Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,534
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK now let me give you a little history lesson. The beginnings of the Federal Reserve go all the way back to the bankruptcy of the United States Government in 1893. The United States went bankrupt due to excessive government spending which drained the Treasury at a time when the government backed its silver money with gold. The market price of silver fell, and the demand for gold exchange could not be met due to lack of money in the Treasury. The country was basically bankrupt. That is when they made a deal with JP Morgan. JP Morgan ran Wall St, and he arranged to bail out the US Government by giving them gold for Treasury Bonds, He then auctioned the bonds. Sound familiar? The bail out was successful, and all of Washington DC was in debt to JP Morgan for saving their butts from being hanged by angry countrymen. JP Morgan then collected on that debt by writing and pushing thru the Federal Reserve Act in which he would form the Federal Reserve and finance the government in the same manner as he had bailed them out. They would print up debt instruments borrowing at interest and he would buy the "Treasuries" and auction them. The Treasury was allowed to print a limited amount of cash interest free, but the majority of the countries money would have to be borrowed at interest. The Treasury was stopped from producing its own currency in 1964, and the Government was totally dependent upon the Federal Reserve to this day.
     
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm fairly well up clued up on history...anyway, I'll play:

    Well.... we can go all the way back to Alexander Hamilton in 1777, who wanted a national central bank which could pay the wages of a permanent standing US army, as well as the debts of the states.

    Yes, though you skipped the Jekyll Island secret meetings of the 6 wealthiest bankers in the world whose designs for the new Fed (central bank) charter of 1913 were eventually passed by congress. JP Morgan wasn't one of that group.

    https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll_island_conference

    And speaking of the Fed, in 1946 many people wanted to change the Fed's mandate to the maintenance of full employment, but repubs forced a change to "maximum possible employment"...

    The gold standard was finally abandoned by Nixon in the 70's.

    It's time you adapted to the era of fiat-currency-issuing, sovereign governments. Which returns us to the question: why don't governments use this capacity?

    And the answer is:

    BECAUSE of still entrenched, obsolete, classical economics that precludes a role for money creation in the public sector, despite the fact that recessions and worse are periodic outcomes of wealth creation in "invisible hand" market economies;
    and because it's to the advantage of the wealthy to maintain the belief that government cannot spend without taxing or borrowing....since interest bearing bonds are a nice, secure, little earner for the wealthy. (Bill Mitchell refers to this as "welfare for the wealthy"...)
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It might be interesting to discover if this struggle between statists and centrists had anything to do with the adoption of the 2nd Amendment ie motivated by transference of the cost of a national standing army to the citizens themselves (and hence "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"....)

    Meanwhile, here is an examination of the fiscal capacity of modern sovereign currency-issuing governments, alluded to in my debate with jdog above.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/
     
  4. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    909
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Taxes at 99 percent lol
    Then every business leader in the USA would retire lol
     
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    12,333
    Likes Received:
    7,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  6. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't get on board with your idea that the state should have a monopoly on all property. I prefer distributed ownership.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So you have again realized that if you want to avoid knowing the fact that your beliefs are false and evil, you have no choice but to just make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me. No surprises there.

    What the state has -- and always will, unless you prefer the feudal war of all against all that absence of the state guarantees -- is the job of administering possession and use of land, because that is what the state IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether the state will discharge that function in the interest and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all its citizens, as I advocate, or forcibly abrogate the rights of its citizens without just compensation in the narrow financial interest of a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning minority, as you advocate.
    Oh, really? Do you think distributed ownership of weapons of mass destruction would be a good idea? How about the roads? Would you like to pay a toll to a different distributed road owner every time you turned onto a different street? How is distributed ownership of the legal right to issue money working out for you?

    What you really prefer, all too obviously, is that your victims be denied the option of cooperating to defend themselves by force against your forcible, aggressive depredations.
     
  8. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, I think that the state, if we need one, should stick to settling property disputes between citizens. I don't think the state should own all the land. I am not a fan of monopolies.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Right. You don't believe anyone has any rights the state can rightly protect, other than property rights; that means the amount of rights a person has is identical to the amount of property they own; and people who don't own any property have no rights. You want to be legally entitled to own other people's rights to liberty, because owning people's rights to liberty makes them your slaves. You want to be able to own slaves because slaves have no rights, so you can legally do whatever you want to them and they are not allowed to defend themselves against you. Problem is, people who think that way are generally just evil.
    And neither do I, as you know: no one and no organization or institution can rightly own any land at all, because that would mean they own everyone else's liberty right to use that land. The state's most basic function is to administer possession and use of land in trust for the people -- not to own it -- because that is what the state IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The only question is whether the state will discharge that function in the interest and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all its citizens, as I advocate, or forcibly abrogate the rights of its citizens without just compensation in the narrow financial interest of a rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning minority, as you advocate. I don't think anyone should own anyone else's rights to liberty. You think landowners should own everyone else's rights to liberty. Simple.
    Except the monopoly that the landowner exercises over the land, which, because each plot is unique and supply cannot be increased, is always inherently a monopoly, like an original work by a dead artist.
     
  10. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Taking 99% leaves them with 1%; that's not right, turning rich people into poor people just to give their money poor people to end poverty; crazy.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2020
  11. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, I don't want the state to exercise that monopoly over all the land.
     
    TedintheShed likes this.
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    OK, so you are apparently unaware of the fact that income tax rates only apply to income ABOVE a certain level. I.e., if the 99% rate applies to income above $1M/y, then all their income below that is taxed at lower rates. So the 99% tax rate would leave them with 1% of the income they receive above $1M, but a larger fraction of the income they receive up to $1M.
    <yawn> Even if the 99% rate applied to all their income, which it wouldn't, 1% of $17M (average CEO pay at the 350 largest American corporations in 2018) is $170K (roughly what the CEO of a mid-sized Japanese corporation makes).

    On which planet would receiving an after-tax income of $170K/y make one poor?
     
  13. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, no, 99% is way, way, way too high.
    $170k after taxes for someone who earns $17m is wrong.
    What's the point of earning $17m if the state will tax you of 99% of it?

    Why should high earners get taxed out of their high earnings? What is the point of earning so much if you only see 1% of what you make? No multi million dollar mansion in the hills for someone earning $17m a year, no high rise penthouse in the city too, how could 1% of such a salary afford luxurious estate somewhere when after you've made your money you're taxed out of 99% of it, what good is 1% of a multi million dollar income.
    My home in the 'hood is worth $500,000.00 (London) and it's not even a ritzy part of town, you're telling me that someone on $17m a year shouldn't be able to afford my house, because of taxes?!

    You're just asking for tax avoidance and tax exiles with a horrid scheme like that.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  14. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This house is worth £135k/$170
    [​IMG]
    Might find something bigger outside of London of course - and that's assuming someone on $17m a year doesn't have utilities and other bills such as food and cars and clothes to buy - could they afford a place like this with your proposal.

    99% tax is wrong and actually evil to take all but 1% of someone's income because they're earning in this case $17m a year.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  15. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
    This house is like mine and near me (different road within walking distance), I actually prefer my road too since it's closer to the the shops and transport; and this house is on the market for £450, 000.00/$562, 000.00
    This house is in my part of town/same hood, and I'm not even in the ritzy part of the hood'
    There are other houses way bigger than this in Thornton Heath Pond (the posh part of this 'hood) and this isn't a swanky neighbourhood to be in.

    Someone on $17m per year shouldn't be able to afford this near by house in your opinion without getting a mortgage?!
    Get real! / Crazy.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not saying it's reasonable. I have argued against it in this very thread. But it's not going to make American CEOs poor.
    Assuming they actually do earn it....
    What's the point of letting rich, greedy, privileged parasites keep all the money they take without earning it?
    Why should anyone be taxed out of what they earn at all?
    What is the point of claiming the super-duper uber-rich are earning their incomes when they just take the money by owning privileges, without making any commensurate contribution to production in return?
    It's still more than 100% of a multi-thousand dollar income...
    No, what nonsense. What kind of moron couldn't afford a $500K house on $170K/y?
    I don't support it, for those and other reasons. But it is an (admittedly wrong-headed) attempt to solve a very real problem, part of which is the absurd assumption that the super-duper uber-rich are somehow victims of excessive taxation.
     
  17. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still sounds communist, taking the side of labour over the side of management assuming management is lazy and doesn't earn their keep and then letting the state come in take it all (virtually); Communism.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Oh, nonsense. These clowns getting eight- and nine-figure payouts aren't earning their keep. They are just warming their chairs while the Fed kites the stock market for them. Now the Fed is even buying stocks to keep the prices up, so the CEOs can keep stuffing the cash into their own pockets!
     
  19. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not down with feudalism. I don't want the state to exercise monopoly over all the land?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  20. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,715
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But they are earning their keep, CEOs steer companies.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2020
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, and in many cases, they steer them into bankruptcy. There is good empirical evidence that a CEO's steering contribution is actually INVERSELY related to how much they are paid. So no, you are incorrect, they are NOT earning their keep. That much should be obvious from the fact that they want to measure their performance and be paid according to the stock price, but also feel free to borrow money at the firm's expense to buy up its stock. Hello?
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You just contradicted yourself. If the state doesn't administer possession and use of land, private landowners will do it in the state's place. That's feudalism. When rule by private landowners, which is what you advocate, replaced rule by the state after the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century, the population of Western Europe declined by 30% over the next 100 years. It wasn't because of advances in contraception. It was because private landowners unconstrained by any state raised their own private armies and murdered people with impunity.

    You want to own other people's rights to liberty, which the state forcibly stripped from them and made into your private property by issuing a land title, but you don't want to owe the state anything in return for that property it gave you. You want the state to help you violate others' rights, and to use force to stop them from defending themselves against you, but you don't want to pay the state the full market value for that service it provides for you. You want something for nothing. Simple.

    Greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money") is excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves, the root of all manner of evil. The greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun. The existence of privileges like land titles mean the state is taking the side of evil against its own people. It's that simple.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am actually against income tax altogether, whereas the Communist Manifesto demands a high and steeply progressive one. I'm just keeping it real with the relevant facts: because extremely high incomes consist almost entirely of rents of privilege, not rightful earnings, they can be taxed heavily without significant economic harm. So if we have to have an income tax it should target the highest incomes, and leave the earned incomes of ordinary working people alone.
    It's true that the Communist Manifesto demands a steeply progressive income tax, and 99% is just about as steep as it gets. But the truth is that top managers do not actually earn the astronomical amounts of money they get with any commensurate contribution to production. They are merely in a legal position to take, so they take.
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rule by private landowners? I don't think I suggested that. But have fun with your straw man.

    Also, can you provide a definition of feudalism?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course you did. That is the gravamen of your position that land should be privately owned, and its possession and use by its private owners should not be interfered with by government. That makes each private landowner the ruler of all the land he can forcibly gain control over. That is feudalism.
    It is literally what you advocate.
    Feudalism is an economic system where, in the absence of government administration of its possession and use, land is allocated according to hereditary contracts wherein landless workers exchange service, obedience and personal loyalty to private landholders in return for protection against outsiders and permission to use the land.
     

Share This Page