Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich

Not playing that game, sorry - I'll take your reply in the usual light - that you CAN'T justify your statement.

read the thread title - then decide whether you want to contribute anything meaningful

You're advocating taking the fruits of a person's labor and giving it to someone else that had nothing to do with earning it - I thought you were against slavery, Kevin?

(not to mention this latest idea being completely against that whole 'karmic accounting' thing you were so big on a month or so ago)

the super rich don't 'labour' - you're thinking of some other people
(do bankers 'labour' - i think not)

unfortunately the ideal libertarian solution - 'karmic accounting' got rejected by the advocates of the super rich - so it's tax and tax and tax for the super rich from now on i'm afraid

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

no, you need to explain why the super rich shouldn't pay more to the society that made them rich

Not playing that game, sorry - I'll take your reply in the usual light - that you CAN'T justify your statement.

read the thread title - then decide whether you want to contribute anything meaningful

You're advocating taking the fruits of a person's labor and giving it to someone else that had nothing to do with earning it - I thought you were against slavery, Kevin?

(not to mention this latest idea being completely against that whole 'karmic accounting' thing you were so big on a month or so ago)

the super rich don't 'labour' - you're thinking of some other people
(do bankers 'labour' - i think not)

unfortunately the ideal libertarian solution - 'karmic accounting' got rejected by the advocates of the super rich - so it's tax and tax and tax for the super rich from now on i'm afraid

I would rebut that, but this crap you come up with is just too damn silly to even make a serious attempt.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

Quote

they're allowed to keep 100 million. the money will be used for a trust fund to pay for the education of all college students
(as already explained in this thread)

So your economic model is to create a ceiling of $100 million as the most a person can earn without giving up 100% of any excess to taxes? What is the incentive for anybody to put forth the effort to make any more than that?

Are you aware of how much that would stifle the economy? Don't you see how that would actually shrink the tax base?

I'm curious, have you studied economics? That is not a putdown; I'd really like to know, because although your ideas are elegant in their simplicity, they don't hold any water either in modeling or in reality.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

they're allowed to keep 100 million. the money will be used for a trust fund to pay for the education of all college students
(as already explained in this thread)

So your economic model is to create a ceiling of $100 million as the most a person can earn without giving up 100% of any excess to taxes? What is the incentive for anybody to put forth the effort to make any more than that?

Are you aware of how much that would stifle the economy? Don't you see how that would actually shrink the tax base?

I'm curious, have you studied economics? That is not a putdown; I'd really like to know, because although your ideas are elegant in their simplicity, they don't hold any water either in modeling or in reality.

yes i have studied economics - extensively for many years
(what is money i ask you)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I would rebut that, but this crap you come up with is just too damn silly to even make a serious attempt.

you're not capable of rebutting it - please find another thread to place your 'crap'

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

When you talk about the ‘entities’ that are taking $billions, then you are on the right track.

Seems that uyour problem is with 'entities' and dreamdamcer's is with individuals. No one emplyed by haliburton makes 45 million/year.

Do you think that the screen actors guild or hollywood should pay as an entity? They certainly take peoples money and use it for there gain.

So, is it entities or individuals?

ENTITIES: - which ones should pay more taxes?
INDIVIDUALS - which ones should pay more taxes?


and what the hell makes an "entitie"

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

society that made them rich

how does the society pick who it "makes rich"

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

if we decide to tax them - then the money is ours and not theirs

Who is "them" ? Is it an annual income level or is it more?

I've got an idea, I think those European countrys are a little to wealthy. How about if we (the US) tax each European country 50% of their gross income?

If we decide to tax them the money is ours not theirs and they certainly don't have the power to stop us from taking what we want.

James

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

yes i have studied economics - extensively for many years

I love this guy. I wonder if he ever argues with his alti.

Alti: "3200ft"
Dreamdancer: "haha what crap! take your nonsense to another wrist!"

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I've got an idea, I think those European countrys are a little to wealthy. How about if we (the US) tax each European country 50% of their gross income?

If we decide to tax them the money is ours not theirs and they certainly don't have the power to stop us from taking what we want.

James

a very roman idea
(but seriously, rather than tax the super rich you'd rather go to war with europe - odd)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Ion01 2]

In 2006 the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes.
In addition, it is the "super-rich" who higher and pay people so if you want people to have jobs, (which equals more people to tax and more goods being exchanged and more taxes on goods ect, then you should tax the rich less. If you tax the rich more then they have to let people go and raise prices and there are less people to buy the good meaning less people to tax and less taxes on goods and more people on welfare and unemployement putting the government into further debt because the "super-rich" can't higher more people becuase the government taxes them so much.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

yes i have studied economics - extensively for many years
(what is money i ask you)

Certainly couldn't prove it by the suggestions you put forward.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

I've got an idea, I think those European countrys are a little to wealthy. How about if we (the US) tax each European country 50% of their gross income?

If we decide to tax them the money is ours not theirs and they certainly don't have the power to stop us from taking what we want.

James

a very roman idea
(but seriously, rather than tax the super rich you'd rather go to war with europe - odd)

Just pointing out the possibilities of thinking like "If we tax them the money is ours not theirs".

James

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

In 2006 the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes.
In addition, it is the "super-rich" who higher and pay people so if you want people to have jobs, (which equals more people to tax and more goods being exchanged and more taxes on goods ect, then you should tax the rich less. If you tax the rich more then they have to let people go and raise prices and there are less people to buy the good meaning less people to tax and less taxes on goods and more people on welfare and unemployement putting the government into further debt because the "super-rich" can't higher more people becuase the government taxes them so much.

trickle down economics has been a failure. it has meant the rich getting exponentially richer and leaving the government (us) in huge debt.

(remember it was the rich who invented taxation in the first place - time to use their own weapon against them)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

(do bankers 'labour' - i think not)

Hard labor doesn't amount to much. If that were the case, coal miners would be millionaires.

I'm not rich, but I am firmly entrenched in the upper middle class almost entirely because I am smarter than most coal miners.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

trickle down economics has been a failure.

Sorry, but it's worked for me. Thanks to increased consumtion, higher incomes, lower prices, and a general upward mobility of the middle class, I can afford things I never would have been able to afford in 1985.

Mobile telephone $75
Computer $800
88key yamaha p80 piano $500

I don't know what a cellphone or computer cost in 1985 but I know that an 88-key digital piano that sounded like shit cost around $5000

I think skydving/base gear has increased in price though

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

trickle down economics has been a failure.

Sorry, but it's worked for me. Thanks to increased consumtion, higher incomes, lower prices, and a general upward mobility of the middle class, I can afford things I never would have been able to afford in 1985.

Mobile telephone $75
Computer $800
88key yamaha p80 piano $500

I don't know what a cellphone or computer cost in 1985 but I know that an 88-key digital piano that sounded like shit cost around $5000

I think skydving/base gear has increased in price though

now, all you've got to do is pay off all the accumulated debt that got you the 'cheap' stuff

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

In 2006 the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes.
In addition, it is the "super-rich" who higher and pay people so if you want people to have jobs, (which equals more people to tax and more goods being exchanged and more taxes on goods ect, then you should tax the rich less. If you tax the rich more then they have to let people go and raise prices and there are less people to buy the good meaning less people to tax and less taxes on goods and more people on welfare and unemployement putting the government into further debt because the "super-rich" can't higher more people becuase the government taxes them so much.

trickle down economics has been a failure. it has meant the rich getting exponentially richer and leaving the government (us) in huge debt.

(remember it was the rich who invented taxation in the first place - time to use their own weapon against them)

And what facts do you have for such a statement or is the fact that it worked so well for reagan despite the fact he started with unemployment at 10.8% and it lowering unemployment, causing deflation of the dollar, and all the tax cuts only reduced government revenues from taxes by 1%. What a failure!

[Ion01 2]

While we are looking at it lets look at the opposite side: Taxing the rich more and more obviously works for countries like Russia, Cuba, Canada, and the European countries!......wait....nope.....no it didn't......

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 2006 the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes.
In addition, it is the "super-rich" who higher and pay people so if you want people to have jobs, (which equals more people to tax and more goods being exchanged and more taxes on goods ect, then you should tax the rich less. If you tax the rich more then they have to let people go and raise prices and there are less people to buy the good meaning less people to tax and less taxes on goods and more people on welfare and unemployement putting the government into further debt because the "super-rich" can't higher more people becuase the government taxes them so much.

trickle down economics has been a failure. it has meant the rich getting exponentially richer and leaving the government (us) in huge debt.

(remember it was the rich who invented taxation in the first place - time to use their own weapon against them)

And what facts do you have for such a statement or is the fact that it worked so well for reagan despite the fact he started with unemployment at 10.8% and it lowering unemployment, causing deflation of the dollar, and all the tax cuts only reduced government revenues from taxes by 1%. What a failure!

Reagan's policies tripled the National Debt. The apparent prosperity of the Reagan years was based on BORROWING. George H.W. Bush was absolutely correct when he called it "Voodoo Economics".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

now, all you've got to do is pay off all the accumulated debt that got you the 'cheap' stuff

Many consumers (like me) spend less than they earn. If I want to make a purchase with borrowed money, I'll happily pay interest until it's paid off. I don't have to go to a family member, friend, church, loanshark, beg or steal. All I have to do is pull a piece of plastic out of my wallet, swipe it, and pay back the money according to my cardholder agreement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

and what are the super rich going to do to tell us to 'fuck off'?

They'll retire to a beachfront villa with their 2.5mil. Since you're taking away any further earnings, they have no reason to work 10x7 or more to earn money. Instead, they'll shutter the company. No Microsoft, Oracle, Bershire. No technological innovation - even the open source stuff will badly falter as most of those guys do the 'free' work on the side after getting paid at a commercial entity.

[DJL 235]

I nominate this thread as being the biggest bag of hot air on the internet.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Reagan's policies tripled the National Debt.

and Obama's policies make Reagan look like a fiscal conservative.

This is a funny thread. Whine whine whine. Who needs some cheese?

Not saying the good professor is proposing this (so my next comment is generic and not directed at the Professor), but to all those who are calling for "Robinhood" to come in and save the day where all wealth is stripped from the rich, this is not the food line. It is the line for shoes. The food line starts at the end of the block down the street. Carry on comrades ... long live Soviet Amerika ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I nominate this thread as being the biggest bag of hot air on the internet.

and i nominate.....you

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding