unscrupulous men to advance powers not delegated.
And I will also point out that the Antifederalists also exhibit their understanding that the language meant what men like Madison said because their protests were on how men might willfully misconstruct and abuse the language.
If was on the basis of the advice given before Ratification that those who Ratified made the Constitution the Law. What they agreed to IS THE LAW.
As for the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton serving AFTER the Ratification of the Constitution in a government authorized by its enactment he was NO LONGER offering advice to those who had the right to consent, as consent had already been given. Alexander Hamilton was NOT the Sovereign to change the nature of the Law and he simply spoke, or rather wrote, spuriously and lawlessly.
He expressly contradicted what he and others had said about the language before Ratification … it cannot be said any more bluntly.
There is no “general welfare” clause … it is the clause to levy certain forms of taxes and nothing else.
You missed the entire point but to correct you, the “general welfare” is addressed twice in The Constitution.
What came late was the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically restricting the fed’s from acting outside of the specifically delegated powers.
The courts have routinely ignored this since the beginning of the last century.
Not trying to erase the deficit.
Then what is it exactly your proposed new tax is supposed to accomplish since it can neither do anything to solve the deficit problem nor fund a new sweeping social program like single payer?
Simply raising the taxes on the richest Americans would not fund single payer. Everyone taxes would have to be raised. The key would be to raise them progressively with the goal of keeping the new taxes lower than what their premiums already are.
Single payer isn’t free healthcare… that isn’t the promise. It is cheaper healthcare, rolled into your taxes.
Just imagine the overhead that employers can get rid of if they didn’t have to provide healthcare administraton
You failed to answer the question. Since your proposed tax cannot pay for your program as you originally stated what then is the purpose?
A goal which will never be met. How do you know what my premiums are? Taxes are based on income, not insurance premiums.
And there it is…
1 Like
LOL, as it any of the 50K workers could even make it a day n a CEO’s office.
As it there are a million people qualified to be a CEO.
Taxing the few people making over 10 million will generate chump change as there are so few. Want more revenue you increase the number of people paying taxes just like in the civilized countries in Europe. Half the country shouldn’t be exempt from paying Federal Income tax.
Healthcare would be rationed as there are not enough healthcare providers, hospitals etc.
The only way they could pay for healthcare for free (LOL) os by a national sales tax as well as a VAT.