Progressive idea 80% tax - income over $500K doesn't go far enough to fix income inequality

originally posted by: JSpader

originally posted by: grandmakdw
www.nysun.com...

The Democratic party seems to be excited about fixing "income inequality", even Obama has been talking about it lately.

An economist has written a book that has liberals, Democrats, and progressives thrilled at his proposed solutions.

He advocates sharply higher tax rates on both income and capital. For America, he recommends “a rate on the order of 80 percent on incomes over $500,000 or $1 million a year,” along with rates of “50 or 60 percent on incomes above $200,000.” In addition to that, he proposes a tax on capital of one percent a year on fortunes of about $1,380,000, increasing to an annual tax of five or ten percent a year on fortunes of several hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. That would be enforced globally with new tax forms requiring everyone to disclose the value of all assets.

I say that is not good enough!

There should be an 80% tax on all personal assets over $3 Million because $3 Million is the accepted savings needed for a comfortable retirement. With exemptions for the primary residence, and one vehicle per person in the household. That would bring about true income equality.

How about it!

Should we start a white house petition so that people who live off trust funds and hide money in stocks/bonds and other sources of "non-income, income" which is currently not considered income will have to live off what the rest of us do.

Is this a joke. Why would ever want to make just more that and get taxed into oblivion. Why should others take someone else's money. You don't actually think the Feds will spend it wisely unless it is for more war and spying.

He was being sarcastic in his OP, but you're right. No intelligent human being would stay here to take the abuse. They would either leave and denounce their American citizenship, or they'd get a 9 to 5 job at McDonalds, because..lets face it,.... what IS the point of working twice as hard when the reward for your hard work is taken from you?

It's getting to be too much as it is. If it gets any more small-business-unfriendly, the only people doing business will be the huge companies who already have politicians in their pockets. Their goals are being achieved as we speak. They've basically made it so hard to do business in this country to compete with the big guys, that pretty soon the only ones left standing will be the Walmarts of the world. When that happens, they can drive prices up as high as they want, because they'll be the only source of goods. That's when the real fun begins.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

This is a the successful approach, never will we be able to compete with labor that pays pennies an hour for labor cost. Never can we compete with countries that have no EPA regulation, Labor regulation, etc. etc. We have to have tariffs
in order to make MFG. cost the same so we as the American labor force can compete with everyone. We got screwed with NAFTA and the like, now it's cheaper to manufacture things in Mexico and ship the product over the border to be sold here.

This is exactly how in 1982 Harley Davidson survived the onslaught of Japanese Bike manufactures in the large bike class in the US in the early stages.

originally posted by: 2manyquestions
He was being sarcastic in his OP, but you're right. No intelligent human being would stay here to take the abuse. They would either leave and denounce their American citizenship, or they'd get a 9 to 5 job at McDonalds, because..lets face it,.... what IS the point of working twice as hard when the reward for your hard work is taken from you?

Do you know the economic term "unearned income" or "passive income"?

It is the return that people get for already having money.

" rent, received from the ownership of natural resources; interest, received by virtue of owning financial assets; and profit, received from the ownership of capital equipment."

It is money that flows to someone for virtue of them already owning something.

VS.

"Earned Income"...wages, salaries etc. for actual work.

The issue we have is that the wealthy earn more for "passive" income...rewards for simply owning land and things, than they are for employing people or investing in businesses.

We can change the tax structure specifically to incentivize expanding US businesses through active investment vs. rewarding the wealthy for sitting on the money, collecting rent and interest and sheltering the profits in the Caymans.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
This is a the successful approach, never will we be able to compete with labor that pays pennies an hour for labor cost. Never can we compete with countries that have no EPA regulation, Labor regulation, etc. etc. We have to have tariffs

The prevailing political and social attitude towards the global economy on the macroeconomic side is very indicative of the entitlement attitude on the microeconomic side. There is a complete lack of understanding of the reality of trade-off costs and an almost child-like naivete that we can have both an equality driven global economy and a prosperous American middle class. It's just impossible to have well fed wolves and all the lambs safe and accounted for.

That is what Nixon and Carter gave the US... they both instituted policies which were pie in the sky, very lofty goaled regulations of environmental and social protectionism... but then shunned national economic protectionism. Talk about a suicidal approach to natiuonal economic well being. Then, in the past 30 years, we've seen policymakers reshuffle the deck on the corporate side, providing them with public backed safety nets to sheild them from risks but refusing to install any common sense policies that do the same for the middle class. It has left a giant scortched wasteland between lower class and upper class in which the middle class shoulders the financial burdens yet benefits from no assistance (in fact actually experiences major detriment from raising costs combined with increasing demands from the have nots to pay even more in taxes). In order to qualify for a break you either have to win the lottery and become wealthy or manage to get dragged down into the abyss of the lower class where you can then take your place in the entitlement line, waiting for someone else to take responsibility for you and subsidize your life.

Like so much in modern America, it's a joke of a system orchestrated and supported by a castle full of jesters and fools.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I really like your ideas, seriously.

" The only thing preventing them are globalist minded policy makers and the self depreciating morons that support them and their concept of a global economy. "

I know but we are heading for a global economy
I too think that local economy would fix things but this isn't whats happening.

I would prefer to see everyone having enough to live on comfortably while working part time than having people working full time and paying 50% in taxes while others don't work. I think that an evolved civilization isn't an over worked one but a balanced one. Working towards everyone's welfare instead of ones own personal freedoms is what will make us all free.
We have to work for the inevitable to be livable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm also really hoping people really act up and build solid local economies all over but I don't see this happening before it's too late.

originally posted by: 2manyquestions
He was being sarcastic in his OP, but you're right. No intelligent human being would stay here to take the abuse. They would either leave and denounce their American citizenship, or they'd get a 9 to 5 job at McDonalds, because..lets face it,.... what IS the point of working twice as hard when the reward for your hard work is taken from you?

Wh...wh...Wha What?
I can easily say ;the harder people work, the less money they make.

The worst payed entry jobs I've had felt like working AT LEAST twice as hard than the jobs I've made more money.
There's a terrible imbalance in wages earned everywhere in the world.

originally posted by: 2manyquestions
It's getting to be too much as it is. If it gets any more small-business-unfriendly, the only people doing business will be the huge companies who already have politicians in their pockets. Their goals are being achieved as we speak. They've basically made it so hard to do business in this country to compete with the big guys, that pretty soon the only ones left standing will be the Walmarts of the world. When that happens, they can drive prices up as high as they want, because they'll be the only source of goods. That's when the real fun begins.

Yes and then if you fall down, I hope for your sake that you end up in a job, NOT WORKING HARD, but making barely enough to make your family live. At least you won't pay income tax, lucky you.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I usually disagree with you, but here we agree.

Tariffs, if not outright bans. The same consumer might shed a tear while watching some 60 minutes episode where 6 year old girls are locked up in some backroom of a factory in China and worked 100 hours a week for no pay...and then get up the next morning and run to Wallmart to buy those insanely cheap tennis shoes made by that little girl's bloody little fingers. YAY free-trade! We can compete with China but first we have to allow child labor and abandon the minimum wage and any labor regulations, EPA ad infinium. We need to at a bare minimum institute Tarrifs which will make humane labor here in the USA competitive and which also ...just a little bit...reduce the demand that encourages that factory boss in China to virtually enslave his workers.

I am all for free-global-trade...but only when everyone plays by the same rules...otherwise the USA pays an economic price on scale with our regard for human rights.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
This is a the successful approach, never will we be able to compete with labor that pays pennies an hour for labor cost. Never can we compete with countries that have no EPA regulation, Labor regulation, etc. etc. We have to have tariffs

The prevailing political and social attitude towards the global economy on the macroeconomic side is very indicative of the entitlement attitude on the microeconomic side. There is a complete lack of understanding of the reality of trade-off costs and an almost child-like naivete that we can have both an equality driven global economy and a prosperous American middle class. It's just impossible to have well fed wolves and all the lambs safe and accounted for.

A mouth full well said, perceived social problems cannot be corrected with economic policies. There has never been and there never will be a balance. Some strive for greatness and accomplishment while others strive for complacency, it is freedom of choice. Today we buy votes with the efforts of of accomplishment twisting the idea of equality.

One works for his Playstation while the other demands it free from a government program, in essence the worker buys two. The second being taken forcibly by government with a decree for fairness of additional programs. Surprisingly it's never enough the succulent flavor of milk produced by the government tit becomes an addiction willing fed by politicians.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: Destinyone

Well then how does a cap at 1M a year sound. Something needs to be done, because greed is a thing. If you built a company from the ground and have 500 employees, wouldn't the sense of pride be better trickling that extra money down to your employees? You can't tell me that someone actually deserves to make millions or even billions a year, regardless of what they do. If I can get by on less than 100k a year, what makes you need the ability to earn more than 500k+. The answer is nothing. If people stopped wanting to live in extreme excess, maybe some of the people who have nothing would be a little better off.

I have nothing against you personally, I just think it's wrong to be that greedy. At 500k per year you can live JUST FINE. If you live like a normal person, you can even take some really nice vacations, and maybe even own a yacht or two. Why do you need more than that?

Have you priced Yachts lately, the prices are insane???????? Link

Why do "you" get to dictate what I think is an adequate income for me? The wealth derived from a well run business should be the owners/shareholders, not given to the Government to decide what to do with.

This mentality of "You have enough, I'll take the rest of that" will eventually kill the entrepreneur and with that, America in the long run. Why work hard building a legacy when the State will come and snatch it up.

I seem to remember something in early U.S. History about something like that.........hmmmmmmm now what was that about???

a reply to: grandmakdw

How about we tax the Federal Reserve 80% of everything they lend to us. That will solve the money problem.

a reply to: amfirst1

I think if we got the members of ATS together, pitched in our money and bought a bank, we could borrow money from the FED through the discount window at about 1%, and offer credit cards at 21% with collections overhead make a clean 15% on our money and never look back. Legalized loan sharking, making the mob look like pikers. We could call ourselves Capitol Two and hire Mel GIbson as our spokesperson, with Jesus on the cross using his card to buy freedom.

The responses in this thread is rather fascinating, especially from the Americans. The wealth divide in the USA is not shrinking, it is growing. Chances are this means you, and everyone in this thread, are either stagnating or getting poorer, while the rich get richer. In other words, wealth redistribution is already occurring, towards the rich. Such taxation schemes as suggested in OP generally aim to counteract this phenomena.

It is also a fact that rich people get rich easier - for example, a rich family has the option to fund and relocate their children for their education. A rich person will also be well connected so that they can receive far more opportunities than you or I can.

The complete opposite is true if you're poor. If you don't have enough money then you cannot get a good education nor can you get healthcare. As a result of poor education you are going to have difficulty getting a job that doesn't suck. Since you weren't born with connections then you are going to have further difficulty. And if you decide to have children then they will end up just the same as you are, and the cycle will repeat ad infinitum. Again, this is a problem which has tended to get worse over time.

So, the purpose of taxing the rich more is generally to counteract this phenomena to provide more services - like healthcare, education, housing, food, opportunities to those who are disadvantaged (as well as the working class), helping to break the aforementioned cycle, provide a safety net incase of disease or illness, and stop the trend for wealth redistribution to the top.

a reply to: C0bzz

Taxing the rich does not produce wealth for the poor. What it does, is what it is doing - creating a greedy overclass (government).

Governments around the world, sadly including the US now, do not represent the people at all. They represent the personal interests of the people running the government, to he** with the people.

Governments are made up of people who convince others they have "the people", "the poor", "the regular guys", "the minority groups", that they r..e....a...l...l...y care about the people. So they get elected.

Then once in government the sociopaths/psychopaths (the people who are r..e..a..l..l..y good at acting sincere and caring and who never show tell tale signs of lying start taking "taxes" from the people.

They get reelected precisely because they are sociopaths, and show no signs of deception when lying about what they are really doing in office, and when constantly changing their stories or their "stance" to please the electorate. The poor average guy whose body language gives away his thoughts has no chance against these highly honed sociopaths.

This includes Russia, China, European Governments, USA.

The taxes then become fodder to 1. Keep them in power so 2. To grow the wealth of themselves and family and friends by creatively and legally funneling $ to themselves

so while telling you the increased taxation will make things fairer the result is always

those in government, connected to government, and who "give generously" to campaigns, get richer while the poor become increasingly poorer

if the people who are in power don't take $ per se
they take lavish trips with their families in the name of diplomacy (ha ha)
they eat far better than the kings of old and far better than the middle class
they have servants, drivers, security people, secretaries, undersecretaries, paid for by you and me (while the poor get poorer)

That is what is happening when taxes are raised.

This income inequality stuff is a ruse

a ruse for the people in power to use your money and mine to live rich and richer

Why don't you think the government does all it can to keep people from knowing where the "stimulus" went

Taxing the rich will only lead to

more poor people

fewer jobs as the highly taxed give up on owning small businesses because they make less then their employees after taxes

Taxing more will not do what you suggest.

Throwing out all the people in power might help, but only if those elected were limited to 6 years total in office. Just enough time to have experience to pass on but getting them out once they have learned to game the system and become leaches who suck up taxes (your and my hard earned money) for their own gratification.
Taxing the rich does not produce wealth for the poor. What it does, is what it is doing - creating a greedy overclass (government).

Money needs to be eliminated completely.

Problem solved.

originally posted by: pavil
Why do "you" get to dictate what I think is an adequate income for me? The wealth derived from a well run business should be the owners/shareholders, not given to the Government to decide what to do with.

So...

I do not think government has a place in saying "enough is enough"...

I do think money is best directed/invested by the populace, not the government.

I also think government has a place (and already dramatically impacts) what ways that money makes MORE money.

Through tax incentives, subsidies, loop-holes and tax breaks.

So right now we have a system that incentivizes the wealthiest to make MORE money via "unearned income" vs. actually putting that money to work expanding businesses, building new technologies, employing people.

I heard an interview with an economist who chased down where the bailout and "stimulas" funds went. Now remember two important things here...(A) Those were OUR tax dollars...taken from us during an economic crisis when the average Joe needed that money more than ever and (B) The aim was to create jobs, spark economic activity...drive the funds into the economy for everyone's benefit.

Know what the banks did with the vast bulk of that money...Our Money?

They invested in Food and Oil futures...driving up the prices of Gas and Food on every American.

Why?...because that was the safest most profitable bet...with OUR money. When people are suffering they still need to EAT and they still need to DRIVE to that new minimum wage job an hour away if they are lucky.

Now..Thanks to lobbyists...a Billionaire like Warren Buffet can pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

We are rewarding and encouraging the wealthy to get wealthier by collecting "rents" or investing in oil and food (driving up our costs)...VS. EFFEN BUILDING THINGS...BUSINESSES...INNVOATIONS...The way America used to be.

ASK investor WARREN BUFFET...The 3rd richest man ever to exist on planet earth...and self-made BTW, not inherited.
"“There’s class warfare, all right,” “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

www.nytimes.com...

We have problems folks...BIG problems.

I hate ti be that chubby dude waving a black flag.... but I disagree.

I believe in the flat tax rate. And you might get angry over my reasoning for it. But I don't care. I had met up with so many different professionals through the various job descriptions I have obtained experience in that I came to my own conclusion.

More people, more issues.

We have too many people on this planet with degrees, intelect, and potential. But the problem is that the very clever people get away with having more money. Then there is the opposing force with their nose stuck up when they look at someone like me. I have a rich mind... but I myself live in poverty. But I realised something... and maybe you could see it how I do.

Rich people don't have enough spending money. So they devise plans to make more money so that they can finally spend it how they want. But because we make it so hard for them to have money.... they keep pushing envelopes in hopes of making enough.

I wonder this every day... if you had 1 Billion with a capital B. What would ANYONE do with it?

Leave taxes out of the picture for a minute. What would you do with 1 Billion dollars? Buy ten houses for you, and your friends? Buy each one of them a car of their dreams? Have a maid, a mechanic, and a gardener for each house for 20 years? Included with a butler?

Or would you be the new thing in town throwing his money on every table imaginanle trying to make even more money?

Every rich person I asked this told me they would choose the statement above the bottom one.

If you suddenly had enough money like that would you spend it on trying to make even more money... or would you "quit while you were ahead?"

originally posted by: Indigo5
ASK investor WARREN BUFFET...The 3rd richest man ever to exist on planet earth...and self-made BTW, not inherited.

Coming from a family of OWNERS makes you self made?

Who knew?

tax wealthy people to give money to the government so the government officials can line there pockets.

now how do I get a government job?

if I was working 40 hours a week to make 3 million dollars in a year and know im going to be taxed 80% for every dollar I make after that 3 million, ill just stop working, layoff my employees and tell them to come back January 1st when we can start making money again. Im not going to work so the government can take 80% of what I make.

a reply to: peck420

Please read my post above.

The problem is not rich people.

The problem is the government elite.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Indigo5
ASK investor WARREN BUFFET...The 3rd richest man ever to exist on planet earth...and self-made BTW, not inherited.

Coming from a family of OWNERS makes you self made?

Who knew?

And that is all you have to say? Why bother?

And BTW

Even as a child, Buffett displayed an interest in making and saving money. He went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines. For a while, he worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school he was successful in making money by delivering newspapers, selling golfballs and stamps, and detailing cars, among other means. Filing his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route.[18] In 1945, in his sophomore year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops.

en.wikipedia.org...

...yes he is self-made.