Heres a stable approach: 99% tax on income of 5 million
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Heres a stable approach: 99% tax on income of 5 million
50% on people over 100m would be more stable.
no it wouldnt
Only if one is willing to live miles away from city center, I've been to plenty of US cities and the housing prices are not low at all.
It would if you want to continue living in a capitalist system. If you're not a capitalist then America is not for you.
Yes thank you cal. I'm not arguing that things are this way, I'm arguing that they should and could be this way.
That I completely agree with.
You can be a reasonable guy when you're not giving people ridiculous taglines.
So 50% on 100m is the limit for capitalism and after that it becomes non capitalist?
You'd be correct.
There's only a limited amount of housing in city center, it's just not viable to have people on very low income (minimum means THE lowest) living in reasonably sized apartments in the city center.
It allows a meritocracy a bit of room to breathe without the nanny state disincentivizing innovation
What?! Are you joking?
There isnt a meritocracy so the rest is pointless
No.
Oh there definitely is, especially for people who don't consider themselves victims who deserve to be spoonfed by the state
Is that a personal insult I detect?
I didn't realize you were in this category. It was intended as a broadly applicable maxim towards society in general.
You think american society in general is made up of victims who want to be spoofed by the government? That's laughable. Instead we have people who expect corporations and the ultra rich to feck them at every turn and then say thank you, like this bootlicker.
In what other first world country would a population be so docile as to accept that politicians would have a revolving door to lobbying firms and that they wouldn't get a national holiday on election day and half a million people would go bankrupt from medical bills yearly and bankera would lie and steal and crash the economy and face no consequences while working folk lost their house and corporations would pollute the environment and put led in the water their children drink and work insane hours for at will employers with very little vacation time and lax safety standards? What kind of country is it where a supreme court justice rules that a truck driver ought to have froze to death rather than abandon his equipment? Its surely not one where people expect to be spoonfed by the state.
If you tax people at 99%, you’re just driving them out of the country.
That I completely agree with.
You can be a reasonable guy when you're not giving people ridiculous taglines.
CheersIf you tax people at 99%, you’re just driving them out of the country.
Good, they can leave and their ill gotten wealth can stay.
Err... so you’re advocating communism?
Also their wealth will NOT stay as they’d give up on their nationality before anyone pays 99% tax
We are in agreement on things like lobbying firms, taking money out of elections, and providing better health and educational coverage. Sanders outlined how he would pay for it through things like stock market speculation taxes and taxing hedge fund billionaires. You don't need to take 99% of people's income in order to accomplish that.
Its adorable that you think we cant take it from them. The ultra rich are only as powerful as we allow them to be. They should live every moment in fear that their wealth will be taken from them and used to provide food and housing and healthcare for those in need.
The US does need to clean up a lot of its practices, but taxing people at 99% will just result in a big migration of talented individuals in every field of work.
It's not taking 99% of their income, a progressive tax doesn't work like that. It only takes 99% of income above $5 million.
99% is ridiculous and would likely feck over the economy, although considering taxes are often so lenient to big business in America they could be raised substantially on the rich for the greater benefit of society. Although lobbying etc will no doubt stop that from materialising from the foreseeable future. Still, respect those who're pushing to make it happen.
If they dont want to live in a country where they make $5 million per year and no one starves or is homeless or dies of treatable diseases then they can feck off.
It’s adorable you actually think it’s viable.
The ultra rich don’t keep all their money in one place and if you take their money once, you’d never see another ultra rich ever putting money into the country again.
It’s adorable you actually think it’s viable.
The ultra rich don’t keep all their money in one place and if you take their money once, you’d never see another ultra rich ever putting money into the country again.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
So you’re advocating taxing income above 5m at 99%, not leaving people who make 5m with 50k to spend.
That makes a little more sense but still wouldn’t work
How is that not a bad thing? A country where no one at the top of their profession will ever want to live in?
You seem to hate the elites, but let’s not forget the US are the only superpower left mainly due to the elites
I think he's taking it to the extreme but he also says it's only the income over £5m being taxed.
Being a superpower isn't really worth much to an ailing citizen who's in poverty.
I got that now, but still ridiculous that he basically wants to cap people’s earning power
I'm going to pay my rent with an Only Superpower Left certificate. I'll let you know how it goes.
That's what all taxation is. I'm just sliding the scale.
Tell that to the countries that the US invades when they feel like
There’s an argument to be made for higher taxes, but 99% is ridiculous under any circumstance
That's nothing to do with the US internally though, which is being discussed. There are obvious benefits when it comes to being a superpower for the US (mostly at the expense of other countries) but those benefits aren't really going to be felt much on a day-to-day basis economically by the average worker.