Socialism Failures

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh my, this seems way out of hand...

Regarding rich people , of course there is some who inherited it, and many of the ones that are "self-made" really benefited from privileges others have not had. But this really misses the point, I don't think very many people advocate for rich people to have to give up all of their money, generally people just don't like that there's as many loop holes that rich people and corporations can take advantage of, and perhaps that the top income bracket gets raised somewhat. Rich people would still be richer than others, but society around them would generally be more pleasant.

tbh, that's really good for rich people as well, it's odd to me that there aren't more rich people advocating for social safety nets, and who want to ensure that there's a stable and safe society for them to remain rich in.

Rich people, like the Clintons?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rich white people, like the Clintons?

Fixed your post for you, good sir!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fixed your post for you, good sir!

Oh yea, sorry, the Clintons are always overlooked at being white and Rich, this is confusing to me. As it stands it does not go both ways for ordinary folks. Bardock and others here worship at their feet.

The clintons made their money of scams and racketeering. But thats ok to Bardock.

But this really misses the point, I don't think very many people advocate for rich people to have to give up all of their money, generally people just don't like that there's as many loop holes that rich people and corporations can take advantage of, and perhaps that the top income bracket gets raised somewhat. Rich people would still be richer than others, but society around them would generally be more pleasant.

The best way to get a communist revolution is to continue expanding the gap between rich and poor by expanding salaries without having those same people pay back in to the system that made them rich in the first place. That's what started them last time, after all.

Heck, that's a large part of why we have social security- the rich of the time supported it because they didn't want an uprising.

And while a lot of rich people deny that they owe anything above the bare minimum, the *very* richest, your Warren Buffets and Bill Gates, are quite aware of that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The income inequality is larger now than it has ever been.

How do you propose we fix this problem?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How do you propose we fix this problem?

I don't think we can. Or at least I don't have a solution. The rich get richer while wanting more tax breaks to stay rich. The poor want the rich to pay for stuff. It's not going to end.

The top 1% have more money then 99% of America. These 1% are largely all liberal democrats names like Gates, DuPont, Rockafellers, Soros, Kennedys, Astors but of coarse its the republicans fault. They are the reason for the social inequality!

The top 1% don't really have political affiliations.

Oh but they do, they donate and have massive influence by the fact they don't go against the liberal agenda.

Not going against the liberal agenda doesn't mean they're liberal democrats dude, where are you getting this? They do what's best to maintain their wealth. It could be republican or democrat.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think we can. Or at least I don't have a solution. The rich get richer while wanting more tax breaks to stay rich. The poor want the rich to pay for stuff. It's not going to end.

There are ways.

One libertarian idea that I've really only ever discussed with one person (Bardock42) is the guaranteed minimum income. Meaning, every single person is guaranteed a minimum of $25,000 a year in income. Sort of like a minimum wage but just guaranteed income.

This would be accomplished through, say, an effective tax rate of 50% on people in the top 5%? Top 1%?

If everyone has a reasonably livable income, it doesn't matter how rich the rich become. Enough money for a decent dwelling (nothing fancy), all standard amenities (water, internet, heating and cooling, gas, etc.), enough money for modest clothing (not designer brands that are very expensive but stuff that is good enough that you could do a job interview in them), and modest food budgeting. Seems $25k a year in most places fits this budget.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are ways.

One libertarian idea that I've really only ever discussed with one person (Bardock42) is the guaranteed minimum income. Meaning, every single person is guaranteed a minimum of $25,000 a year in income. Sort of like a minimum wage but just guaranteed income.

This would be accomplished through, say, an effective tax rate of 50% on people in the top 5%? Top 1%?

If everyone has a reasonably livable income, it doesn't matter how rich the rich become. Enough money for a decent dwelling (nothing fancy), all standard amenities (water, internet, heating and cooling, gas, etc.), enough money for modest clothing (not designer brands that are very expensive but stuff that is good enough that you could do a job interview in them), and modest food budgeting. Seems $25k a year in most places fits this budget.

“The only thing government can give us that doesn't take away from others is freedom.”

One libertarian idea that I've really only ever discussed with one person (Bardock42) is the guaranteed minimum income. Meaning, every single person is guaranteed a minimum of $25,000 a year in income. Sort of like a minimum wage but just guaranteed income.

This would be accomplished through, say, an effective tax rate of 50% on people in the top 5%? Top 1%?

If everyone has a reasonably livable income, it doesn't matter how rich the rich become. Enough money for a decent dwelling (nothing fancy), all standard amenities (water, internet, heating and cooling, gas, etc.), enough money for modest clothing (not designer brands that are very expensive but stuff that is good enough that you could do a job interview in them), and modest food budgeting. Seems $25k a year in most places fits this budget.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nah that doesn't fly. 50%? Don't think so. [1]I mean you would really have to narrow it down to billionaires or so and even still, [2]they have to give up half of their annual income? [3]Kinda unAmerican. [4]You can't simply say "well they're billionaires so they can live just fine", because that misses the point.

We have never interacted so my posting style may appear to be a bit gruff or too harsh but please do not take it personally.

To address your post: you're wrong on at least 4 points. I added numbers to your post and addressed those, in order, below:

1. To hit the top 1%, income needs to be $521,411 a year.
2. That's not how income taxes have ever worked. That 50% applies to taxable income, not pure income. If taxes worked the way you described, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they'd all be paying 35%, already (they don't). That much additional tax revenue from the top 1% would be hilariously massive (if they all genuinely paid 35% of their income (pure income) in federal taxes).
3. Not a chance that it is "unAmerican." Marginal tax rates on the rich were as high as 91% back in the 1950s. The US had one of the biggest (if not the biggest economic booms) in human history in the 1950s.
4. They aren't just billionaires. And, yes, they'd still live just fine with 50% being their tax rate. They'd still be doing much much better than fine. And, no, it wouldn't just be billionaires who fit this: it'd be the income of people I mentioned in #1 and then up up to the richest. More specifically, they'd still prosper in luxury and decadence that very few humans will ever get to experience. 👆

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure 25k a year fits anywhere honestly. And really, I would like to take the federal government out of the equation.

So you like the idea of a guaranteed living income but only if the federal government was removed from this?

1. To hit the top 1%, income needs to be $521,411.
2. That's not how income taxes have ever worked. That 50% applies to taxable income, not pure income. If taxes worked the way you described, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they'd all be paying 35%, already (they don't). That much additional tax revenue from the top 1% would be hilariously massive (if they all genuinely paid 35% of their income (pure income) in federal taxes).

3. Not a chance that it is "unAmerican." Marginal tax rates on the rich were as high as 91% back in the 1950s. The US had one of the biggest (if not the biggest economic booms) in human history in the 1950s.

So you like the idea of a guaranteed living income but only if the federal government was removed from this?

Individual states should have more power over not just that but most everything else, imo. I really believe the real reason why they're trying to smear the Confederate flag is because they know it's a symbol of states' rights not slavery. The federal government wants more power while taking it away from individual states. They don't want anything to inspire people to oppose a federal government which is hellbent on acquiring more power.

Originally posted by Star428
Individual states should have more power over not just that but most everything else. I really believe the real reason why they're trying to smear the Confederate flag is because they know it's a symbol of states' rights not slavery. The federal government wants more power while taking it away from individual states. They don't want anything to inspire people to oppose a federal government which is hellbent on acquiring more power.

Its funny, the cities/states that have failed. Balitimore, Detroit, Chicago, are the ones run by the liberals.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yup, and the dollar was worth 99% more than it is today, rendering the 91% tax rate irrelevant.

Actually, it does the opposite: it makes my point even stronger. Your point, here, would be made if the dollar was much weaker, then. Meaning, you could prove that the 91% marginal tax rate was actually less than the current (and this current rate is theoretical as likely none of the rich actually pay it) marginal tax rate on the top 1% which is 35%.

I hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think 25k is enough to live off of. So that number isn't going to work. But I would be ok with a number if you removed the federal government from the equation and allowed the states to police this particular law.

You're not wrong. I'll prove why you are right.

The standard of living varies by state. And the top 1% also varies by state (as previously linked).

I'm saying the marginal tax rate in the 50s is irrelevant because of a gold backed dollar.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm saying the marginal tax rate in the 50s is irrelevant because of a gold backed dollar.

Whether or no a dollar is gold-backed is irrelevant when we have an actual measure of purchasing power.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't matter if the dollar was backed by hay or barley. All that matters is exactly how it functioned in "the wild." The purchasing power is the literally the best way to determine how valuable the dollar was then and now...because that's the exact measure we are looking for.