It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: ChaoticOrder well it’s very easy to see who’s making money from interest, rent, or capital gains. Just tax that rather than labor. It’s not about morality, it’s about taxing people who are actually working vs taxing people who are sitting back while other people’s money comes to them.
And yes, speculation involves risk, but it also is often ruinous to the people creating the product they are speculating on. Speculation for future shares can ruin whole industries in other countries. Also, speculation is not normally done by people researching and making quick decisions. Almost exclusively now it’s done with programs using algorithms, automatically. The average stock share is only held now for less than a minute. So why should our livelihoods and economies be tied to a computer gambling system that has nothing to do with industry or production?
much money are making unearned income.
Unearned income is an IRS term for income that is not obtained by participating in a business or trade (e.g., salaries and bonuses, wages, commissions and tips). It typically includes interest, dividends, pensions, social security, unemployment benefits, alimony and child support.
majority of their wealth comes from a scheme that takes what others earn, without creating an actual product.
Initially these are the ONLY people who were supposed to be taxed by income tax, and it was around 90%
State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, permanently legalizing an income tax
Do we need to create regulations to protect the sheep from themselves and selling out our future where our kids and grandkids will need to pickup the bill?
When it finally occurred to everyone that those houses and those stocks weren’t really worth what the debt-fueled market said they were, markets crashed, banks flirted with insolvency, and the economy sank into a deep global recession.
Now, 12 years later, it’s happening again. This time, however, it’s not households using cheap debt to take cash out of their overvalued homes. Rather, it is giant corporations using cheap debt – and a one-time tax windfall – to take cash from their balance sheets and send it to shareholders in the form of increased dividends and, in particular, stock buybacks. As before, the cash-outs are helping to drive debt – corporate debt – to record levels. As before, they are adding a short-term sugar high to an already booming economy.
And once again, they are diverting capital from productive long-term investment to further inflate a financial bubble – this one in corporate stocks and bonds – that, when it bursts, will send the economy into another recession.
The BREXIT or British exit from the EU is this crisis’ Bear Stearns: an unexpected situation that Central Banks will go all out to sweep under the rug. Whether or not they will succeed remains to be seen.
But what has started cannot be undone. For seven years, the Central Banks have maintained the illusion that all is well. Meanwhile, global leverage has exploded to record highs, with the bond bubble now a staggering $100 trillion in size.
To top it off, over $10 trillion of this is sporting negative yields in nominal terms. Indeed, globally bond yields are at levels not seen since the BRONZE AGE.
Maybe look at the income stream from a standpoint of owning a factory, employing people and contributing to the local community versus just owning assets and charging rent for their use
maybe crooked politicians
economic rent, or artificial scarcity. If you work for it, you should have it. But if you extract it from others then yes, a large percentage of it should be taxed.
the extra amount earned by a resource (e.g. land, capital, or labour) by virtue of its present use.
originally posted by: mamabeth
In my opinion,that young woman isn't dealing with
a full deck!
originally posted by: links234
Honestly, it sounds like a pretty great idea. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest 90% tax rate for the top 1% of 'earners.'
It's not a wild idea. We used to do it and America did not crumble. Our middle-class did not disappear.
We have progressive tax-brackets in America. If the top tax rate was 70% on people making more than $1 million/year, that doesn't mean they have to pay $700,000 in taxes if they make $1,000,001 in that year. That last dollar is taxed at 70%, not everything before it.
We should raise taxes, not just to pay for the Green New Deal, but to reduce the horrendous income inequality this country has.
Well then it is about morality, it's about heavily taxing sources of income deemed to be "easy money". Take for example a person who purchases houses as an investment, they rent out those houses and make an easy income from it, but why is that fundamentally any different from purchasing a business such as a quarry and making an income from that? Should the owner of the quarry be taxed at such high rates? What about a person who has taken a loan in order to purchase a house, and they want to rent it out for a period of time to help pay off the loan, under such high tax rates it would no longer be a very viable option.
originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Gothmog
When Eisenhower was president from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. Eisenhower's first year in office it was 92%.
The GDP of the US rose 20% while he was in office.
The unemployment rate was consistently under 5%.
Median income rose 22% between 1953 and 1961.
Debt as a percentage of GDP dropped nearly 20%.
It wasn't until Kennedy was elected that the top marginal rate dropped to 70% where it stayed (in general) until Reagan took office and it dropped to 30%. The top marginal tax rate in 2018 is 37% which only affects single filers who make over $500,000 in taxable income.
I'm not sure what you want me to link to you that you won't immediately dismiss as 'liberal propaganda' or something.