Socialism Failures

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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).

Funny you bring this up. I have a rich uncle that is prolly worth 50-100 million. He is a liberal democrat. Now when we talk about politics and taxes and stuff its interesting. He lives on a lot of land, couple hundred acres. When he builds a new building, he puts it above ground without a concrete foundation cause he does not have to pay taxes on it because its a non permanent structure. Even the rich ones, go out of their way to avoid taxes. What help do the poor have.

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

Yes, the Clintons are rich and should be taxed accordingly.

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.

I'm a fan of this (or a negative tax rate), particularly as automation may destroy the need for a lot of labor.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, the Clintons are rich and should be taxed accordingly.

I'm a fan of this (or a negative tax rate), particularly as automation may destroy the need for a lot of labor.

Cept they are not. And they have all their overseas bank accounts to avoid those taxes.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Cept they are not. And they have all their overseas bank accounts to avoid those taxes.

That's part of why I think the IRS should be better funded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's part of why I think the IRS should be better funded.

That's not really the problem.

The tax policy, itself, is the problem. More funding for the IRS to do more investigating and collection won't solve the huge tax loophole issues.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's part of why I think the IRS should be better funded.

You think the IRS can do anything to the Clintons? 😂

They could not even get Timothy to pay his taxes or Al Sharpton.

If your are liberal elite in Washington and you are the chosen, its hands off.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not really the problem.

The tax policy, itself, is the problem. More funding for the IRS to do more investigating and collection won't solve the huge tax loophole issues.

That's also why I think the tax policy should be changed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's also why I think the tax policy should be changed.

Do you pay taxes here?

Yeah, I pay taxes here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I pay taxes here.

So you want your tax code changed?

Yeah, I want some adjustments to the German tax code.

And I think changing the US tax code is a very good idea...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I want some adjustments to the German tax code.

And I think changing the US tax code is a very good idea...

What do you want changed in Germany?

Well, ideally and somewhat unrealistically I'd like a complete overhaul of taxation, that treats all money that someone receives or earns the same and applies a progressive taxation to it (like throwint together capital gains, income tax, inheritance tax). More realistically I guess the top tax bracket could be raised.

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.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Then I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying we had a ridiculously high marginal tax rate in the 50s (91%), but that is because of the strength(purchasing power) of the dollar. If we are to compare proportionally to today's dollar strength, the tax rate should be much lower, no?

No. The purchasing power of a currency does not have anything to do with the tax rate.

Perhaps you are saying that on average people had more purchasing power with what was left after the tax deduction, that is somewhat hard to compare though (for example no one could buy iPhones), but the way you phrase it is incorrect.

No. The purchasing power of a currency does not have anything to do with the tax rate.

Perhaps you are saying that on average people had more purchasing power with what was left after the tax deduction, that is somewhat hard to compare though (for example no one could buy iPhones), but the way you phrase it is incorrect.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I know it doesn't, I just brought it up as a rebuttal to "we had super high taxes in the 50s". The purchasing power makes that tax rate irrelevant since the dollar was worth 99% more than it is today.

No, it doesn't make the tax rate irrelevant. People also had less dollars then as well. You are making the same mistake in how you phrase it again.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I am saying that on average, people had more purchasing power in the 50s than today, even with the 91% marginal tax rate for the rich.

Here you phrase it correctly. Do you have evidence for that?

No, it doesn't make the tax rate irrelevant. People also had less dollars then as well. You are making the same mistake in how you phrase it again.

Here you phrase it correctly. Do you have evidence for that?

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Here are the historical inflation rates
http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=10&year=1950
Here you can calculate how much your dollar is worth in the 50s vs. today. But it's essentially what I said in the first paragraph.

Originally posted by psmith81992
By saying "people also had less dollars", you're taking purchasing power out of the equation. My argument relies on purchasing power, which with an apples to apples comparison makes the 1950s more lucrative. Now if you have some kind of graph or information on the increase of real dollars today compared to the 50s, then we could see if the tax rate is relevant or not.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
Here are the historical inflation rates
http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=10&year=1950
Here you can calculate how much your dollar is worth in the 50s vs. today. But it's essentially what I said in the first paragraph.

What you have to show is that, after tax, Americans were on average able to purchase more or at least the same as they are now.

Funny a $1 can't even buy you a coke anymore.