正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

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 次观看 • 3 年前 •via X (Twitter)

9 条评论

highprogressive🥂🇦🇶 的头像
highprogressive🥂🇦🇶3 年前

POV: Sam Seder just called you a Ding Dong

keegert 🕺🏼 的头像
keegert 🕺🏼3 年前

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

mario 🔆🐋 🇵🇸 的头像
mario 🔆🐋 🇵🇸3 年前

So anyways, have you tried DMT?

Newscast Now 的头像
Newscast Now3 年前

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 的头像
SuburbEnjoyer3 年前

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 的头像
Ayn Rand Paul Harvey Weinstein3 年前

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

Toedipper 的头像
Toedipper3 年前

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

Tyler Grutbo 的头像
Tyler Grutbo3 年前

I love Sam.

Ferrari Cakes 的头像
Ferrari Cakes3 年前

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

相关视频

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

32,887 次观看 • 3 个月前