Tax the rich

Feb 2011
16,523
5,778
Boise, ID
#33
I share Jefferson's disdain for a "Landed Aristocracy" passing down fortunes from generation to generation in perpetuity without having to do a single day of honest work their entire lives and living in indolent luxury contributing nothing whatsoever to society. Having a corrupt ancestor 150 years ago that scammed the federal government out of 150 square miles of prime farmland and parlaying that theft into billions of dollars of wealth for the next 10 generations may seem fair to you, but that is not what the founders had in mind.

Thomas Jefferson, on Aristocracy - letter to John Adams
Good for you. The issue still remains that without essentially global taxing authority and enforcement, the multi-national corporate and banking global rich punish any nation trying to spike taxes on itself in isolation.
 
Jul 2013
53,015
56,589
Nashville, TN
#34
Good for you. The issue still remains that without essentially global taxing authority and enforcement, the multi-national corporate and banking global rich punish any nation trying to spike taxes on itself in isolation.
And in the meantime we continue to pump more and more supply side economics into our tax system, suppressing the middle class and creating more and more wealth inequality and long term damage to the economy as a whole. Adding a trillion a year or more to the deficit in a booming economy, which economists recommends that?
 
Likes: Dangermouse
Jul 2014
35,570
9,324
midwest
#35
I am glad she gives you something new to obsess over....your Hillary obsession was getting old even for you.
No, you are wrong about that.

Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving.

And, as long as she keeps herself in the "news", we'll never get tired of her.

Got to admit that AOC looks as though she could seriously challenge Queen Hillary at some point...

Thanks AOC!
 
Feb 2019
24
12
Houston
#37
Personal income taxes are far too low in general for what needs doing. They should be raised across the board, primarily on the wealthier half of the population. Furthermore, estate and capital gains taxes should be returned to Clinton-era levels.

There need to be substantial reforms to state- and municipal-level taxation, but those are for another post.
 
Jul 2013
53,015
56,589
Nashville, TN
#38
Personal income taxes are far too low in general for what needs doing. They should be raised across the board, primarily on the wealthier half of the population. Furthermore, estate and capital gains taxes should be returned to Clinton-era levels.

There need to be substantial reforms to state- and municipal-level taxation, but those are for another post.
Don't sound too sane, they don't like it when you sound sane...
 
Jul 2011
3,648
5,359
UK/Australia
#40
I'm not at all sure what point the OP is making (other than he does not like anything which smacks of socialism,) but I think we need to understand that the purpose of taxation is to enable civilisation. It is not a punitive exercise in respect of those the government may consider to have 'too much money' - it is a way of financing services we consider necessary to a civilised society. To this end, a progressive income tax system (as used in most first-world societies) is probably the most equitable means.

One of the 'arguments' frequently put against progressive taxation, is that it is not fair to tax those with a high income any differently from those on the poverty line, and that a fixed rate for everyone - irrespective of income is the preferable system. The fly in that ointment being that the rate would have to be so high as to render those on a minimal income homeless and destitute.

E.g: A rate of 20% may not seem unreasonable, but the effect on a man trying to feed, clothe, and shelter a family on say $25,000 a year would leave him $20,000 with which to do this. Hardly enough for a family of four individuals.

Whereas a taxation system wherein the first $25,000 of income is exempt, and progresses in 20% increments to 60% would leave him his entire income. At the other end of the spectrum, a man receiving $500,000 a year would pay nothing on the first $25,000 - perhaps 20% on the next $25,000 - 40% on the next $75,000, and 60% on everything above $100,000. Giving an effective tax rate of 53% and leaving him $235,000 after tax, with which to look after his family. These are roughly approximate figures off the top of my head, but assuming this relatively high rate of taxation involves free primary, secondary, and tertiary education, free medical care, and social safety nets - such as widow's pensions, old age pensions, adequate unemployment benefits, etc, both the nett $25,000 and the nett $235,000 enable some degree of dignified lifestyle.

So unless a nominal fixed rate of taxation generates enough funds to run a reasonably civilised and safe society, there would seem little choice other than to utilise a progressive system that taxes those least likely to go hungry or homeless more heavily. Anything else would seem counter-productive if the aim is for the good of society as a whole, and such a system is possible in both a conservative or a socialist society.