Convince me anyone making more than 250k

Elai · October 03, 2018, 01:16:02 AM

shouldn't taxed 50%

all the way up to 95% depending on how much more you make

you dont need more than 100k to live comfortably.

fuck the rich, fuck corporations and fuck capitalism. FUCK.

big dog · October 03, 2018, 01:55:28 AM

Why should I, you're right.

Coomer · October 03, 2018, 02:54:36 AM

Did you lose an argument in class or something

Verbatim · October 03, 2018, 04:04:46 AM

Quote from: Rescue on October 03, 2018, 02:54:36 AM

Did you lose an argument in class or something

if someone were to shoot you in the head (in a perfectly legal self-defense situation, for example), i wonder how hard it would be to actually take you out, if the situation called for it

i think it would actually be pretty difficult, given how your brain just sort of rattles around in your head like a grain of sand, so it might be kinda hard to know precisely where to aim at any given moment

or maybe it wouldn't matter and the shock would just overcome you, since you don't have a great constitution

idk, just a fun little hypothetical, i would never actually do that to you (unless you were a threat to my life in some way)

Verbatim · October 03, 2018, 04:21:00 AM

yeah, there's really no defense for capitalism in 2018

amazon just did a good thing recently, which is a step in the right direction—my nearest whole foods is several hours away, but hopefully this will encourage other companies to follow suit

as miserable as it is to be a wage slave, actually being able to fucking live off of what you're making is nothing but good

Dietrich Six · October 03, 2018, 06:09:52 AM

Just work harder cuck.

Zonda · October 03, 2018, 07:17:34 AM

Yeah once you’re earning above an amount where pretty much all of the necessities become a non-issue tax should increase dramatically.

FatherlyNick - fuck putin · October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM

Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

Elai · October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM

Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes

Elai · October 03, 2018, 08:00:08 AM

Quote from: Rescue on October 03, 2018, 02:54:36 AM

Did you lose an argument in class or something

FatherlyNick - fuck putin · October 03, 2018, 08:29:50 AM

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM
Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes

Taxes is just a sum of money that goes who the fuck knows where.

With a dedicated contribution charge for X service - 100% of the money will go to X service and not to the chums who are already paid enough by taxes.

Coomer · October 03, 2018, 08:53:18 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 03, 2018, 04:04:46 AM

Quote from: Rescue on October 03, 2018, 02:54:36 AM
Did you lose an argument in class or something
if someone were to shoot you in the head (in a perfectly legal self-defense situation, for example), i wonder how hard it would be to actually take you out, if the situation called for it

i think it would actually be pretty difficult, given how your brain just sort of rattles around in your head like a grain of sand, so it might be kinda hard to know precisely where to aim at any given moment

or maybe it wouldn't matter and the shock would just overcome you, since you don't have a great constitution

idk, just a fun little hypothetical, i would never actually do that to you (unless you were a threat to my life in some way)

What’re you going to be when you grow up

maverick · October 03, 2018, 08:53:52 AM

Because taxes should be a reflection of how much the government needs to spend, not how much you want to micromanage the lives of high-earners.

nͫiͤcͫeͤ · October 03, 2018, 09:03:52 AM

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

velox · October 03, 2018, 09:04:58 AM

Quote from: maverick on October 03, 2018, 08:53:52 AM

Because taxes should be a reflection of how much the government needs to spend, not how much you want to micromanage the lives of high-earners.

But what if the high-earners just pile that money and keep it out of circulation, making everyone else poorer? Shouldn't the money be put back into circulation somehow - say, through the wages paid to workers in the public sector?

big dog · October 03, 2018, 10:36:18 AM

The rich should be guillotined.

Super Irish · October 03, 2018, 11:10:32 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 08:29:50 AM

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM
Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM
Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes
Taxes is just a sum of money that goes who the fuck knows where.

With a dedicated contribution charge for X service - 100% of the money will go to X service and not to the chums who are already paid enough by taxes.

Sounds nice, but then the Health Service becomes overfunded while the roadways have to scrounge for maintenance costs.

People would then choose what they *think* is priority, not what really needs funding (or in equal measures, which would make the freedom of choice irrelevant).

Even if it were limited to "€/£/$Xk earners get to choose", then the other taxes from poorer folk would get funnelled into the deficits...

So then the poor have less control over what funding goes where, and likely is going to go to the military or a nuclear deterrent, for example, something not everyone would be happy to do or have on their conscience.

maverick · October 03, 2018, 11:29:15 AM

Quote from: Killua on October 03, 2018, 09:04:58 AM

But what if the high-earners just pile that money and keep it out of circulation, making everyone else poorer? Shouldn't the money be put back into circulation somehow - say, through the wages paid to workers in the public sector?

In this scenario, yes. But this trend isn’t happening in the United States or any similar countries that I’m aware of.

It would also probably more effective to come up with laws to mitigate whatever’s causing this, rather than just letting the government circulate all the money.

FatherlyNick - fuck putin · October 03, 2018, 11:41:40 AM

Quote from: Doug.al on October 03, 2018, 11:10:32 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 08:29:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM
Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM
Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes
Taxes is just a sum of money that goes who the fuck knows where.

With a dedicated contribution charge for X service - 100% of the money will go to X service and not to the chums who are already paid enough by taxes.

Sounds nice, but then the Health Service becomes overfunded while the roadways have to scrounge for maintenance costs.

People would then choose what they *think* is priority, not what really needs funding (or in equal measures, which would make the freedom of choice irrelevant).

Even if it were limited to "€/£/$Xk earners get to choose", then the other taxes from poorer folk would get funnelled into the deficits...

So then the poor have less control over what funding goes where, and likely is going to go to the military or a nuclear deterrent, for example, something not everyone would be happy to do or have on their conscience.

What if we let the bottom 85%, decide where the Contribution of top 15% go?

Super Irish · October 03, 2018, 02:30:03 PM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 11:41:40 AM

Quote from: Doug.al on October 03, 2018, 11:10:32 AM
Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 08:29:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM
Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM
Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes
Taxes is just a sum of money that goes who the fuck knows where.

With a dedicated contribution charge for X service - 100% of the money will go to X service and not to the chums who are already paid enough by taxes.

Sounds nice, but then the Health Service becomes overfunded while the roadways have to scrounge for maintenance costs.

People would then choose what they *think* is priority, not what really needs funding (or in equal measures, which would make the freedom of choice irrelevant).

Even if it were limited to "€/£/$Xk earners get to choose", then the other taxes from poorer folk would get funnelled into the deficits...

So then the poor have less control over what funding goes where, and likely is going to go to the military or a nuclear deterrent, for example, something not everyone would be happy to do or have on their conscience.
What if we let the bottom 85%, decide where the Contribution of top 15% go?

Still the same problem, except now the 85% are the largely uninformed deciding where money goes with no control to the 15%

"Sorry Bill and Melinda Gates, we're substituting the money from Africa in the form of aid, to cruise missiles and hellfire drones, the will of the people and all that".

Jono · October 03, 2018, 02:57:03 PM

Fuck everyone that is more successful than me

Aether · 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.

I think the private sector needs to invest more into the welfare of society, and maybe there are new laws that can help with that, but I think there still needs to be room for it to thrive as well because investors' desire to make more money funds innovation, and I don't trust the state to fund it for the benefit of the average citizen.

Elai · 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.

Elai · October 03, 2018, 03:44:58 PM

Quote from: Jono on October 03, 2018, 02:57:03 PM

Fuck everyone that is more successful than me

Pretty much everyone is more successful than you.

Elai · October 03, 2018, 03:46:40 PM

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.

Elai · October 03, 2018, 03:47:31 PM

There should be a maximum wage of 100 million dollars, and if you can't live off that you should be sent to some kind of reeducation camp. Barring that, decapitation should do the trick.

Dietrich Six · 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

Dietrich Six · October 03, 2018, 03:59:10 PM

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 03:46:40 PM

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.

Cars made by people who earned a wage doing so. The problem with most uber rich people is that they don't spend the money, or they use it to amass more wealth, neither of which is good for the economy.

challengerX · October 03, 2018, 04:02:25 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Elai · 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.