Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 03:08:28 PM

I would support higher taxes for the top rungs of society if they were better spent, but I don't trust my government to not funnel nearly all of that money into the military industrial complex. Not 95% though. I still think innovation should still be allowed through private investment, and not just through government funding/subsidy.

At least the government will spend the money on something that benefits its country, even if you disagree with it. Rich fucks will just buy more cars and shit.

Also people were taxed up to 90% post WW2 as far as I know and that was the most prosperous time for America, economically.

My government spends the vast majority of its collected taxes on its over-bloated defense budget so it can continue dropping bombs on the third world, and executing regime changes. I don't have much faith in the state to use the taxes it collects to most effectively benefit the citizens it governs. I also wouldn't presume that there are no wealthy people that have a desire to innovate, and help funnel money back down to the lower rungs of society. The state is a collective of people that follows a system that takes a long time to change. A single billionaire can fund innovation much faster and with more freedom than the state can. Space X is a good example of that.

Maybe only a small percentage of the rich have the desire to use their fortune to advance humanity, to benefit society, but I think they should still be allowed to on their own terms.

Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 04:32:06 PM

My government spends the vast majority of its collected taxes on its over-bloated defense budget so it can continue dropping bombs on the third world, and executing regime changes. I don't have much faith in the state to use the taxes it collects to most effectively benefit the citizens it governs.

That's a problem too but you can cross that bridge when you get there.

Quote

I also wouldn't presume that there are no wealthy people that have a desire to innovate, and help funnel money back down to the lower rungs of society. The state is a collective of people that follows a system that takes a long time to change. A single billionaire can fund innovation much faster and with more freedom than the state can. Space X is a good example of that.

Elon Musk infamously underpays his employees, same with the other guy who owns Amazon. Innovation isn't as important as guaranteeing a high quality of life for a country's citizens.

Innovation is what guarantees that quality of life continues to improve into the future. Yeah, they should do more to provide their employees, but that doesn't mean their ability to invest should be stifled.

Btw amazon is actually increasing its minimum wage to 15 dollars here in the US. Apparently Bezos is trying to set a precedent for other corporations to follow.

elon musk, jeff bezos, richard branson, and the rest should all be thrown into a giant blender

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 04:15:40 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on October 03, 2018, 03:56:26 PM

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 03:44:25 PM

Quote from: nͫiͤcͫeͤ on October 03, 2018, 09:03:52 AM

250k isn’t rich that’s barely getting close to upper middle class

I'm not sure how it is in America (probably worse) but 250k is not "middle class." Maybe not "rich" but definitely upper class.

Upper class = rich

that's not how i see it.

rich is like more than a million a year.

So, upper upper class?

I just think there should definitely be a distinction between upper class and rich. I'm not saying we tax the fuck out of upper class workers like doctors, tradesmen, etc (though still up to 50% depending on how much more than 250k they're pulling). These people work for their money without taking advantage of a less empowered workforce and are compensated fairly for work that requires arduous education. You can't really get rich without taking advantage of someone else. That's who I'm trying to tax.

Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 05:03:21 PM

nnovation is what guarantees that quality of life continues to improve into the future. Yeah, they should do more to provide their employees, but that doesn't mean their ability to invest should be stifled.

Taxing million/billionaires up to 90% does not stifle their ability to invest in innovation (see: 1950's). Firstly, these corporate types NEVER end up paying what they're supposed to. They pay geeks who know the tax law inside-and-out a couple thousand dollars to find them loopholes so that they don't have to give up what they owe; additionally, there are (should be, if you don't have it in America) government incentive programs that give breaks to those who invest in innovation.

How does it not stifle the ability to invest if the vast majority of money that they would have to invest is taken from them? It doesn't remove their ability to, but it drastically reduces the amount of money they have to. I don't see that as a good thing when my government spends the majority of the money it takes to perpetuate war. Most corporate executives may not care for the average citizen but as long as there are a few that do that can make a positive impact on society then I think they should be allowed to.

I don't see how you could have such a caricature of an idea of a rich person without being a little more distrusting of bureaucrats. The corporate world and government are both filled with corruption, but government is more rigid in its structure and it's harder for individuals to have a huge impact and make significant changes than it is in the commercial world.

Quote from: Aether on October 03, 2018, 06:48:18 PM

How does it not stifle the ability to invest if the vast majority of money that they would have to invest is taken from them? It doesn't remove their ability to, but it drastically reduces the amount of money they have to.

Because investors will always invest the amount of money they deem acceptable depending on the investment prospects. Mark Cuban of Shark Tank never shuts up about how taxes have literally nothing to do with his investment ability; they don't even cross his mind when potentially making an investment.

And there are (should be) tax breaks for those who actually invest their money.

Quote

I don't see how you could have such a caricature of an idea of a rich person without being a little more distrusting of bureaucrats.

I'm not so naive as to think politics is working as it should, but at least there's an air of legitimacy to the system and we, the people, have some say as to what our governments actually spend the money on. Politicians are forced to work for the people, there is no such incentive for billionaires. Relying on a few benevolent kings to fix our system is absolutely not the answer.

I can't help but find it a little irritating that your problem with the government is that it spends too much on war, so your solution is to trust a few billionaires who made their wealth exploiting other people to take care of you. It's just absolutely absurd. Tax the rich, get out of debt, take care of your citizens. That's what the agenda should be, and if it isn't, vote in the people most likely to get you as close to that goal as possible.

I will grant you that America is an absolute social shithole right now that can't agree on anything so the prospect of actual change seems impossible. That's why I'm trying to keep the subject hypothetical rather than "Well look how the government spends its money right now!" Well no, we're talking idealistically, because that's how rational thought works: you figure out the ideal scenario, and then work to make it reality.

Maybe my layman brain just can't comprehend it, but taking away 90% of a person's wealth leaves them an unquestionably lower amount of money to invest with. I wouldn't figure a tax increase of 10 or even 20% to have that much of an impact on how much they are willing to invest, but 90% is nearly all of their earnings. If someone earns 100 million dollars in a single year and plans to invest around 10% of that, they would be left with very little comparatively, unless they receive a very significant tax break for investing.

I don't trust billionaires really any more so than I do politicians on a general level. It's the difference between the nature of the free market and government that influences my opinion on this. The commercial world allows for individuals to have a greater impact on society through innovation in a shorter amount of time than government does.

We desperately need to sort out the rampant cronyism within our capitalist society, but that cronyism is wedded to money and corruption in politics. There are at least a few of the rich that are helping to improve society, and funnel money back into the lower rungs, and they are able to do so more effectively because they don't have to jump though so many legislative hoops as the state and because the individual has more power within the market. I don't believe that should be taken away from them in favor of letting the state take care of it right now.

It's not ideal all but, you're right, I'm not looking at this idealistically.  I'm just more of a "here and now" kind of person. Tax the wealthiest people more, sure. I just don't think it should be 90%. It doesn't seem like we're gonna be able to agree on that, I guess.

Who’s going to want to be a doctor when they’re going to get robbed if they do

>Hey work towards this goal in life so that you'll make more money and be happier
>But when you reach that goal we're going to tax the shit out of your income so you're doing more work/more responsibility so you'll have practically the same amount you had before

I guess it's a good thing I want to climb the corporate ladder at work for reasons other than more money.

>Hey work towards this goal in life so that you'll make more money and be happier
>But when you reach that goal we're going to tax the shit out of your income so you're doing more work/more responsibility so you'll have practically the same amount you had before

I guess it's a good thing I want to climb the corporate ladder at work for reasons other than more money.

You're so naive it's unbelievable.

Says the guy that thinks taxing people for 95% of their income is a good idea.

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 11:40:40 PM

You're so naive it's unbelievable.

It's demonstrably a good idea.

There is no "working up the corporate ladder." There's taking care of yourself by fighting the company at every turn; the battle between the corporation and the individual must always be on the individual's terms because if it isn't, the corporation will steamroll you. There's one person you should work hard in this life: yourself. If you're working 60 hours a week in the hopes that someome will eventually notice your hard work, wake up and smell the flowers.

Furthermore, this idea that you have to work long and hard when you're young is absolute bullshit when you consider we've been fed this line for 30 years and we have people in their fourties still working as long and as hard for barely enough to get by. If you are working that much, your mental health, your physical health or your relationship with your friends and family are strained, all of which you have a responsibility to take care of as a member of society.

I get that you're this socially awkward weirdo but running away from your problems by being a "workaholic" isn't going to work out in your benefit. Better to realise it now than wake up in 10 years with nothing to show for it.

It's hard for me to believe it's all a hoax to make me a drone for the rest of my life when I've seen plenty of people in my small time in the work force reach it themselves. It's easy for me to believe it's just a giant pipe dream, but it's also easy to see my friends reach management within six months of being in the same job I'm in with the only difference between me and them is that they're in a different location.

I'm not a workaholic because I'm trying to avoid my problems; quite the opposite, but I'm not going to get into the discussion over the morality (or lack thereof) of why I want to move up, it's neither here nor there. But the fact of the matter is, I've seen plenty of people I directly work with, who are my equals move up the ladder. You say it doesn't exist, but I'm literally looking right at it on a daily basis.

You're not getting this. Not everyone can move up the ladder. There are only so many manager positions. Those positions often don't pay much more. Coorportions will not be there for you; they will throw you under the bus. You probably don't know anyone you consider an equal making a comfortable living. You probably don't know anyone making a comfortable living with good work/life balance.

Additionally, I'm only suggesting a 95% tax on people 0.001%ers. The multimillionaires. A 30% tax rate on 100-150k earners, 40% on 150-250k etc. It's really not that unreasonable.

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Fedorekd on October 03, 2018, 05:47:14 PM

elon musk, jeff bezos, richard branson, and the rest should all be thrown into a giant blender

It's like I always say: In a rich man's house, there is no place to spit but his face.

I think this is the first time you've said this

I say it a good amount because its hilarious and Diogenes was fucking based but we dont really talk politics that much

i don't care where they work, no human being should be earning more than £100k when others are struggling to survive on a 40-hour week job

wow these are some pretty confrontational posts for someone displaying no understanding of this topic whatsoever

First of all the "90% tax rate during the 40s-50s" is misleading at best. I'm pretty sure this has only come up recently because Bernie wanted to pretend like his tax plan wouldn't have been the highest in American history (it would have). Back then, there used to be so many deductions and loopholes that it's not even worth comparing them to taxes today.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

I never said I was an expert, I asked people to change my mind.

I remember hearing about it on Bill Maher's show years before Bernie, but fair enough. The tax rate is lower now, and people are still finding loopholes to get away with not paying the taxes they should. I see this first hand all the time.

This idea that you have to slave away for 60 hours a week just to make pennies more has no basis in reality.

This is something I see every day. It's consistent with almost everyone I speak with.

Basically everybody that's made it to "the top" had to invest in their future and take heavy risks. No they didn't spend 40 hours a week on a factory line like some people have to, but they gained skills that are more profitable.

By being immoral and taking advantage of other people, yeah. You can't get rich without stealing from your workers (charging more for a product than you paid your workers to create it.)

Maybe a factory worker shouldn't be "rich," (no one can be rich without making others poorer) but no citizen should have to sacrifice one major aspect of their life just to make ends meet. The major aspects being: family, mental health, and physical health. You can't do that if you're working 12 hours days.

If this is really such a problem, maybe you'd prefer a socialist paradise like China where there is no work/life balance, just work, because everybody lives in fear of being replaced.

"Go live somewhere else you fucking commie"

No actually, I'd like to live in a world where people get 3 days off a week, a month vacation off a year, leave at 4:30 every day and actually get to see their families and loved ones on a consistent basis. This is not unrealistic, because (most of) Canada, Europe and other developed parts of the world are like this. Not just the socially democratic parts of Europe, either.