Should We Cap The Wealthy?

We 'cap' the wealthy by taxing them. I'll repeat what I posted in another thread; look over these historic rates that the weathiest paid and consider this: were US businesses and the economy really inhibited by these tax rates?

73% in 1920
79% in 1940
91% in 1945
82% in 1950
91% from 1950 to 1965
77% in 1970
70% until 1982

Consider that now they only pay 35% and have countless loopholes where many only pay 19% in the end.

I find it surprising that people don't see unbridled capitalism for what it is - greed. And extreme wealth for what it is - gluttony.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Social services are a benefit to everyone, they are supported freely by tax contributions made by all citizens willingly.

err hangon, so you support some social systems and not others? Well done on that one. I should point out that if the 2 billion system were impleneted that fewer people would commit crime as they would have their basic needs supported at least. In the end a 2 billino cap would be socially very beneficial. You could introduce social healthcare like we have in the UK at least.

Oh and before you criticise the NHS in the UK i should point out it's extremely succesful here. You may hear the occasional sob story but they are few and far between.

You missed the point. Programs like hospitals and EMT service, fire and public works, they are paid for by all and used by all. They benefit everyone equally as they are necessary for a society to function.

Welfare does not fall under this umbrella. You must compare apples to apples. What you are describing is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, all very noble, except it goes against the constitution and is entirely illegal. What I make is my own, what you make is your own, if what I make ends up being better than yours it does not entitle you to come and take mine...make any sense?


Edit to add: and for the record Im not against socialized health care if implemented properly. I am very much against re-distribution of wealth on any level.

[edit on 10/29/08 by BlackOps719]

You have to consider that the US Constitution, in addition to being the foundation of all of our laws, is also a philosophical statement that defines a way of life. This is the so-called "American Way", and I absolutely subscribe to its belief and principles.

As important as the US Constitution is to our American Way, there is an even more important philosophical statement: our Declaration of Independence. It is the original source, predating the constitution, that our country derives ALL authority and power from.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

No patriotic American can disagree with the above, in my opinion. In fact, I don't think any living and rational person can argue about the above statement. The truth, as it says, is self-evident.

Now – what I am arguing about here is nothing less than this: people are not treated equally by the government. Wealth corrupts. There is vast inequality in our society -- it has to be addressed.

Institute a high inheritance tax for anyone with more than $100 million dollars. Now. And levy a tax on the excessive wealth that is not used for socially responsible things.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
You missed the point. Programs like hospitals and EMT service, fire and public works, they are paid for by all and us

ed by all. They benefit everyone equally as they are necessary for a society to function.

Welfare does not fall under this umbrella. You must compare apples to apples. What you are describing is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, all very noble, except it goes against the constitution and is entirely illegal. What I make is my own, what you make is your own, if what I make ends up being better than yours it does not entitle you to come and take mine...make any sense?


Edit to add: and for the record Im not against socialized health care if implemented properly. I am very much against re-distribution of wealth on any level.

[edit on 10/29/08 by BlackOps719]

Actually you missed the point. Welfare can easily be labelled as any social system including healthcare. Univerasl healthcare is for those who cannot afford private healthcare, welfare is for those who cannot privately support themselves. Social police anf fire services are for those who cannot subscribe to private systems. Check the past and you'll find these private systems existed until someone decided they would be better as social entities.

By capping things at 2 billion (again inflation adjusted) you would still have an upper, middle and lower class but you would also ensure a good qYou would still have people trying to break the market with new inventions because if they became rich (2 billion) they would still be above everyone else. So capitalism isn't destroyed in this system.

reply to post by Buck Division




Now think about what it is that you just quoted....LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.


Now do you not believe that robbing one segment of the populous in order to benefit another segment of the populous is unconstitutional?

Are you not infringing on these peoples rights to LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS by taking away what is rightfully theirs and handing it out to those who did nothing to earn it?

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Now do you not believe that robbing one segment of the populous in order to benefit another segment of the populous is unconstitutional?

Are you not infringing on these peoples rights to LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS by taking away what is rightfully theirs and handing it out to those who did nothing to earn it?

I again point out the current social systems that rob the rich to help the poor, including education. Afterall the rich often fund their children into private schools. It sounds like you are very fond of the victorian britain, in which the rich got funded into school and the poor stayed in the work houses.

this idea brings up the alternative minimum tax nightmare...

it was meant to tax the wealthy, but well, the "wealthy" just isn't that wealthy anymore, it hasn't been revised, unless it was done this year...but was once wealthy, is no more or less middle class, and this tax has really did some serious harm to those who aren't "wealthy"...

I say no to the idea of capping earnings or savings at a level calling it "wealthy"....ya never know, what with all the money they are creating, well....next year, a loaf of bread might cost a billion, then what will we all do?

the government has no jurisdiction to start capping the salaries or restricting savings for most companies or individuals...
unless of course these companies find themselves reliant on gov't money to run their operations....then well...I tend to be more interested in what they are paying thier lower wage earners as compared to the top wage earners at the place. to me, it's the tax money that gives the government the right to start stepping in. so, well, if a company is bailed out, or is given tax credits, loans ect...well, I'd like to see the goverment given access their payrolll records, have them reviewed and well, if it's found that many of the lower paid workers earnings are less that the various guidelines for such things as food stamps and such, while they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for their upper management, well, I feel the government should have the right to either refuse them the gov't money, or have them rearrange their payroll some.

but, I also feel they should be making the people on these programs remain searching for a job that will pay them what they need, even if they have a job also.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


The Soviet Union was never realy Marxist. It was Socialist. Totaly differant frame of identification. Socialists creat a certain segment to make the decisions, Marxists think it should be a comunal. Ever been to a town meeting and try to get everyone to agree. It almost NEVER happens. What you are espousing is socialist!
Zindo

Originally posted by dawnstar
I say no to the idea of capping earnings or savings at a level calling it "wealthy"....ya never know, what with all the money they are creating, well....next year, a loaf of bread might cost a billion, then what will we all do?

Again i have to point out that this would be linked to inflation, not a straight 2 billion until the end of time!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




You are playing a game of semantics here by using a careful play on wording. When I say welfare you understand fully that I mean welfare in the form of monthly government handouts to people who do not work for it.

Handing out halloween candy can be labeled a form of welfare if you stretch the words meaning enough. It still doesnt change the fact that public services like Fire, police, rescue, they are paid out from public tax money, which is paid in by everyone because everyone uses and benefits from these services.

Social welfare and governmental handouts benefit noone, they only temporarily benefit the ones who cash the checks...until next month when they expect and require another one.

You still havent explained any proper justification for robbing one self sustaining segment of the population for the benefit of another segment of the population who holds no entitlement to this money in any way.

Possibly we will have to agree to disagree here. What you describe is communism or some bastardized version of it, and not something that I could or would ever agree to or accept. Maybe it is a cultural difference that we share, either way it is not going to happen.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

The Soviet Union was never realy Marxist. It was Socialist. Totaly differant frame of identification. Socialists creat a certain segment to make the decisions, Marxists think it should be a comunal. Ever been to a town meeting and try to get everyone to agree. It almost NEVER happens. What you are espousing is socialist!
Zindo

so you think the police are socialist, the fire brigade are socialst, the education system is socialist, the UK NHS is socialist, the libraries are socialist, the road tax is socialist, the councils who take care of the drains are socialist, etc etc ad nauseam.

All you have to do is give the capped class have a chance to spend their caps on their own good causes........

Originally posted by BlackOps719
You are playing a game of semantics here by using a careful play on wording. When I say welfare you understand fully that I mean welfare in the form of monthly government handouts to people who do not work for it.

Actually if you understood my post that isn't what i'm doing. I am talking about a wide system not a specific, benefit based one.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Handing out halloween candy can be labeled a form of welfare if you stretch the words meaning enough. It still doesnt change the fact that public services like Fire, police, rescue, they are paid out from public tax money, which is paid in by everyone because everyone uses and benefits from these services.

Actually you are wrong. The rich don't often use public education, they usually use private schools. If you believe in capitalism you should at least favour private education only, just like in victorian times.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Social welfare and governmental handouts benefit noone, they only temporarily benefit the ones who cash the checks...until next month when they expect and require another one.

Speaking as somene who became very unwell and unable to work, i can say that there are cases when benefits are humane at least. Without them i'd be dead by now, that isn't an exaggeration.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
You still havent explained any proper justification for robbing one self sustaining segment of the population for the benefit of another segment of the population who holds no entitlement to this money in any way.

I have given a very clear justification. The poor being made comfortable will lead to a more peaceful society, less tilted towards crime at least and therefore more peaceful as a whole. However in the system i am proposing you would still have a clear middle, lower and upper class.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Possibly we will have to agree to disagree here. What you describe is communism or some bastardized version of it, and not something that I could or would ever agree to or accept. Maybe it is a cultural difference that we share, either way it is not going to happen.

well agreeing to disagree is fine i don't mind that, however i should point out that the entire system is an amalgamation of democracy and socialism (UK) or republicanism and socialism (USA).

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Interestinggg

 

What you are speaking of says more about corrupt and lazy politicians not doing their jobs and enforcing the laws that are already in place.


There is no law against being successful, at least not that I know of. When the day comes that a person is ostracized for being more successful than someone else then that is the day this country truly has lost its mind collectively.

And if your issue is with laws or lack thereof, be the change that you wish to see by working to have existing laws changed and new laws implemented.

Socialism isnt the answer. When the haves become morally or financially responsible for the survival of the have nots it becomes a push, because eventually those who have become the have nots and a vicious cycle begins.

No that isn't what im speaking of, what im speaking of is what I said.
Also I didn't say there was a law against being successful.
My issue is not with laws.
My issue is with someone becoming bigger than a whole country and being above them.
You have told every person on this thread they want socialism.
But the title of the thread says "CAP" the wealthy.
It doesn't say revert to socialism.
Capping them is no different than things like anti trust laws.
However my point is, they get so big even anti trust laws are irrelevant to them.
Would you agree, that selling something to massive amounts of people, based upon lies and false advertising, extremelly over priced, that doesn't work properly, is gaining wealth dishonestly?
Because if you don't agree with that then there is no hope for you.

LOL,

It's a whole different world since pre 1982. You don't have to live in the country to do business in the country.... Yeah... raise taxes to that level and anyone who has that kind of money will move out of the country now that America and Europe are no longer the only 1st World countries and Plane flights were only to major cities.

And hint.. then you get NO taxes when they reside and have citizenship in Qatar or Latin American Enclaves and have their businesses relocated to these countries with lower taxes.

Less your going to hold them at gunpoint and tell them they have to "stay and pay".

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking. This crap was tried with Luxury taxes.... that simply bankrupted American businesses and capital was relocated to foreign shores to continue there.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by infolurker]

reply to post by infolurker


I have stated before this would have to be a world agreement, however it would be very easy to penalise companies who wanted to sell to any country who accepted the policies. If only two countries, the UK and US accepted such policies then the world would be more encouraged to follow such policies, as they have before.

Originally posted by infolurker
LOL,

It's a whole different world since pre 1982. You don't have to live in the country to do business in the country.... Yeah... raise taxes to that level and anyone who has that kind of money will move out of the country now that America and Europe are no longer the only 1st World countries and Plane flights were only to major cities.

And hint.. then you get NO taxes when they reside and have citizenship in Qatar or Latin American Enclaves and have their businesses relocated to these countries with lower taxes.

Less your going to hold them at gunpoint and tell them they have to "stay and pay".

Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking. This crap was tried with Luxury taxes.... that simply bankrupted American businesses and capital was relocated to foreign shores to continue there.

Your argument is a perfect example of why there is such division in society. You say you will leave your own country if taxes are raised, yet demand loyalty to the country from the poor. You need our countries protection for your investments.......

Originally posted by dawnstar
this idea brings up the alternative minimum tax nightmare...

it was meant to tax the wealthy, but well, the "wealthy" just isn't that wealthy anymore, it hasn't been revised, unless it was done this year...but was once wealthy, is no more or less middle class, and this tax has really did some serious harm to those who aren't "wealthy"...

There I will find complete agreement with the most conservative people here. Government is very abusive. The line changes all the time -- and before you know it, it is the poor and middle class who are suffering yet again.

Does it have to be that way?

I would say yes, so long as there are extremely wealthy and abusive people, buying power with their money. Note that there is nothing illegal right now in buying influence. Consider conservative talk-radio, for example. If it wasn't for that influence, I doubt this discussion would have lasted this long.

Wealth has a way of sustaining itself. Often, this is at the expense of others.

reply to post by redled


I am not leaving, I live slightly above check to check... dead broke now due to a 5 k house repair.

But duh? You think multi-millionaires will stay if they already have property in Latin America?

Jeeze, tax the guy 90% if he stays or he moves to a Latin American tropical beech, continues to do the same business and pays much less tax to the host country. Do you see that not happening?

....knocks on head.

reply to post by redled


If you think InfoLurker is wrong, maybe you should check out all the real estate thats up for sale in Costa Rica. The sites are very explicit in who they are targeting. They are not cheap properties. The word I would use is 'compounds'! Very expensive and low taxed compounds!

Zindo