Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

While responding to Joe Rogan, Sam Seder brilliantly explains how a having a marginal 90% income tax rate on top earners is actually GOOD for business.

93,099 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

9 Comments

highprogressive🥂🇦🇶's profile picture
highprogressive🥂🇦🇶3 years ago

POV: Sam Seder just called you a Ding Dong

keegert 🕺🏼's profile picture
keegert 🕺🏼3 years ago

@majorityfm People like Joe don’t even understand what marginal tax brackets are. They just see “90%” and start screeching.

mario 🔆🐋 🇵🇸's profile picture
mario 🔆🐋 🇵🇸3 years ago

So anyways, have you tried DMT?

Newscast Now's profile picture
Newscast Now3 years ago

We can see higher marginal tax rates promote economic growth in history: 1950s growth 5.5%, tax ~90%. 1960s (5.0) and 1970s (3.7) lower growth after marginal tax cuts. 1980's growth 3.4, after more tax cuts. 1990's growth 3.7, taxes went up. 2000's growth 1.9 rates went way down.

SuburbEnjoyer's profile picture
SuburbEnjoyer3 years ago

Proposes a massive marginal income tax on the rich. Proceeds to explain how the rich can easily avoid paying it by "putting it into a business". Yeah. Like how Trump's personal mansion, Mar-a-lago, is part of a business.

Ayn Rand Paul Harvey Weinstein's profile picture
Ayn Rand Paul Harvey Weinstein3 years ago

Aw, man, that segment kicked so much ass. Joe Rogaine is gonna looove it

Toedipper's profile picture
Toedipper3 years ago

Unfortunately @joerogan will never see this response because he’s walled himself off from hearing responses by never looking at Twitter.

Tyler Grutbo's profile picture
Tyler Grutbo3 years ago

I love Sam.

Ferrari Cakes's profile picture
Ferrari Cakes3 years ago

Why would anyone move here to start a business instead of someplace else with lower taxes? What’s the incentive?

Related Videos

The budget failed to deliver significant income tax cuts to offset bracket creep that is devasting family budgets as a result of high inflation. For someone on a wage of $80,000, 4% inflation reduces purchasing power by $3,200 each year. The best Chalmers can do to help hard working Australians, is to offer a measly $275 temporary tax offset. The minimum CGT tax rate of 30% is wrong. Capital gains like any income should be taxed at the marginal rate. Low income earners are going to be hit hard by this measure. I could live with removing the CGT discount provided the extra tax revenue from that measure had been used to offset income tax rather than remove negative gearing. Negative gearing is more effective when income tax rates are high. If tax rates were lowered, then negative gearing would be become a more much ineffective tax strategy. Personally I’ve never been a fan of negative gearing, because you have to spend a $1 to get 47 cents back which leaves you 53 cents worse off in today’s money. There is no substitute for cutting income tax if you want to maintain a strong economy. Immigration is forecast to be 2 million over the next two terms of Parliament which is still too high. Yet again if Labor wants to improve housing affordability, why won’t they lower immigration? Debt levels are forecast to continue to increase which reflects on Labor’s inability to control government spending. People First will cut spending, cut immigration and cut taxes. See how at:

Gerard Rennick

32,817 views • 1 month ago