Taxes are already fairly progressive with the top 1% paying about 40% of the revenue. (This is pre-Trump so it might be a bit different as of this year).
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Taxes are already fairly progressive with the top 1% paying about 40% of the revenue. (This is pre-Trump so it might be a bit different as of this year).
I'd partially agree in that 99%'s a bit too much, but I do think it should be very, very high. Even something in the range of 80-90% would allow those earning billions to retain obscene wealth.
"hey, Iraqi peasant, Americans are homeless too!"
Whilst I generally lean more left than right (hate the GOP and Trump), I'm not a fan of full blown socialism. It's true that a lot of things are incredibly bad in the US.
For a developed country, the health care system is beyond a joke. However, the kind of blood-letting that Eboue is advocating is simply beyond ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous cal?
Again, that will simply result in most of the top earners (most likely to be the top people in every industry) to move away from the country.
Taxes are already fairly progressive with the top 1% paying about 40% of the revenue. (This is pre-Trump so it might be a bit different as of this year).
The top 1% paying 40% of revenue isn't that much though when you consider the extent to which their earnings differ from the vast majority of the population. From what I've found (could be slightly wrong) the top-rate of tax for earners over $400,000 is just below 40%. That's drastically below what it was in the pre-Reagan era, and the rates were into the 90s percentage wise during the 50s, a time Republicans like Trump ironically often hark back to.
What about the sustained bloodletting, actual bloodletting not selling one of your mansions, suffered by the working class?
You seem to advocate driving the top people away from the country - which will result in the US no longer being the leaders in anything (except incarcerated citizens).
The top people will mostly retain their earning power in most countries (except perhaps NFL players).
To prevent that left-wingers should use online platforms and new forms of technology to try and engineer mass movements to pressure various governments across the Western world to place a greater level of expectation on the rich to pay higher tax-rates. It's idealistic as feck, I'll admit, but when you see evident systemic inequalities I don't think it's particularly unfair to expect the richest to pay more than they currently are. Especially when those high-level rates have been cut over the years as right-wing economic ideals have become more and more prevalent to the point where centrist-types largely followed them and didn't deviate all that much from them.
And industries aren't all just going to flock away automatically if you increase those taxes slightly. I imagine you could probably put 10-15% on it as a start, for example, and they'd remain, because while it'll be a pain in the arse for them to pay more taxes, moving your offices, building new ones etc and restructuring is also a pain in the arse and not something big businesses are going to do automatically.
I dont believe in Top People. I believe in people who make a lot of money that can be used for housing and healthcare of the poor rather than luxury yachts for the super rich.
Totally agree with this, but I just don't think a top rate of 80%+ works.
The point is that there will always be countries happy to accept these top individuals at a discounted tax rate. Eg Ireland, Hong Kong, etc. Even that Beckham law in Spain a while ago.
Heres the thing though: a government of the people doesnt need permission from leeches to recover take back what always belonged to the people.
You think the US will remain competitive in any field if you drive the top people away? Designing the next generation passenger jet or fighter jet cannot be done by just your average designer, or the people who have come up with the millions of things we take for granted nowadays.
If it wasn't for Steve Jobs, perhaps Nokia are still the dominating telecom company in the world.
Why do I care if Nokia or Apple has a higher market share?
How does someone else's wealth belong to the people? You can tax future income, but if you're suggesting just asset stripping of rich people, that's frankly ludicrous.
You do know the US on a whole benefits a lot from Apple making so much money?
uhuh, the company famous for elaborate tax dodging in various islands is the perfect example of why low taxes are better
lol
Steve Jobs was a piece of shit. He used slave labour to enrich himself and his close friends.
It's not their wealth. It was created by workers and funnelled to the rich using a series of byzantine rules written by lobbyists who work for the rich. It belongs to the workers who created it. The rich have just stolen it and it can be taken back just as easily.
For the record, apple didn't invent smartphones, most of the revolutionary work was done by IMB, Japanese companies and military research dollars (which is another problem in itself - while they've lead to some great things, that money could have done much better things if it wasn't focused on improving murder techniques.) Apple was just good at marketing, which is dickwads all over the world think they're an amazing company despite their immoral business ethics from production to taxation.
They are actually a perfect example of the fact that the rich and the massive corporations will never just accept paying any sort of taxes. They will lie and cheat and outsource and try to rewrite the rulebook to their advantage no matter if Cal thinks the rate is reasonable or not.
They'd have made just as much money in most countries in the world. It has little to do with so called lobbyists.
What does "the US" mean in this context?
Countries have to give incentives to companies to remain/move to their country.
Amazon and their 2nd HQ bidding amongst states is a great example.
Why do you put so called in front of lobbyists?
if their tax practices are anything to go on, it means Ireland
It was so sad watching Finland implode when Nokia became shit, millions of people going homeless, begging oh begging for a multinational to save them but alas, market forces saw them from great nation state to a footnote in the dustheaps of history.
It's a great example of how broken the system is. Elected officials debasing themselves and offering things like 7 billion in tax incentives (newark), renaming the city (stonewall), employees paying taxes to employer (chicago) and control of city government (fresno). To a fecking corporation. It's just incredible how much of society we've given over to corporations and how easy it is for people to be convinced that a boot stamping on a human face forever is a good thing.
At least the thousands of Finns who moved here to be in the same country as apple were able to be saved though.
Many other countries don't have nearly as many lobbyists yet have the same if the even more relaxed laws.
Maybe but those other countries manage to provide a better social safety net, better workers rights and have less billionaires so I think the trend is clear. Plus ours literally register as lobbyists.
Dutch news with a mayor(edit: major not mayor)item about the seperation of children. Worth noting since our state news channel doesnt usually go with American policiy news as an item.
Hope the world will turn on him for this.
Hope the world will turn on him for this.
AGain, I'm not disagreeing that a lot of things can be better and need to be fixed in the US. However, taxing the top earners at 80%+ (never mind your 99%) is not the way to go about things.
If one were interested in a social safety net then the Sanders proposal would be a good start. It raises taxes on the top earners, but nowhere near levels where it would be doomed to failure before it was even considered.
If you tax rich people 99% these people will leave and take their wealth with them. Plain and simple.
In Holland we tax people of high income with something around 58%. That’s plenty to create a good safety net. No one is forced to live in poverty and we hve great affordable health care. I think it’s the way tou spend it that’s important. That and corruption I suppose.
In Holland we tax people of high income with something around 58%. That’s plenty to create a good safety net. No one is forced to live in poverty and we hve great affordable health care. I think it’s the way tou spend it that’s important. That and corruption I suppose.
Last edited:
True. A vast majority of the wealth generated by high net worth individuals would simply leave the country. There has to be a business friendly climate for entrepreneurs to do business in the US otherwise they will simply move to a friendlier business climate.
Last edited: