Socialists, who do you plan to tax?

Really. I would like to know where socialists think the money will come from to finance thier utopia. Here is how it will work: If you raise taxes on the 1%ers they can just leave the country. It happened in France.

In todays global community those with the means can pick up and leave a country that taxes or regulates too much. It is the smart thing to do. This means the 1%ers and big corporations will just leave.

So who does that leave? Who is left to tax?

 

So please explain why they haven't left yet.

 

I thought socialists believed the wealthy pay little taxes? Are you saying the socialists have their utopia now?

 

So the socialists know I am correct. What happens is that socialism kills the economy and society downward spirals until the people are dirt poor and dependent on a government that has total control over them. This is the socialists utopia.....

 

Same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum - the aristocracy (or big business) controls all the wealth until the people
are dirt poor and dependent on a few landlords that have total control over them.

The trick is to find a balance - but when things get whacko, and either the government controls everything or a very small percentage
of the population control all the wealth, then history usually shows bloody revolution.

Where is the tipping point? "Let them eat cake," and "Today we are rationing bread".

Today, in this country, I'm afraid we may be getting closer to such a small percentage of people controlling such a vast amount of wealth that things could get ugly. And I'm too close to enjoying a decent retirement to want that.

 

I agree. There needs to be a balance. The closer I get to retirement the more socialist I get.

 

Clueless is clueless.

This reveals the poverty of your understanding of socialism. You describe a pony and call it a boat and try to row it!

 

The wealthy would tolerate higher taxes for a little while. The ones that feel guilty for being wealthy anyway. But eventually they would leave and then taxes would need to be raised more and even more would leave. The US government could not tax beyond its borders so who else is left to tax?

 

No, anyone with actual knowledge of leading socialist theory and practice is laughing so hard at you that they can't catch their breath.

 

And you fail to even address the topic. Nice going.

- - - Updated - - -

So even the "eggsperts" cannot answer the question? That is quite telling.

 

Ahhh the old Randian John Galt nonsense.

They ain't leaving....

- - - Updated - - -

And you base these opinions on what exactly?

 

You have seen me hold my own quite well in any discussion, debate, or argument over socialism. I didn't reply to your nonsense because that is exactly what it is. Try not to injure yourself while patting yourself on your back, Donald.

 

We certainly haven't seemed you do anything of the sort. Socialism is a failed experiment, how many Bolsheviks had to die to prove you wrong?

 

See? You too show the poverty of your knowledge. And in your case we're talking real poverty, as in zero.

 

Kode.........you don't even understand capitalism, Marx would NEVER hire you.

 

Cut our stupidly high defense spending, cut some foreign aid to Israel, legalize and tax most drugs, legalize and tax prostitution, end corporate welfare, close loopholes and crack down on dodgers, and increase the number of income tax brackets to tax those making over $10 million at 50% (which still leaves them rich).

 

It isn't an issue for the Socialists in case you haven't noticed Trump is in the White House and the construction of his wall his infrastructure program is all going to cost a lot of money so the tax increases will be coming from Trump not the Socialist

 

Firstly, taxes are at historically low rates. This notion of excessive taxation is simply ludicrous.

If people are making their money here it is still taxable income. The same is true of corporations.

Demanding a reasonable wealth distribution does not make one a socialist. The disparity in wealth is simply intolerable. Eventually this alone will result in a civil war.

1% has more than the bottom 90%. Is this your idea of the American dream?

 

Capitalists understand that wealth is created, so you're going to have to take another tact. Only commies think there is only so much wealth and there needs to be some kind of sharing of the limited wealth available.

If you want money, then make it! Stop worrying about what others have and make your own.

 

Where would they leave to? Monaco? The tax havens like Monaco only work because they mooch off the defense protection from the surrounding European "socialist" countries.

The wealthy know well enough that there is no better system than the US system of strong laws with actual enforcement and defense to protect their stash from looters and the pitchforks. And for that privilege they pay a relatively reasonable tax price.

Of course, in their desire to keep more of their stash, they push to deconstruct the very system that is so favorable to them -- eventually enabling the pitchforks.

 

Socialists, liberals, progressives ... whenever confronted by tax revenue vs. entitlement expenditure, just increase deficit spending. Future tax payers are forced provide for their existence. Sadly, much has been wasted on the public education of these future tax payers, who will likely only earn minimum wage, and offset very little debt. Hence the "drive for $15" if you can't educate ... just over compensate ...

 

They do not seem to have a firm grasp on economic fundamentals. Socialism fails. I do not understand why some cling to it.

 

Tax The "Non-Profits"

Massive amounts of wealth, tax sheltered, with oppressive agendas.

Our Constitution enshrines two bedrock principles of Western liberal democracies: limited government and equal opportunity. Does the legal treatment of the charitable sector further these ideals, or undermine them?

The tax sheltered treatment undermines the principle of limited government by coercing taxpayers to subsidize activities that are not the legitimate purview of government. The tax sheltered treatment increases the head-start of the wealthy and by giving wealthy taxpayers more say over government resources than poorer taxpayers.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_...zing-charity-liberally-today-at-columbia.html

 

Because it works.

 

Donald Trump made headlines a few weeks ago by suggesting on Twitter that the federal government should cut off funding to UC Berkeley as a result of the Milo incident. While this provocation was characteristically hyperbolic, a growing number of serious thinkers really are considering ways that the government might substantially restrict the flow of subsidies to selective American universities whose priorities aren’t necessarily in line with the public’s. . . .

There are indications that policymakers and voters might be drawn to some of these ideas. Connecticut’s Democratic legislature recently mulled the tax-exempt status of Yale’s $23 billion dollar endowment. Residents of Princeton, New Jersey filed a lawsuit (settled in the fall) to force their local university to pay property taxes. And Congressional Republicans have been scrutinizing the way well-endowed colleges spend their tax-subsidized war chests.

Academia likes to think of itself as an independent enclave and that any government pressure to change its ways, unless it is in service of left-wing ideological goals in areas like Title IX or affirmative action, amounts to an attack on the integrity of higher education. And while universities should be afforded broad latitude to govern themselves, it’s important for academic leaders to remember the extent to which they are reliant on a massive network of government subsidies—both in the form of explicit grants and carve-outs woven into the tax code—and that the political basis for their privileged position is looking more tenuous by the day.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/24/how-much-should-the-government-subsidize-harvard/