What would eating the rich accomplish?

Let's say we take everyone that makes, say... $500,000 a year (10 times the national average) or more and slap like a huge tax on just them, how much money are we talking about?

Would it be enough to fully fund welfare, SS and medicaid? I mean, my theory is the rich should pay for the poor. Do you guys think $500,000 a year and up should be the contributing point?

I know there already are higher and higher taxes, I am taking about slapping a new tax on all those people just to fund XYZ....

Thoughts, guys...

 

Soros, Buffett et al (and their money) would be offshore and untouchable long before such taxation was enacted.

 

I read somewhere we could tax the rich 100% and still not balance the budget. This is one of the things that make Obama voters DUMB. Obama babbles about increasing taxes on the rich. It's a drop in the bucket. However, it does appeal to the base emotions of neanderthals who operate on jealousy, envy, greed and sloth.

But back to reality. The fact is, we're not going to tax our way out of this. Government spends too much. We know the sequester didn't hurt job creation, so it's time to cut much deeper. All we need is some smart people who want to make the cuts hurt the least. Obama's plan to make cuts hurt as much as possible is just flat out evil and WRONG.

 

Eating the rich would rest the labor force and actually allow people to thrive from their own labor as opposed to being manipulated to get only a small fraction of it. It would restore the incentive for people to actually WANT to work harder and in turn, the country would benefit as a whole, rather than the few Roman type slave owners who take most of everything for themselves. it would be a win, win.

 

We could tax them for 100% of their assetts, and not balance the budget.

 

Well, maybe if we just shovel MORE to them in the forms of tax credits and other perks, it'll get better huh? Bring the Pharoh more gold and hope for the best. I get it!

 

Full stomachs and a better economy.

 

Better for whom?

 

And precisely where woud they get the money? If wealth is not permitted to form no one's labor gets rewarded.

 

Wealth will form of course. You just keep the monstrous conglomerates from taking over everything. Regulations. That thing that the super wealthy corporate types despise.

 

Sure, lets eat the rich. And then we can all be poor and miserable. I'm already used to it.

 

We're headed there anyway so, why not take them with us? It's not like there will ever be a fair playing field under their tyranny. Let is crash into nothingness and be reborn.

 

No, we will not be reborn. We will be poor and miserable for the rest of our lives. America is never going to recover. Not ever.

 

Well, it ain't going anywhere under this system of duress and strain either. In fact, it's already dead. The lemming public simply hasn't realized it yet.

 

I'm with you. Lets tear it all down and hang the billionaires and the politicians they buy with their money.

 

That's just wildly false. The deficit is about $1T. The top 1% own about 40% of all privately held wealth. Total privately held wealth is at least $60T. You do the math.

 

I don't think we would be able to fund the government at its current levels under any level of taxation. We could prevent the rapid acquisition of money that leads to extreme concentrations of wealth though. Addressing our spending problems is another issue.

 

I think I would ask more for a change in how business is run. I mean...the very thought of it.

For instance, this idea that a man should be able to own an idea, which is ridiculous and selfish. But even allowing that, one of the problems I have is how much more the "owner" of the company gets paid in relation to the workers.

I only thought of one thing so far that I would try and that is spreading the profits of the company more fairly among the workers who contribute to it. If you are part of the company you should be paid a certain percentage of that company. The owner should not make more than 5 times more than the lowest worker. Now all the greedy people will rage about how this is unfair, but how is it unfair. The owner has an idea, ok. The idea is worth nothing if you can't bring it into reality. for that, you need a lot more people. The bigger your business the more people you need. The CEO may be making business negotiations and the like but is this work really and better than a man humping 8 hours on the ground some where. Everyone works hard and they should be paid according to the work they put in to the company. If the company is an extremely wealthy one, than every worker should be allowed to share in the growth of their companies profits. This does not lead to a stagnation of business, but it does promote more equality among people.

That's what I would change. The people who want to start a business usually want to become as rich as they can and they do that by shorting as many expenses as they can, including wages. By doing this (or something like it) we can ensure that this is no longer possible. That the success of the company is spread out amng it's workers. That their is still pay-scaling for promotional purposes, but nothing so ridiculous as the current model. I don't believe this would harm anything but improve much.

By equalizing pay, you dilute the influence an insanely rich person has over an ordinary person. Because he is not so disproportionately wealthier than ordinary people, ordinary people who are more wealthier have the greater ability to pool their money and lobby for a more democratically represented initiative.

This move, by reducing the huge payoffs, will also curb the lobbying process because politicians can no longer pander to just a few insanely rich people to achieve their political finances, but must now, as they were meant to, court a wider group of people for such a thing.

Last, I think it is a good thing because people will say that businesses wouldn't grow so big if they had to pay their workers more. GOOD. We should allow for more people to be able to enter business instead of having it dominated by giants. If this limits the size of any one business while promoting the growth of the business class in America than many more people can enter the field without having to take on an established giant they have near no hope of competing against. By having more businesses and smaller ones all around, things cannot be dictated acorss the board as easily and we get much more diversity, much more competition, and I believe that's how the free market is supposed to run. Not a market dominated by the few, but open to many. Really open to many.

 

The rich are playing with fiat money and exotic financial hot air , if you put them out of the equation a real supply and demand economy will fill the void (if you want to play capitalism) .

 

No way it wouldn't cover that much. Check it out :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...9IDIBg&usg=AFQjCNEMIuEcjwRbEuFSKor0qhzNMRPAtw

 

Well, I wouldn't be against a life sentence.
If robbers are sent to prison for stealing a certain amount of money from a bank, then why not imprison the people who have stolen so much from the people?

 

One solution that has not been put forward to the perceived crisis in the American economy with regard to our national debt and deficit problem is one that was proposed by Donald Trump in 1999. He suggested that for just one year, we levy a wealth tax of 14.25% on individuals with net worth in excess of $10 million. At the time, it would have resulted in $5.7 trillion in one-time revenue. Today, the same effort would result in $7.7 trillion in one-time revenue. A wealth tax of 28.5% would completely pay off the $14 trillion debt. And that is even with exclusions for their homes and property. So I say do it! NOBODY would be hurt by this at all. Why do I say that? Easy, if after paying this tax, you still have $10 million minimum as your wealth, it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to have been hurt.

 

I'm all for that! The average people started to lose after they came to believe they couldn't fight the rich, after defeating the rich over and over again, from the Civil War through the 1970s on every issue, that evil basstard, koksucker Reagan conned them into thinking they couldn't defeat the rich and that attitude stuck, when nothing was further from the truth.

 

Absolutely, they want to $uck me dry and take even my dignity, I say light a match and burn them down too!