Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

originally posted by: tadaman


Ewok, while the UK is in Europe, you cant possibly compare the UK to the rest of Europe. You are not even in the EU and have never identified with Europe. Lets not start now.

I already said there were exceptions to what I say in the northern countries.

Ok fair enough long as you know there is a wide gap between those countries and the southe/eastern ones.

originally posted by: tadaman
Are you really going to insist that Europeans who pride themselves on not living with excesses like Americans now all own multiple homes, multiple cars and live a life style of excess?

Really?

I would say SOME Europeans.

But here in the UK most have those things, hell I own 3 cars! I say it depends on country to country. I wont speak for all of them cause I cant. I know Poland from personal experience is pretty crappy for standard of living (or was) but I can say France that I unfortunately ( ) have to visit a bit have pretty similar style of life to me or you at least in the north. Cant speak for Italy or Greece really as never been but I suspect there are more on the lines of what you think. And I know Spain is not so good either form visits. As I said it varies.

originally posted by: tadaman
Europe has 2-3 story homes with front and back yards and a 1-2 car garage as a norm? really?

Again it depends what country you are talking about!

What you describe is my home right now in a middle class suburban area! France there homes are similar form what I see.

Spain, Poland? No your right there as you are talking smaller and lesser.

But Again you can just say Europe. And write Europe off as a whole.

originally posted by: tadaman

When I lived in Europe we had protests and near riots DAILY, all over the country where I lived.

What country!

Why keep saying Europe?

Specify the country were you live was like totally different form why I live or many EU ATS members live.

originally posted by: tadaman
You may not see it in the UK, since you guys are doing better than most of Europe, yet another reason why I am not talking about the UK and why you are not like Europe.

Again its why its best to specify rather than just say Europe.

originally posted by: tadaman
I am not saying Europe is Romania, I am saying it is Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, and the rest.

Then its best to actually say what country than just Europe. Cause I agree those country's are failing miserably.

the rich are already taxed out the ass. this helps no one, especially with all the regulations put on them. rich people give the not so rich people the jobs, you all need to remember that. the problem is the government squeezing everyone for all they can to feed their #ty system.

a reply to: crazyewok

Hey,
Yeah I get what you are saying. I didnt mean to lump all of Europe together. Hell, what I say varies from state to state in the US. Its just hard to talk about this without making a few generalizations.

I lived in Spain. I have only visited western Europe. I know lots of people from all over Europe though.

I didnt want to make it sound like Europeans live in squalor. Our civilization was started in Europe for crying out loud. I am not blind to that. I dont think that Europeans live badly, just differently.

Some live better than us!

As far as taxes, Europe is usually more highly taxed, but they also get allot more for their money.

It would be so very unjust to Tax Americans similarly since we dont get anything beyond basic things like roads and such and we even have idiots here who throw that in our face. Lol

If the government made a commitment to down scale military spending, corporate welfare and other wasteful ventures for tax money and instead invested in us then fine. Tax me to hell.

Since they will not and do not I will not even consider more taxes I wont see.

F that.

a reply to: tadaman

Ahh Spain.... I see where your coming from now.

Yess they do live quite a bit differently I agree.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And I agree US government doesn't know how to spend tax money.

I think it is likely to do with how you guys have so many different levels of government. But then that's a problem that is seeping in here too.

It's just Marxism. Marxism is a theory that is seriously flawed. The Progressive income tax was one of the major goals of the Communist Party. Taxing the rich is typical Marxist rhetoric and class warfare. Doesn't it ever get tiring?

a reply to: Iamschist

That is exactly what I have been telling people for the last 20 years. Not only would it tremendously increase the actual amount of tax funds going into the coffers it would dramatically decrease the actual tax burden on those making less than $50K a year. It would simplify the tax code to a point where anyone who can do basic math would understand it. The only caveat that I propose is that those who earn less than 150% of poverty level would not be taxed at all.

One more thing, let's return Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to a trust that is overseen by a group of non-government accountants rather than it being part of the governments General Fund.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Full agreement on your entire post with special kudos on the Net Worth portion.

first thing is first however.

We must overturn citizens united.

such a movement would need to start at the state level.

Tax the rich at 90% eh.

Mencken called it near 100 years ago.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

Achtung!

Zieg Heil!

Rob from the rich, and 'give' to the have nots so they can go out, and buy more stuff!!!!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

They enjoy the luxury that comes with being amongst the 1%...a 99% tax on alternate tax years (gotta give them an incentive to stay a 1%'er) for those 1% in the wealthiest brackets, would seem both appropriate and deliciously ironic.

As you can probably tell...i'm not a 1% 'er.

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes that is what you said, but I disagree. It seems harsh and unfair to me. The wealthy do help the rest of us through trickle down economics, and investment. I don't want to hear about foreign investments and outsourcing, even with that plenty of money is still spent domestically. I agree with Nechash don't advocate doing to someone else what you would not want done to you. There is a disparity, and the death of the middle class is definitely not a good thing, to punish someone for being wealthy is not the answer.

Trickle down economics has not worked. The conservative tax cuts and deregulations over the past 30 odd years started the move towards inequality.

The real wage for countless industries has not grown at all in around 30 years, while CEO and executive salaries have grown by multiples. Inequality is growing. Social mobility as measured by economic analyses is becoming very low in the US, contrary to the "Myth of the Meritocracy," i.e. "American Dream."