High taxes on the super-rich are back in vogue

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    To reduce wealth inequality, top income Tax level must go UP.


    The only real definite way to avoid GST increase is to increase the maximum income tax level.

    In USA in 1930s to 1980s, it was 78%.

    It is now down 35% but calls are for the top tax rate to increase again to pay for social programmes to uplift low wage workers etc.

    There is also a movement against rent seeking: e.g. curb chief executive pay, reduce patent periods to prevent patent owners from excessive rent seeking etc etc.
    ==============
    Economic Affairs
    High taxes on the super-rich are back in vogue

    Vikram Khanna
    PUBLISHED on 27 February 2019.
    A tax counter-revolution may be under way
    Could a new tax revolution be on the cards that will end the long era of low taxes for the super-rich? We don't know yet, but in the United States, the battle lines are being drawn.

    The newly elected US Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines recently when she proposed a top marginal tax rate of 70 per cent on incomes of US$10 million (S$13.5 million) or more. The left-of-centre US politician and presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, proposes a 2 per cent "ultramillionaire wealth tax" on people with a net worth of US$50 million and an additional 1 per cent on those worth more than US$1 billion. This tax would be levied on the combined value of all assets, including financial assets and real estate held both within and outside the US... ...

    https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/high-taxes-on-the-super-rich-are-back-in-vogue

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,077
    Likes Received:
    4,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They're not "back in vogue". They were always in need of being over 50% in a high income bracket.
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The moment you advocate income tax, you're wrong. The only effective way to reduce excessive inequalities of wealth, income and condition is by removing or taxing away PRIVILEGE, because PRIVILEGE is the source of the problem. No other measure can possibly work in the long run.
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    95,296
    Likes Received:
    12,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Income equality or lack thereof is of no business or concern of the federal government. It has no authority to try and regulate the incomes or wealth of the citizens and in fact quite the opposite it is to protect it from such government seizure and redistribution.

    Marginal rates, but there were huge deductions and credits and EFFECTIVE tax rates were about the same.

    And I would remind you that after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cut and the Bush43/Republican tax rate cuts tax revenues soared and we not only have measly deficits with the latter but actual surpluses with the former.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Then why are they doing everything they can to aggravate it?
    ROTFL!! It is government that is shoveling money into the pockets of the privileged at the expense of the productive. Duh.
     
  6. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    95,296
    Likes Received:
    12,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They aren't that I know of.

    You mean the privileged who live off government welfare and other subsistence programs paid for by someone else who earned it? Taxing profits IS at the expense of the productive, those who put together the capital to build those businesses and factories. I don't see where government is shoveling them money but in fact want to take more of it from them as the Democrat candidates wanting to increase corporate taxes and taxes on capital gains.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Who gives bank owners the privilege of issuing money in order to charge interest on it? Who gives IP owners their monopolies?
    No, I mean the privileged, unproductive rich who are legally entitled to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. Such subsidies give rich, greedy takers an order of magnitude more of GDP than the unproductive poor (~40% vs 4%), even though they number an order of magnitude fewer (1% of the population vs 10%).
    Profits might be earned by productive contribution or taken by privilege. The great majority are the latter; but I agree that taxing profits, like taxing income, taxes those who produce and those who take indiscriminately.
    Who issues and enforces the privileges that legally entitle them to take from the community without making any commensurate contribution in return?
    Capital gains are almost never earned by any commensurate contribution to production. They are simply an increase in the expected amount that can be taken.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 6:36 PM
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    95,296
    Likes Received:
    12,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The investors and depositors. It is regulated by the government and federal reserve.

    Well if it is an existing market they don't have one if it is a new market they have one until a competitor shows up but in answer the investors who put up the capital.

    UNproductive compared to who else? What would make them more productive? Most rich people are so because they started and run businesses, that is VERY productive.


    I have no idea what you are saying here, they pay people for the work they provide.

    Taken from whom and how?

    Why does it matter?

    They are earned by that capital being put to a productive and profitable use growing the economy. And we collected double the capital gains tax revenues at Bush43's 15% rate than we did at Clinton's 29%. four times the realizations which reflect economic activity and growth. That's how he and the Republicans got the deficit down to a paltry $161B in 2007.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,803
    Likes Received:
    4,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any raise on taxes that doesnt include the elimination of loopholes and bailouts is fail.

    If the 'super rich' were paying at the current rate, there wouldn't be any problems. But the 'super rich' tend to lobby to alter the tax code and set up bailouts so they can get out of it regardless what the rate actually is, so their competitors get hit instead. Thats why they're 'too big to fail' (too rich to get punished). And all the 'rich have too much' crowd are their useful idiots helping them monopolize.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019 at 9:06 PM
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,805
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, that's just objectively false. If I don't have a government-issued bank license, I can't do what banks do no matter how many investors and depositors I have.
    Which privilege them to create money in order to charge interest on it.
    Wrong again. Government does. It's in the US Constitution.
    Those who contribute to production of goods and services.
    Contributing to production instead of taking from it.
    No, most rich people are rich because they bought land, which the community then increased in value for them. The business owners who get rich almost always get rich by owning the land under their premises, not by doing anything productive.
    Nope.
    From everyone, by legally removing their rights to liberty and pocketing the taxes on their production.
    Because it is government.
    Nope. There is nothing productive about owning land while the community makes it more valuable with no contribution from you.
    It only reflects seizure of an opportunity to pocket publicly created value and repay the minimum fraction of it in taxes.
    Clinton and the Democrats eliminated the deficit entirely. Duh.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019 at 7:14 PM
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    95,296
    Likes Received:
    12,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Objectively correct the government merely sets the rules and enforces. The investors and depositors put up the capital and take the risk and that is to whom the board is beholding. The FED is nothing more than an economic utility in a necessary economic system.

    You mean as in labor? Labor is just an expense in producing goods or providing services. What would make those who create these business from the accumulation of putting together the capital, developing the business plan, building, equipping, staffing, permitting, obtaining necessary suppliers and supplies, obtaining the credit lines and banking lines and on and on more productive than they actually are. How do you measure that productivity to that of the person operating drill press?

    If it increased in value it wasn't because they just sat there and watched the grass grow else EVERYONE could be rich just buy some land and then sit on your arse.

    Yep, an employer pays people for work they provide. What do you think they pay them for?

    Who gets taxed on their production?

    Why does that make a difference?

    Nope. There is nothing productive about owning land while the community makes it more valuable with no contribution from you.

    It reflects a good use of capital to create a profit and income created by a private business. Repaid to whom, who is owed by whom?

    Ahhh nope, Gingrich and Kasich and their budgets which they forced Bill Clinton to sign, their welfare reform and their spending restraint is what produced them. And Bush and the Republicans had them heading back to surplus until the Democrats took back the Congress in 2007.
     

Share This Page