Best Sensitive, Caring New Social Program To Help World's Middle And Low Class:

We might called it flood down economics. Jobs, Gates, Bezos, Brin, Musk, etc invent great new stuff and make it available to everyone! In fact, the more they can make products available to the middle and low class of the world (who are most of the world's population ) the more $billions they can make.

The idea of taxing their success to impede it is simply a way to impede the increase in our standard of living. Who in their right mind would support that?

 

Yes that would be a dumb, and inappropriate act. Hence nobody has ever suggested taxing success in order to impede it. So you need not worry about something that doesn't exist, never has existed, and will never exist.

 

Top 1% are successful and taxed $2 trillion a year. 1+1=2

 

Now prove the purpose is to impede success.

 

they don't admit it is the purpose but obviously if you tax money from them you limit their success

 

Epic fail.

 

of course if true you would not be so afriad to say why. What do you learn from your fear?

 

I learned that you try very hard to intimidate and change the subject when you're cornered, and I remembered that I previously learned why I had you on "ignore" for months. That's ok. Back you go!

 

cornered?? if true you would be very very happy to show the entire world over and over again where a communist had a conservative/libertarian cornered!!

 

translation: its embarrasssing to see that every communist point I make is mistaken so I"ll ignore you and go on pretending communism is good even after I see I"m mistaken and even after it already killed 120 million!!

 

I don't know, there could be some truth to this in the medical field. Wouldn't any taxes just get passed on to patients in the form of higher costs? (And if that's the case it doesn't really seem to make much sense from an economic policy perspective to have a "sick tax", i.e. where patients who need more medical care have to pay more taxes than the general population)
Just a quick interjectory thought here.

 

sure, it would be same in any field. In this case taxing doctors big time on their big time incomes just encourages them to raise prices on their poor patients.

 

your premise is based on there being no other factors, other than monetary wealth that would imply a person being successful. "Top 1% are successful" is a very narrow perspective in fact it ignores how said individual came to be in the 1%. It is a well known fact of our society that people born into wealth tend to surprise, surprise stay wealthy. I wounder if you consider a child or grand child living off their family's established wealth a success? If you could prove that every person in the 1% earned every penny they own by their own 2 hands and started at the bottom like everyone else, then maybe you could have an argument, and that's a maybe. In your world of not taxing the 1% it would have the affect of creating an Oligarchy in america, well one worse then we currently have, one in which our very president is a part of ironically. Which is exactly why they are taxed at a higher rate.

 

so you are opposed to loving parents giving their kids their money and you want a Nazi govt to prevent it? Do you want your Nazi govt to prevent them from giving love stability guidance confidence and education to their children too?

 

Patients that use Tobacco in any form, do not need Healthcare, paid for by everyone else.

 

I am most certainly not against that, and it has nothing to do with love or Nazi's though i get the feeling that's your default. I am simply stating if we are to be a "Meritocracy" and not a "Oligarchy" then not only is your thought process wrong it is illogical. I would argue that there can be no "Merit" in something that is given to you, because of which; should be blatantly obvious you did not earn it. Furthermore the original topic was your BS line that the government taxes success, and from your tone i believe that makes you upset? You can call me a NAZI if you want i don't care because your opinion of me caries little meaning, however i would also argue that it is not a bad thing to tax or suppress success in some form. For example, the US as do many other free market economies have Monopoly & Antitrust laws. These laws in a sense limit or suppress success, wouldn't the ultimate success for a company be to control 100% market share? Monopoly laws tho strictly prohibit these types of things because the success of one company or one family for that fact, may not be a success for society. As a self proclaimed conservative/libertarian i'm sure you would agree that the reason a free market works in the first place, is competition. If one company beat out all the others that may be very successful for them, but that would be bad for competition in the market place as a whole. With no competition it would allow that company to set the price for whatever goods they product, and the end consumer would have no option but to pay. So in closing, if believing that our own government should 100% actively "Tax the Top 1% successfully $2 trillion a year" to ensure a free market stays free open and competitive, then f*** me i guess i'm a NAZI.

 

well, the 3 wise men gave Jesus gifts, Christmas is about gifts, parents give their kids gifts of money,love, faith, work ethic,genetics etc. If you don't like to give gifts that's fine but then you want your Nazi friends with guns to prevent others from giving gifts? And all so your libNazi friends can give gifts with the stolen money to those they prefer get the gifts??

 

of course that's liberal and absurd in a free society given that the higher the price and the lower the quality of a monopolist's products the more they encourage competition. The best way to stay a monopolist to have a price and quality that nobody can match or beat. Now do you understand?

 

actually they tax the 1% for revenue and don't inquire at all about whether doing so prevents monopoly. Do you understand?

 

You still peddling supple side myths? Impressive! When you going to wheel out the unicorn?

 

what myths?? We got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new Republican capitalist inventions not because of libcommie taxing and spending

 

You do realise that supply side economics is a recent phenomena don't you? You do realise that it was a cretinous reaction to bastardised Keynesianism and added nothing to our economic understanding?

 

defined first by George Gilder who did not think it recent at all. Like austerity its just another word for capitalism that people use because liberalism has given capitalism a bad name or because they want to pretend they have a new idea!!

 

What is that given General Theory was just a long long libnazi book about how in theory liberal govt could, in the hands of the Apostle, control economy 10001 different ways.

 

nothing?? Samuelson said soviet planned economies could grow faster than capitalist economies while they were slowly starving 120 million to death!! Keynes added nothing other than to reinforce that libcommiesim does not work!