Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

[timbo123]

You are part of the 50% that have no problem taxing the rich 80 or 90% of their income because you dont think it will affect you.

However, you are wrong and it would be really painful to find out just how wrong.

The ultra rich can live anywhere they want to. With the internet, cell phones, etc they are connected wherever they are. Raise taxes to 90% and watch the wealthy flee to Europe, Singapore, Switzerland, anywhere they want to. In the meantime you face a diminishing tax base that cannot support the increasing government demand.

If you want less of something, punish it. If you want more of something, encourage it. Just think about that for a while.

It seems you would be happy if the government just eliminated the rich through excessive taxation.

No, you said the top 10% pay 70 % of the tax burden. I did not suggest that they should pay 80 or 90 percent of their income (Mitt paid 14% btw)
I said so what if they pay 70% of the overall burden... why shouldn't they? Why not 80?

 

[spandy]

If there was a cap and it applied to me,I would just move if I was that rich, fuck giving it all away or having most of it swallowed in taxes just to be redistributed, is I would establish residency in another country, pay their tax rate, and laugh my ass off at all the Americans who thought I was going to give away so much.

Just who exactly are these rich people you all think are going to hang around while you attempt to suck them dry of their wealth just so can get in on the action? Lol they'd do as I and tell the whole country to fuck off, and rightly so!
s

 

[Padawanbater2]

If there was a cap and it applied to me,I would just move if I was that rich, fuck giving it all away or having most of it swallowed in taxes just to be redistributed, is I would establish residency in another country, pay their tax rate, and laugh my ass off at all the Americans who thought I was going to give away so much.

Just who exactly are these rich people you all think are going to hang around while you attempt to suck them dry of their wealth just so can get in on the action? Lol they'd do as I and tell the whole country to fuck off, and rightly so!
s

Let em leave..

 

[Straightjacket]

I don't get this income tax based on percentage. I mean say I work my ass offf and get me a few million bucks. So then the govt. wants a cut. For what? I use the same roads as everyone else, I get "protected" by the same cops as everyone else, same fire dept., same govt that can't balance it's books due to corruption. You can bet though that I better have my books in order. Or that same govt. will be on me like stink on bud. As far as trying to cap income, it would just get hidden much the same as it is now to avoid taxes.

 

[NLXSK1]

No, you said the top 10% pay 70 % of the tax burden. I did not suggest that they should pay 80 or 90 percent of their income (Mitt paid 14% btw)
I said so what if they pay 70% of the overall burden... why shouldn't they? Why not 80?

That 14% equated to millions of dollars in taxes for one year alone.

I am really confused here. A guy can be born, be a bum his whole life, make minimum wage and get government benefits and freebies and never pay a dime into the federal tax system. This is the guy you feel bad for and want him to get more freebies and bennies.

Another guy like Mitt Romney works his ass off, builds his wealth from the ground up investing in businesses of other people and making them successful. He pays millions of dollars per year into the federal tax system but somehow that just isnt enough for you. For some reason *because he can afford it* he should be paying much much more...

And to answer your question, because those people earned their money and they have a right to keep it just like everyone else.

I think it is immoral to support a government that confiscates wealth because they can based on *who can afford it*.

Poor people do not create jobs except for government jobs. Poor people do not create economic activity.

 

[NLXSK1]

Let em leave..

France just upped their tax rate to 75%... Watch them leave...

 

[timbo123]

That 14% equated to millions of dollars in taxes for one year alone.

I am really confused here. A guy can be born, be a bum his whole life, make minimum wage and get government benefits and freebies and never pay a dime into the federal tax system. This is the guy you feel bad for and want him to get more freebies and bennies.

Another guy like Mitt Romney works his ass off, builds his wealth from the ground up investing in businesses of other people and making them successful. He pays millions of dollars per year into the federal tax system but somehow that just isnt enough for you. For some reason *because he can afford it* he should be paying much much more...

And to answer your question, because those people earned their money and they have a right to keep it just like everyone else.

I think it is immoral to support a government that confiscates wealth because they can based on *who can afford it*.

Poor people do not create jobs except for government jobs. Poor people do not create economic activity.

"That 14% equated to millions of dollars in taxes for one year alone."

My point EXACTLY! If he's paying millions in taxes and that's only 14% of what he acquired... good Lord yes, he could pay more while Joe the college educated payroll clerk makes $50,000 a year, and pays $7,000 in taxes (at Mitt's 14% rate should he be so lucky). This poor stiff has kids to feed, a mortgage and bills to pay and can barely keep his family provided with basic cable to watch on TV.

"...A guy can be born, be a bum his whole life, make minimum wage and get government benefits and freebies and never pay a dime into the federal tax system. This is the guy you feel bad for and want him to get more freebies and bennies..."

No. See above.

 

[Padawanbater2]

France just upped their tax rate to 75%... Watch them leave...

Why was there no mass American tax exodus in the 40's when income tax was around 95% for the rich?

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_income_tax

 

[redivider]

nsxl doesn't get the tax code.

you get taxed in brackets. for example, when we say we'll tax the top 1% at 75%, it doesn't mean that if they earn 1,000,000 they'll only keep $250,000. income brackets are taxed at their maximum, until you pass it. for example, if the income bracket for a 75% tax rate is $500,000, then all income under 500,000 is taxed at the top rate of the previous bracket, and all income above 500,000 is taxed at the upper bracket.

i know it seems complicated, but that's why when there was that 94% tax rate, there were still extremely wealthy and successful businessmen who were able to keep the majority of their money: the majority of their earnings was taxed at low rates, while the minority of their earnings which put them over the line was taxed at high rates.

and another thing, this isn't a dinner table where if the guy with all the cash leaves, the rest of us are fucked. macro-economics is more than who has the money and who lives where.

neither the rich, nor their fancy cars create enough demand to prop up the US economy. they can leave, in macro-economic terms the biggest economy in the world is still the US and the money will end up here anyways.

 

[Doer]

I am not talking about the envy aspect. Talking about the ability or lack thereof to put food on the table. Dismiss it as envy for now if you like, but the divide between he rich and the poor is growing greater and the middle is going away. If left to get bad enough, hungry people will eventually eat the rich.

No, what you are saying is that the working class has traded union wages and shocking, (are you serious???) pensions to hide behind these lies of "can't put food on the table." That's it. And as I have said before, anyone can get life, even a burned out dark sider like me.

There is unfortunate birth and unfortunate times. But, at any point, anyone can stop with the self bullshit and get going.

What you are saying is the workers bought the bullshit of constant employment as an entitlement of Union. TOO Bad. Now you need to have 2 jobs maybe. See a need an fill it. But, no, I'm sorry you were raised with your thumb in your mouth, and the other hand out, because this Left has made it so. That is what you are saying.

I have been through 2 careers and all manner of jobs, 2 jobs? sure. 3 even. Dragged myself out of free sex when the drugs ran out, knowing that sex is not free. I pity the fool, that pities these folks and thinks suddenly they are owed something for nothing. It's because they don't have motivation of self reliance. Just 50 short years ago, we all had it in spades.

Here's the thing. When I got into the California job market, I could not even talk, except in a slow hick drawl, in no vocabulary mode. I thought....Sales will solve this. There is the difference. You can't cure stupidity, but it is preyed upon by the Left's agenda. We should protect the actual incapables, and put the rest to work, with hand for tool and thumb out of mouth.

But, our society is ENVY based. That's why your poor workers don't stop crying and push a broom like I did. It's why your Poor are too good to push a broom or sell velvet paintings to learn how to speak in business. They have been trained to expect entitlement. But, they are getting screwed.

 

[cannabineer]

Why was there no mass American tax exodus in the 40's when income tax was around 95% for the rich?

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_income_tax

Exodus to where? We were busy ruining real estate values in the whole rest of the world! cn

 

[Doer]

nsxl doesn't get the tax code.

you get taxed in brackets. for example, when we say we'll tax the top 1% at 75%, it doesn't mean that if they earn 1,000,000 they'll only keep $250,000. income brackets are taxed at their maximum, until you pass it. for example, if the income bracket for a 75% tax rate is $500,000, then all income under 500,000 is taxed at the top rate of the previous bracket, and all income above 500,000 is taxed at the upper bracket.

i know it seems complicated, but that's why when there was that 94% tax rate, there were still extremely wealthy and successful businessmen who were able to keep the majority of their money: the majority of their earnings was taxed at low rates, while the minority of their earnings which put them over the line was taxed at high rates.

and another thing, this isn't a dinner table where if the guy with all the cash leaves, the rest of us are fucked. macro-economics is more than who has the money and who lives where.

neither the rich, nor their fancy cars create enough demand to prop up the US economy. they can leave, in macro-economic terms the biggest economy in the world is still the US and the money will end up here anyways.

I will agree to all of this. But, after the first run at a great society under Johnson, after fdr, we saw it could not work. Clinton set it right by compromise. But, he also set up the "homeownership for all"

Now is not the time to drive even more money offshore. We didn't have computer banking back then to the level, as now. It is so easy now for the money to flee. Higher risk, higher earning.

 

[timbo123]

No, what you are saying is that the working class has traded union wages and shocking, (are you serious???) pensions to hide behind these lies of "can't put food on the table." ...

What you are saying is the workers bought the bullshit of constant employment as an entitlement of Union. TOO Bad. Now you need to have 2 jobs maybe. See a need an fill it. But, no, I'm sorry you were raised with your thumb in your mouth, and the other hand out, because this Left has made it so. That is what you are saying.

I have been through 2 careers and all manner of jobs, 2 jobs? sure. 3 even. Dragged myself out of free sex when the drugs ran out, knowing that sex is not free. I pity the fool, that pities these folks and thinks suddenly they are owed something for nothing. It's because they don't have motivation of self reliance. Just 50 short years ago, we all had it in spades.

Here's the thing. When I got into the California job market, I could not even talk, except in a slow hick drawl, in no vocabulary mode. I thought....Sales will solve this. There is the difference. You can't cure stupidity, but it is preyed upon by the Left's agenda. We should protect the actual incapables, and put the rest to work, with hand for tool and thumb out of mouth.

But, our society is ENVY based. That's why your poor workers don't stop crying and push a broom like I did. It's why your Poor are too good to push a broom or sell velvet paintings to learn how to speak in business. They have been trained to expect entitlement. But, they are getting screwed.

"...No, what you are saying is that the working class has traded union wages and shocking, (are you serious???) pensions to hide behind these lies of "can't put food on the table."

Are you responding to my comment or the voices in your head? I didn't say a damn thing about union wage earning employees. Would it surprise you to know that not everyone experiences the same circumstances that you have? Hell yes there are hard working, non-union, college graduates who run out of money for food between paychecks because of the myriad of other expenses of life.

"...What you are saying is the workers bought the bullshit of constant employment as an entitlement of Union. TOO Bad. Now you need to have 2 jobs maybe. See a need an fill it. But, no, I'm sorry you were raised with your thumb in your mouth, and the other hand out, because this Left has made it so. That is what you are saying."

No, that doesn't even remotely resemble anything I have said. As for the rest of your rant, I'll forgo responses... Except for "no, that is not what I'm saying... you must be hearing a different conversation."

Are you one of those guys I see walking down the sidewalk having a heated argument with the shoe he is holding up to his ear?

 

[NLXSK1]

Why was there no mass American tax exodus in the 40's when income tax was around 95% for the rich?

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_income_tax

I already demostrated in a previous post that because much of their income was not taxable the highest actual rate was about 40%... But hey, keep parroting your talking points!!

 

[Padawanbater2]

I already demostrated in a previous post that because much of their income was not taxable the highest actual rate was about 40%... But hey, keep parroting your talking points!!

There's no use arguing with people like you, you're concept of reality is so skewed it actually harms me more to try to help people like you out than the own harm you cause towards everyone else.

Enjoy your flat Earth.

 

[NLXSK1]

There's no use arguing with people like you, you're concept of reality is so skewed it actually harms me more to try to help people like you out than the own harm you cause towards everyone else.

Enjoy your flat Earth.

I demonstrated why the effective rates were 40% by providing an article. I guess you chose not to read it.

After a post like this one you should look in the mirror little boy.

 

[mastercheetos]

Finally, the economy is not a fixed amount of money. Just because one person has a billion dollars does not mean they took it from someone else. Billionaires CREATE wealth and make the pie bigger for everyone.

So yes, a person should be able to earn a trillion dollars if they can...

Just because a person's idea/business/etc. is generating money and he isn't taking this money from other people, doesn't mean the wealth can't be redistributed through regulation. For example, if a business owner is generating tons of money and is personally being paid $51 million a year, if regulations put a cap at $1 million, the other $50 million could be used to vastly increase the wages of the rest of his employees.

What does the fact that these rich billionaires aren't taking the money from anyone have to do with anything? Putting a cap on salaries would not affect "the pie" that you refer to. These businessmen, athletes, movie stars, etc. could continue doing the same profession and continue generating the same amount for society, leaving "the pie" the same exact size. A cap would simply redistribute the wealth.

The reason I think a cap is good, is b/c these rich people making millions/billions of dollars a year aren't contributing enough to society to justify these ridiculous salaries. Do you think a professional athlete being paid hundreds of millions a year in salary/advertisement/etc. is really working thousands of times harder and contributing that much more to society then everyone else.

 

[mastercheetos]

Does the fact the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the lowest 150,000,000 combined bother any of you?

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/the-400-wealthiest-americans-now-own-more-than-the-lower-150-million-americans-put-together/

-Nearly two-thirds of net private assets are concentrated in the hands of 5 percent of Americans. In comparison, the upper 5 percent of Germanyhold less than half of net assets. In 2009 alone, at the same time as the US was being convulsed by mass layoffs, the number of millionaires in the country skyrocketed.

-even the CIA has concluded that wealth disparity is greater in the US than in Tunisia or Egypt.

-the US has entered a new Gilded Age, a period of systematic inequality dominated by a new class of super-rich.

-the development is also accelerating. In the years of economic growth between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of the income gains went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Likewise, although the productivity of the US economy has increased considerably since the beginning of the millennium, most Americans haven’t benefited from it, with average annual incomes falling by more than 10 percent, to $49,909 (€35,184).

-1 percent of American society now controls more than half of the country’s stocks and securities.

-the average income for securities traders has steadily climbed to $360,000 a year.

-In 1980, American CEOs earned 42 times more than the average employee. Today, that figure has skyrocketed to more than 300 times.

-Last year, 25 of the country’s highest-paid CEOs earned more than their companies paid in taxes.

-Wall Street bosses and CEOs have successfully arranged extensive deregulation for their industries.

-Warren Buffett earned $63 million last year but was only required to pay 17 percent in taxes.

-studies show that increasing inequality and political control concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite have drastically reduced economic mobility and that the US has long since fallen far behind Europeon this issue.

Exactly. Didn't read the entire thread, but from the posts of urs I did read it looks like I completely agree with you.

 

[NLXSK1]

Just because a person's idea/business/etc. is generating money and he isn't taking this money from other people, doesn't mean the wealth can't be redistributed through regulation. For example, if a business owner is generating tons of money and is personally being paid $51 million a year, if regulations put a cap at $1 million, the other $50 million could be used to vastly increase the wages of the rest of his employees.

What does the fact that these rich billionaires aren't taking the money from anyone have to do with anything? Putting a cap on salaries would not affect "the pie" that you refer to. These businessmen, athletes, movie stars, etc. could continue doing the same profession and continue generating the same amount for society, leaving "the pie" the same exact size. A cap would simply redistribute the wealth.

The reason I think a cap is good, is b/c these rich people making millions/billions of dollars a year aren't contributing enough to society to justify these ridiculous salaries. Do you think a professional athlete being paid hundreds of millions a year in salary/advertisement/etc. is really working thousands of times harder and contributing that much more to society then everyone else.

I dont believe in comparing people and making a value judgement on how rich one person should be based on how poor another person is.

 

[mastercheetos]

I dont believe in comparing people and making a value judgement on how rich one person should be based on how poor another person is.

Well then how do you believe we as a society should determine how much people get paid?

Shouldn't people be paid based on how hard they work, how difficult the work they are doing is, what they are contributing to society, and factors like these?

Businesses generate a set amount of dollars. Therefore we need to have some system of allocating this money among the employees. And it makes sense to me to determine people's salaries by looking at the factors I listed above, and allocating money based on the differences in the work the people are doing.