|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone?
On my 5th cell phone and computer of the year? I'd have a hard time thinking people would be sympathetic to my plight?
|
Also, why the hell do I care about what rich people lose out on? They don’t care about me and my problems.
|
|
|
On May 08 2019 09:50 Plansix wrote:
Also, why the hell do I care about what rich people lose out on? They don’t care about me and my problems.
Nobody cares about you or your problems.
I want the law to be just to me, so I want it to be just for everybody who's important to me, anyone I might become, and in general, everyone.
I think taking a lot of money away from someone who works hard is not right. Currently, I'm not in a relationship, and don't have kids, it's a conscious decision I made to focus all my energy on my career... I didn't have some special head start, I did my analysis, and thought I'd be better off working hard, saving up a lot of money, and living off my investments a decade down the road... Then I can think about a family and whatnot.
Simply because choosing this life and making good money I need to pay a significantly higher portion of my income to taxes. In my situation, it doesn't really equalize anything, both of my theoretical selves had the same option. Anyway, I think the highest tax bracket when considering every form of taxing for any product should never be more than 50%, and right now the US exceeds that when you add up income, state, sales, and sin taxes on certain products.
It's like modern day slavery, someone gets the majority of your benefit of your hard work. Just a few weeks ago we hired a few temps through an employment agency, and they got paid $15/h while we paid the agency $38/h, it made me so angry, injustices like that should never be allowed to happen. It's way worse than brothels to me, because they take way more of your money, and not only are you giving them your body to use, but you're required to use much more of your body in performing fatiguing work.
At the end of the day, I view the problem of taxation as all forms of government combined should receive 20-25% of the GDP, taxes should never be raised above those levels, any higher and the country is trying to tax outside of its means. People get too caught up on whether the net tax rate should be 25% or 35%, then this is what we squabble about in politics... Versus just increasing the GDP of the economy by 40% and having the same tax base, and a lot more happier people. Always when discussing tax rates, the differences are so minor it's not worth the energy to discuss, just focus all your effort on technological innovation, and more money will come in.
|
On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone?
We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing.
|
On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing.
The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries.
You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? You can have a typical person on TL, they end up buying a few bitcoins, sell, and boom, they can be millionaires. They took risks, we're smart, maybe a bit lucky, but how do you now go about rationalizing trying to take half their stuff.
Apologies, didn't want to go USPT here (I don't go in there, and the nominees sparked my interest a little bit) , I'll be following it closely and see in which direction the nominees are headed, but I'd be very happy if a fiscal conservative comes out on top, with slightly left leaning social policy, but that's maybe a pipe dream at this point.
|
On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries. You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? You can have a typical person on TL, they end up buying a few bitcoins, sell, and boom, they can be millionaires. They took risks, we're smart, maybe a bit lucky, but how do you now go about rationalizing trying to take half their stuff.
It's hard to put into words how much I don't empathize. Sorry.
|
On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries. You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy?
Did I miss the part where they enslaved wealthy people, systematically destroyed their culture/families/histories, denied them basic human and civil rights up through the current day or is the comparison between wealthy people and Black people offensively off base?
I'm definitely leaning toward the latter.
I mean capitalism definitely motivates people to do what's best for them (at least according to capitalism) and it definitely leads to powerful people subjugating less powerful people but the innovation thing is less clear. I don't even think wealthy people say/believe this anyway. Billionaire innovators are never like "the inspiration for my latest innovation was my desire for a 3rd yacht!"
Conmen and addicts will tell you that their source for innovation is an insatiable desire for more than they need or should have.
|
|
|
On May 08 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries. You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? Did I miss the part where they enslaved wealthy people, systematically destroyed their culture/families/histories, denied them basic human and civil rights up through the current day or is the comparison between wealthy people and Black people offensively off base? I'm definitely leaning toward the latter. I mean capitalism definitely motivates people to do what's best for them (at least according to capitalism) and it definitely leads to powerful people subjugating less powerful people but the innovation thing is less clear. I don't even think wealthy people say/believe this anyway. Billionaire innovators are never like "the inspiration for my latest innovation was my desire for a 3rd yacht!" Conmen and addicts will tell you that their source for innovation is an insatiable desire for more than they need or should have.
I'm all for social protections for less wealthy people, a strong labor law in particular (right now in Alberta its atrocious), but you don't need to take 2/3rd of their money to make that happen.
The US has 600 billionaires, you're not including that the majority of wealthy people are honest hard working people who want to have freedom to have more things, and they dedicated big chunks of their life to make it possible. These people shouldn't be allowed to abuse the less wealthy, and they contribute much more to society than the less wealthy people already, trying to squeeze for every last dollar isn't right.
|
My main beef isn't with the rich in general but with the capitalists. Not a fan of exploitation. If you're a succesful singer presumably you aren't exploiting people so that's fine in theory.
That being said I still won't cry because they're making a comically large amount of money instead of a societal order threateningly large amount of money. Please spare me, or don't be surprised if I pull out the world's tiniest violin.
|
On May 08 2019 13:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries. You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? Did I miss the part where they enslaved wealthy people, systematically destroyed their culture/families/histories, denied them basic human and civil rights up through the current day or is the comparison between wealthy people and Black people offensively off base? I'm definitely leaning toward the latter. I mean capitalism definitely motivates people to do what's best for them (at least according to capitalism) and it definitely leads to powerful people subjugating less powerful people but the innovation thing is less clear. I don't even think wealthy people say/believe this anyway. Billionaire innovators are never like "the inspiration for my latest innovation was my desire for a 3rd yacht!" Conmen and addicts will tell you that their source for innovation is an insatiable desire for more than they need or should have. I'm all for social protections for less wealthy people, a strong labor law in particular (right now in Alberta its atrocious), but you don't need to take 2/3rd of their money to make that happen. The US has 600 billionaires, you're not including that the majority of wealthy people are honest hard working people who want to have freedom to have more things, and they dedicated big chunks of their life to make it possible. These people shouldn't be allowed to abuse the less wealthy, and they contribute much more to society than the less wealthy people already, trying to squeeze for every last dollar isn't right.
I think we have fundamentally different views of how capitalism works that we're unlikely to sort out here. Also I don't think giving people the freedom for more things is inherently good and think the materialism it stems from greatly contributes to climate change which threatens all of humanity.
|
United States10325 Posts
where the hell is andrew yang.
|
On May 08 2019 13:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 09:50 Plansix wrote:
Also, why the hell do I care about what rich people lose out on? They don’t care about me and my problems. Nobody cares about you or your problems. I want the law to be just to me, so I want it to be just for everybody who's important to me, anyone I might become, and in general, everyone. I think taking a lot of money away from someone who works hard is not right. Currently, I'm not in a relationship, and don't have kids, it's a conscious decision I made to focus all my energy on my career... I didn't have some special head start, I did my analysis, and thought I'd be better off working hard, saving up a lot of money, and living off my investments a decade down the road... Then I can think about a family and whatnot. Simply because choosing this life and making good money I need to pay a significantly higher portion of my income to taxes. In my situation, it doesn't really equalize anything, both of my theoretical selves had the same option. Anyway, I think the highest tax bracket when considering every form of taxing for any product should never be more than 50%, and right now the US exceeds that when you add up income, state, sales, and sin taxes on certain products. It's like modern day slavery, someone gets the majority of your benefit of your hard work. Just a few weeks ago we hired a few temps through an employment agency, and they got paid $15/h while we paid the agency $38/h, it made me so angry, injustices like that should never be allowed to happen. It's way worse than brothels to me, because they take way more of your money, and not only are you giving them your body to use, but you're required to use much more of your body in performing fatiguing work. At the end of the day, I view the problem of taxation as all forms of government combined should receive 20-25% of the GDP, taxes should never be raised above those levels, any higher and the country is trying to tax outside of its means. People get too caught up on whether the net tax rate should be 25% or 35%, then this is what we squabble about in politics... Versus just increasing the GDP of the economy by 40% and having the same tax base, and a lot more happier people. Always when discussing tax rates, the differences are so minor it's not worth the energy to discuss, just focus all your effort on technological innovation, and more money will come in.
Today I learned that only rich people "work hard", and that taxes are akin to literal slavery.
Rich people have the most freedom, thanks to their wealth. They have tons of options if they want to make a huge change in their lives, from leaving their job to moving to trying some other lifestyle change. Most middle and working class families can't do that, which is why they're frequently recognized as "slaves" to their jobs. They're stuck.
But sure, if someone has $10 billion and you take a few of those billions of dollars (that literally aren't being used anyway) away to save the lives of others, well that's just awful! It's not unethical to help others with it; it's greedy to hoard it.
|
On May 08 2019 00:48 Bagration wrote:
Yikes - not exactly a strong field of candidates. The Republican wins at the state and local levels over the past decade has limited the positions for rising Democrats, and we're starting to see the impact of this. Plus, the emphasis on identity politics appears to have further winnowed the field.
Now you're stuck with candidates that are way too old (e.g., Biden, Sanders), or have limited experience (Pete B.)
Trump, Biden, and Bernie are all in their 70s, and they're the 3 most popular candidates, so you're in the minority if you think they're too old.
There are plenty of candidates with some great ideas and actual plans too. Bernie, Warren, Harris, Yang, and to a lesser extent Pete (among others) have successfully moved the conversation more to the left, with progressive ideas and how to implement them. That's exactly what we need.
On May 08 2019 13:59 FlaShFTW wrote:
where the hell is andrew yang.
Asked and answered on page one 
|
Can someone briefly explain me what is even the point of so many people running for the nomination? Does anyone without huge name value has any realistic chance? If yes, what are the factors influencing who gains votes?
|
On May 08 2019 19:19 opisska wrote:
Can someone briefly explain me what is even the point of so many people running for the nomination? Does anyone without huge name value has any realistic chance? If yes, what are the factors influencing who gains votes?
The bottom 2/3 of candidates will get less than 1% of the Democratic primary votes each, but they're not running with the expectation of a dark horse victory; they're merely running so that they have name recognition for the next few election cycles. They're playing the long game politically, which isn't a bad decision for them.
|
On May 08 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 19:19 opisska wrote:
Can someone briefly explain me what is even the point of so many people running for the nomination? Does anyone without huge name value has any realistic chance? If yes, what are the factors influencing who gains votes? The bottom 2/3 of candidates will get less than 1% of the Democratic primary votes each, but they're not running with the expectation of a dark horse victory; they're merely running so that they have name recognition for the next few election cycles. They're playing the long game politically, which isn't a bad decision for them.
Oh, that makes good sense. It's still super hard to judge from the outside who are the people within US politics with perspective/inuulence, because besides the obvious top names, it's all kinda murky. In EU politics, it's much easier, because it's about parties, which have some longevity and aren't that many, while with the power focused on single people in US, it's completely opposite.
|
On May 08 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 19:19 opisska wrote:
Can someone briefly explain me what is even the point of so many people running for the nomination? Does anyone without huge name value has any realistic chance? If yes, what are the factors influencing who gains votes? The bottom 2/3 of candidates will get less than 1% of the Democratic primary votes each, but they're not running with the expectation of a dark horse victory; they're merely running so that they have name recognition for the next few election cycles. They're playing the long game politically, which isn't a bad decision for them.
I'd just add that plenty don't have any real presidential ambitions and just want an online fundraising base they can tap for local/state races.
|
On May 08 2019 13:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:28 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 08 2019 13:22 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2019 08:53 Bourgeois wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself. How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to. Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone? We live in a society that massively overattends to the needs of the wealthy and powerful and yet we still manage to get these "Won't somebody think of the poor rich people?", it's amazing. The primary driver to a healthy economy is technological innovation, good luck getting that when you're taxing people at 65%... I mean I guess for a country like Switzerland it's easy, because they can just piggyback off of the innovation from other countries. You guys are trying to marginalize "rich" people too much. They're no different than the average person here, I don't see people making arguments for why black people aren't deserving of certain things, so why is it so easy to marginalize the wealthy? You can have a typical person on TL, they end up buying a few bitcoins, sell, and boom, they can be millionaires. They took risks, we're smart, maybe a bit lucky, but how do you now go about rationalizing trying to take half their stuff. It's hard to put into words how much I don't empathize. Sorry.
The aristocracy will always have its defenders, arguing that the wealth do so much for us and its unfair to expect them to do more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
