Originally posted by Emperordmb
You aren't challenging the point that this would be terrible for our economy. You're just reiterating what I've already conceded.
"The policy that was in place for much of the modern era, and particularly during times of middle-class economic prosperity, will not work today, because reasons."
You only think the policy is radical, because the rate has never been that high in your lifetime.
The wealthy want you to believe their tax rate is too high, and they have trained you to bark on command to protect their interests, "This will be disastrous for the economy. The wealthy are job creators, and if we raise their taxes, they will create fewer jobs, which will have a trickle-down effect on the rest of us."
The reality is that tax breaks for wealthy people do not lead to job creation, it leads to the wealthy hoarding more wealth.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"The policy that was in place for much of the modern era, and particularly during times of middle-class economic prosperity, will not work today, because reasons."You only think the policy is radical, because the rate has never been that high in your lifetime.
The wealthy want you to believe their tax rate is too high, and they have trained you to bark on command to protect their interests, "This will be disastrous for the economy. The wealthy are job creators, and if we raise their taxes, they will create fewer jobs, which will have a trickle-down effect on the rest of us."
The reality is that tax breaks for wealthy people do not lead to job creation, it leads to the wealthy hoarding more wealth.
I can give a reason it won't work anymore:
Corporate responsibility to shareholders.
The courts enforce a policy where businesses are money making machines for investors, and nothing else. Tax rates really won't fix that, either way.
And what happens when wealthy people are less interested in living or doing business here Adam? What happens when they've decided they've found a better arrangement elsewhere?
Is that just fantasy wealthy elite brainwashing rather than the simple logic that it's a disincentive for someone to do business in the US if their success means more than half of their income will be taken away from them?
Also taking away more than half of someone's income is something I firmly object to on principle.
Originally posted by EmperordmbAnd where would that be? I'm curious to see this magical, untapped land that fits both conditions of:
What happens when they've decided they've found a better arrangement elsewhere?
Its tax codes are friendlier to large businesses then the American tax code
and
The citizens of said company have buying power that rivals that of an American citizen
Because you need both to be a better arrangement. You can go to Mexico and you might pay less taxes, but Mexicans won't buy your televisions, cars and other frivolous, consumerist garbage at the rate Americans do. You could also try going to Australia or Canada or Sweden, places where first-world citizens have more disposable income, but those countries also don't deep-throat corporate cock the way we do here, so enjoy getting bent over even harder in regards to taxes (and also regulations).
Originally posted by EmperordmbWhy is that if someone's income is incredibly disproportionate compared to others?
Also taking away more than half of someone's income is something I firmly object to on principle.
If you were to take over half of the average person's income, they would be phucked without lube. Affording basic needs like food, housing healthcare, and transportation would become insanely difficult or even impossible for them.
For someone who makes 10,000,000 or more a year, what are they losing by comparison? Their basic needs are still more than met, and their disposal income allows them to live in far greater luxury than most people.
You are forgetting Jesus' quote about the rich.
"Yay my children, and bend at the waist for those above your station and present yourself to them, and accept what they give you, what they decide you are worth, for you are worth nothing more and they deserve all they have and then more, for they are your better and if you cannot afford health care then that is what you must suffer, for their Lamborgini is of greater importance. If you cannot afford food, then that is what you must suffer, for their ability to afford to fly to Taiwan and make love to the little children is of greater importance. It is their convenience that must take priority over the things you need to live. Yay my child, don't forget the lube. "
Originally posted by NemeBro
Why is that if someone's income is incredibly disproportionate compared to others?If you were to take over half of the average person's income, they would be phucked without lube. Affording basic needs like food, housing healthcare, and transportation would become insanely difficult or even impossible for them.
For someone who makes 10,000,000 or more a year, what are they losing by comparison? Their basic needs are still more than met, and their disposal income allows them to live in far greater luxury than most people.
No one "needs" a hundred million dollars.
Otoh, the American left does talk about "fairness" a lot. Nothing much fair about arbitrarily taking what you want from someone, whether they could afford it or not.
Originally posted by BackFire
You are forgetting Jesus' quote about the rich."Yay my children, and bend at the waist for those above your station and present yourself to them, and accept what they give you, what they decide you are worth, for you are worth nothing more and they deserve all they have and then more, for they are your better and if you cannot afford health care then that is what you must suffer, for their Lamborgini is of greater importance. If you cannot afford food, then that is what you must suffer, for their ability to afford to fly to Taiwan and make love to the little children is of greater importance. It is their convenience that must take priority over the things you need to live. Yay my child, don't forget the lube. "