WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:You know what KBD, My family doesn't make jack shit for income, but fuck off with that "let them eat cake" line. You want to tax Billionaires at 75 FUCKING PERCENT of their total income? I like you man, but that's ludicrous.
As I wrote, America had it's largest middle class when there was a 90% tax so it's not so fucking ludicrous.....75% is more than fair.
What is ludicrous are these cocksuckers at Goldman Sachs et al. cratering the economy, while accumulating wealth AT YOUR EXPENSE, and you defending them.
The problem in practice would be that if taxes were increased to such a degree, many of the 'super rich' would domicile somewhere away from the US that has lower tax rates, so the IRS would lose that money anyway.
The world is a lot smaller these days and with the advances in technology over the last 20 years, someone who is very rich but stands to lose the bulk of their income will up sticks and move to somewhere else, whilst continuing to work or even retire.
Supersonic wrote:The problem in practice would be that if taxes were increased to such a degree, many of the 'super rich' would domicile somewhere away from the US that has lower tax rates, so the IRS would lose that money anyway.
The world is a lot smaller these days and with the advances in technology over the last 20 years, someone who is very rich but stands to lose the bulk of their income will up sticks and move to somewhere else, whilst continuing to work or even retire.
Supersonic wrote:The problem in practice would be that if taxes were increased to such a degree, many of the 'super rich' would domicile somewhere away from the US that has lower tax rates, so the IRS would lose that money anyway.
The world is a lot smaller these days and with the advances in technology over the last 20 years, someone who is very rich but stands to lose the bulk of their income will up sticks and move to somewhere else, whilst continuing to work or even retire.
Where would they go?
Many Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. I've had 1st hand experience of some of the owners of my old company in London who over the years have moved to various places. One of them leases his own island between UK and France. Another in Switzerland and so on. They're all multi-millionaires but stay in the UK for less than half a year, so deemed domiciled elsewhere. Their accountants help decide where to go and how to apply all their income.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:
What is ludicrous are these cocksuckers at Goldman Sachs et al. cratering the economy, while accumulating wealth AT YOUR EXPENSE, and you defending them.
Supersonic wrote:The problem in practice would be that if taxes were increased to such a degree, many of the 'super rich' would domicile somewhere away from the US that has lower tax rates, so the IRS would lose that money anyway.
The world is a lot smaller these days and with the advances in technology over the last 20 years, someone who is very rich but stands to lose the bulk of their income will up sticks and move to somewhere else, whilst continuing to work or even retire.
Where would they go?
Many Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. I've had 1st hand experience of some of the owners of my old company in London who over the years have moved to various places. One of them leases his own island between UK and France. Another in Switzerland and so on. They're all multi-millionaires but stay in the UK for less than half a year, so deemed domiciled elsewhere. Their accountants help decide where to go and how to apply all their income.
There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:
What is ludicrous are these cocksuckers at Goldman Sachs et al. cratering the economy, while accumulating wealth AT YOUR EXPENSE, and you defending them.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
At present, yes you're correct. But if those 'super rich' have to pay say 70% or more of their income over to the IRS each year (as per NBD's suggestion), then other places may start looking more favourable to domicile.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:
What is ludicrous are these cocksuckers at Goldman Sachs et al. cratering the economy, while accumulating wealth AT YOUR EXPENSE, and you defending them.
Goldman Sachs donate to both parties regularly and will continue to do so in the 2010 elections and beyond. If it was clear that McCain had a great chance of winning, then he would have received more donations.
Edit to add: Used to have to deal with them as clients. Not a fan of them at all.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
At present, yes you're correct. But if those 'super rich' have to pay say 70% or more of their income over to the IRS each year (as per NBD's suggestion), then other places may start looking more favourable to domicile.
Not many. Europe's taxes are comparable to the US and most won't be willing to sacrifice the safety, security and standard of living to move to some place like Mexico.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
At present, yes you're correct. But if those 'super rich' have to pay say 70% or more of their income over to the IRS each year (as per NBD's suggestion), then other places may start looking more favourable to domicile.
Not many. Europe's taxes are comparable to the US and most won't be willing to sacrifice the safety, security and standard of living to move to some place like Mexico.
Okay then. Apply the 60% and 75% tax for all I care. Increase taxes to that level and the international lawyers & tax accountants will have plenty of work. There comes a level when that shit starts to happen. Seen it, been a part of it and there comes a point when the US would not be immune to it either.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
At present, yes you're correct. But if those 'super rich' have to pay say 70% or more of their income over to the IRS each year (as per NBD's suggestion), then other places may start looking more favourable to domicile.
Not many. Europe's taxes are comparable to the US and most won't be willing to sacrifice the safety, security and standard of living to move to some place like Mexico.
There are lots of islands to go to to avoid a 70% tax rate. The Bahamas have 0% on income tax and not a bad place to spend the winter. Someone making that kind of money has lots of options to hold on to another 30% or so of their income. Nobody would stick around and take a beating like that.
SkyDog112046 wrote:
There are lots of islands to go to to avoid a 70% tax rate. The Bahamas have 0% on income tax and not a bad place to spend the winter. Someone making that kind of money has lots of options to hold on to another 30% or so of their income. Nobody would stick around and take a beating like that.
Why would they stick around and pay 40% right now? There's a reason those Caribbean tax havens aren't overflowing with rich tax dodgers. They are third world shitholes where grinding poverty is the rule and corruption is a civil service requirement.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:You know what KBD, My family doesn't make jack shit for income, but fuck off with that "let them eat cake" line. You want to tax Billionaires at 75 FUCKING PERCENT of their total income? I like you man, but that's ludicrous.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:You know what KBD, My family doesn't make jack shit for income, but fuck off with that "let them eat cake" line. You want to tax Billionaires at 75 FUCKING PERCENT of their total income? I like you man, but that's ludicrous.
Why is it ludicrous?
If you are a billionaire, why should you have 75 percent of your money taken away from you? It's a punishment for success.
HeavyMetalZombie666 wrote:Of course your asshole is going to be sore when you volunteer for an asspounding and not set any boundaries at all.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:There are very few Western countries with a more equitable tax regime. US tax rates are hard to beat.
At present, yes you're correct. But if those 'super rich' have to pay say 70% or more of their income over to the IRS each year (as per NBD's suggestion), then other places may start looking more favourable to domicile.
Let them leave then...I hear that there's some Libertarian paradises in the third world....hell, hire some serious security, and set up their own little fiefdoms in some shithole like Somolia.
Or they could move to where their low paid workers live. Capitalism in it's rawest form....raawwrrrrr.
My bubbie, king of the hill 1999-2013
LJP 2002-2014
Quick beats in an icy heart
Catch colt draws a coffin cart
There he goes and now here she starts
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:You know what KBD, My family doesn't make jack shit for income, but fuck off with that "let them eat cake" line. You want to tax Billionaires at 75 FUCKING PERCENT of their total income? I like you man, but that's ludicrous.
Why is it ludicrous?
If you are a billionaire, why should you have 75 percent of your money taken away from you? It's a punishment for success.
Goldman Sachs, AIG, Enron, GM, those are all sucesses? And as if no one knew this, most wealth is inherited.
WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:If you are a billionaire, why should you have 75 percent of your money taken away from you? It's a punishment for success.
Isn't it punishment to have 39 percent of your income taken away from you? What else do you plan to spend the other 750 million dollars on?
People who honestly and legitimately make a fortune deserve to keep it. The ones that do it crookedly should have every last penny taken away from them and they should be imprisoned and forced to spend their days doing hard labor. But taxes should in no way be used as a way to punish people who who through a combination of hard work and good luck become successful. If legitimate earnings are penalized it removes the incentive to work for it. If someone earns it they should be able to enjoy it. That's how our system is supposed to work: Work hard, make yourself successful, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
SkyDog112046 wrote:But taxes should in no way be used as a way to punish people who who through a combination of hard work and good luck become successful. If legitimate earnings are penalized it removes the incentive to work for it. If someone earns it they should be able to enjoy it. That's how our system is supposed to work: Work hard, make yourself successful, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Why do you guys keep using the word punishment? I don't understand that. I pay probably 40 percent of my income in taxes and other contributions, but I don't consider it a punishment. It's what's required to keep society functioning and the government paid for - and without a functioning government in place I doubt I'd make as much as I do. How many people in Somalia can make a decent living without having to hijack a ship?
I think your argument is bs. You're telling me I no longer have the incentive to work hard if I can only keep 250 MILLION bucks out of every billion I generate? Seriously? "Shit, I can't be a billionaire, I can only be a 250-millionaire, so fuck it, I'm just going to live off the government instead."
The top tax rate in Sweden right now is 60 percent ... yet strangely the guy from IKEA was still motivated to create one of the biggest companies in the world. Number 10 richest guy in the world, Karl Albrecht from Germany (top tax rate in the 70s when he built his supermarket empire: 56 percent) - did he say "Aw scheiße, ze government is going to take more zan half my money if I become rich, FUCK IT." Apparently not. I think that lack-of-incentive argument is silly.
If the corporations are getting rich by taking jobs from Americans and moving them overseas to save money, they should be paying more as they are paying for the decline in our country by removing jobs (and the government gives them the incentives to move their operations overseas). Both are guilty, both are crooks. Take our jobs, take away our income and profit from it on the back end and this has been going on since Reagan...yeah, they deserve to be paying back some of those taxes.
20% (or so) make $0-$50,000
30% (or so) make $50,001-$125,000
40% (or so) make $125,001-$250,000
10% (or so) make $250,001-$500,000
2% (or so) make $500,001+
That 2% are making decisions about outsourcing, cutting jobs, blocking pay raises/bonuses for employees...they are lobbying congress for their corporate interests...they are PROFITING from the downfall of many in this country and they don't care at all (or at least most of them don't).
Let's look at income to tax brackets and tell me something isn't screwed up with that 1-3% paying more. In no way should someone making less than $8,375 pay 10% when someone making $1,000,000,000 only pay 35%...
It seems to me that the buck stops a little short here...we have more millionaires and billionaires than ever in this country. How is it that the tax bracket stops moving up at $373,650?
What exactly is wrong with a flat tax? Why wouldn't it work?
I'm probably way off-base posting this here and I'm sure it will get ripped apart...go ahead, enlighten me...
"If you like it, you like it, and that’s all that matters. Music is meant to touch your soul, not impress your friends.”
~ Will Hall 1972-2010.
SkyDog112046 wrote:But taxes should in no way be used as a way to punish people who who through a combination of hard work and good luck become successful. If legitimate earnings are penalized it removes the incentive to work for it. If someone earns it they should be able to enjoy it. That's how our system is supposed to work: Work hard, make yourself successful, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Why do you guys keep using the word punishment? I don't understand that. I pay probably 40 percent of my income in taxes and other contributions, but I don't consider it a punishment. It's what's required to keep society functioning and the government paid for - and without a functioning government in place I doubt I'd make as much as I do. How many people in Somalia can make a decent living without having to hijack a ship?
I think your argument is bs. You're telling me I no longer have the incentive to work hard if I can only keep 250 MILLION bucks out of every billion I generate? Seriously? "Shit, I can't be a billionaire, I can only be a 250-millionaire, so fuck it, I'm just going to live off the government instead."
The top tax rate in Sweden right now is 60 percent ... yet strangely the guy from IKEA was still motivated to create one of the biggest companies in the world. Number 10 richest guy in the world, Karl Albrecht from Germany (top tax rate in the 70s when he built his supermarket empire: 56 percent) - did he say "Aw scheiße, ze government is going to take more zan half my money if I become rich, FUCK IT." Apparently not. I think that lack-of-incentive argument is silly.
A 75% federal tax rate coupled with a 5-6% state tax rate and then adding local taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and sales tax is approaching 90% in taxes and most certainly punitive. You keep talking about people making billions every year. There are only a very small number of individuals who do so. And it's certainly unfair to punish them for their success.
The problem is also that those taxes don't only unfairly affect individuals that some people feel shouldn't be able to have that kind of money, but because there aren't enough of those top earners to bleed off to cover an ever increasing government they would need to apply those punitive measures to individuals earning far less. And it always seems to come down to the people in the $250-$300k range which is mainly small business owners who already get bombed hard enough with taxes as it is. Ever been 1099'ed? You already pay around 50% in taxes because you don't having an employer paying a share of the payroll taxes.
Most people who own their own business or have a decent job do pay around 40% in taxes, and that is sufficient. Close the loopholes so people can't write everything off and it would generate a lot more in tax revenues. I think most people would accept that. But to suggest that the government play Robin Hood and grab close to 90% of a person's earnings is ludicrous. People should be able to keep at least half of what they make, it's only fair. The real suggestion is to cut spending to stay within a realistic budget and not create such a large entitlement class.
SkyDog112046 wrote:that some people feel shouldn't be able to have that kind of money
There you go again. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with making sure that the government has enough money to pay for the services it provides the population, and that the tax system is fair from top to bottom so that you don't have a huge proportion of the wealth flowing to a small percentage of the population.
It will forever be a mystery to me why people who are nowhere near the top 1 percent of earners are so willing to take up the cause for them.
If anyone here is actually in that bracket, then you get a pass because you're looking out for number one. Fair enough.
PoisondOne wrote:What exactly is wrong with a flat tax? Why wouldn't it work?
We talked about this the other day and I don't really have time to do the research right now, but it cannot work. What rate would you choose for the flat tax.... 20 percent? That means you would have to start asking people who already pay nothing because they have very little money to start paying 20 percent. And it also means that you would have to start asking people who currently pay 39 percent to pay about half as much - you think the deficit is high right now, then wait until you implement a 20 percent flat tax! Or you want to set it at 30 percent? You still would generate much lower tax revenues than you do right now, and the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else would widen even faster than is currently the case.
Interestingly, Russia introduced a flat tax a few years ago of... eh, I can't remember without looking it up. 13 percent or something. Tax revenues actually increased at the beginning - but that's only because so many rich people had been evading taxes previously. After a couple of years revenues leveled off again, at a pretty low level. That wouldn't be the case in America because a comparatively low number of earners evade taxes. Also the Baltic states have a flat tax in place (of 20 percent or something - again, I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head) - and their economies are in tatters right now.
Personally I think the tax system should be set up in such a way that ample revenues are generated to offset government spending (which of course should also be responsible), and that the overall available wealth doesn't steadily flow unevenly toward a very small percentage of the population, as is currently the case. Only a progressive tax system will achieve that - and the current system in the U.S. is not progressive enough (in my opinion of course!).
SkyDog112046 wrote:that some people feel shouldn't be able to have that kind of money
There you go again. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with making sure that the government has enough money to pay for the services it provides the population, and that the tax system is fair from top to bottom so that you don't have a huge proportion of the wealth flowing to a small percentage of the population.
It will forever be a mystery to me why people who are nowhere near the top 1 percent of earners are so willing to take up the cause for them.
If anyone here is actually in that bracket, then you get a pass because you're looking out for number one. Fair enough.
