Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15053370
william kurps (PF.com)  wrote:What would the point be to go to work?

Actually, people will be even MORE MOTIVATED to work to serve the society because trust in society and the government would be much greater.

Such progressive taxation till the top level bracket is 99% will mean that since the really rich pay more in taxes, they would also more sharply scrutinise government activities and expenditure, thus making the bureaucracy leaner and more cost efficient. Because the rich pay PROGRESSIVELY more taxes, many lower income groups will probably pay zero in income taxes since the lower brackets of income will be taxed at very low or zero income taxes (zero to say 3% etc). More work will be available since the greed of the capitalist is moderated and so the implementation of robotics will not be so reckless and unbridled.

The reckless implementation of robotics should be curbed because it can be extremely harmful to the environment since most robot manufacturers today are highly pollutive in their manufacturing processes and there are few efforts at recycling obsolete or discarded robots.

Society will be more cohesive when the workers know that they are not being systematically exploited by capitalist and in so far that the taxation system remains non corrupt, strikes will be few and far between because workers cannot find reason to protest against their capitalist employers when firstly, the impetus to exploit workers is gone and workers cannot find evidence that they are being exploited since there is no motive for capitalist to exploit them in the first place.

Many people will want to work to benifit from the low income taxes available to the average worker so workers are reluctant to go on strike since they know that many other citizens will readily fill in their job vacancies so long as the work contract is fair and judiciously complied with, should they be fired for striking / refusing to report for work during work hours.
#15054652
BigSteve wrote:
Funny you mention that. My buddy's wife is a renowned neurosurgeon. She makes a shit ton of money. And you know what? She should, and she should be allowed to keep it all. Why? Because she's the one who'll be diggin' around in your melon if you ever need brain surgery, that's why.

I'd hate to see what would happen if her "Give A Fuck" meter got pegged...

I seriously doubt that you understand or grok what was being proposed in the OP.

The proposal was not to start taxing at the 99% rate at an income of $1M/year. Maybe at $50M/yr. Maybe at $10M/yr.

From the early 30s to the mid 70s the top tax rate was over 90%. The sky did not fall.

There is a risk that the rich will stop investing if they are over taxed. In so far as the economy *needs* their investment money this would be a bad thing. However, if the income was more smoothly shared then there ought to be money from people who are not taxed 90% or 99%. And, *very importantly* the Gov. can do the investing because the Gov. has dollars that are only limited by real constraints. Real constraints are things like natural resources, labor, environmental damage, etc. Money is never a constraint or limit for a sovereign Gov. with a fiat currency.
. . After a Gov. created comp. is making a profit it could and should be sold on the stock market.
. . I would prefer that the only comp. owned by the Gov. are natural monopolies. Things like clear water, sewers, the power grid, the roads & bridges, airports, maybe railroads, etc.

____________________ ________________________________ _____________

If it were up to me there would be a wealth tax. The permanent one would be intended to keep great wealth from accumulating in a few hands. A temporary one would be intended to confiscate the excess wealth that the 0.1% have stolen from the mass of the people by using their economic power to influence the economic rules of the game to be massively in their favor and for example the tax cuts for the rich that have never "trickled down", and so were pointless giveaways to the already rich.


BTW --- after the crisis of ACC aka AGW has been resolved, I would expect that the only flying would be to cross the oceans or long non-stop flights. Travel in most of Europe, for example, can all be by high speed rail.
#15054919
SSDR wrote:Provide evidence that I proved that "I admitted to being wrong."

You admitted that, "Chattel slavery is a type of slavery." That means there is at least one type of slavery that is not chattel slavery. That means slavery does NOT mean ONLY ownership of human beings as chattels. That proves your claim that slavery is ownership of human beings is wrong.
No you did not.

Yes, I did.
You are using a capitalist dictionary that is made by a pro capitalist view point.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Capitalists may respect clear and honest communication more than socialists, but that doesn't make dictionaries "capitalist."
It is not economically private in socialism, since privatized economics does not exist in socialism.

False. Production is still immutably a private act. It is always an individual human person who performs a given act of labor. The product of an individual's labor may be socialized, but the act of production is always immutably private.
In non socialist economics, they come from the purchases of privately owned natural resources.

Not necessarily. The traditional system of village commons, for example, allocated access to land without private ownership of it.
In non socialist economics, everything is owned, thus needed to be purchased in order to have access.

False, as proved above. You are just trying to push a false dichotomy fallacy: capitalism vs socialism. Capitalists and socialists both pretend that the other is the only alternative because they are united in their hatred of the real alternative: justice.
In non socialist economics, the workers are not devoted to production, unless if they emotionally support it out of false consciousness.

It is socialist consciousness that is false.
In non socialist economics, the workers are wage slaves - They are economically reliant on their wages to survive since in non socialist economics, everything has to be purchased.

We are always reliant on wages: if not our own, then others'. The socialist just wants to rely on others' wages rather than earn his own. That's why socialists always focus on income tax and oppose a just and efficient public revenue system that leaves privately created value in the hands of those who create it and recovers publicly created value for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it. Simple.
In socialist economics, that depends on what the workers desire. Workers in Sweden have different desires than workers in Somalia.

Sweden is not socialist, and workers everywhere desire to consume, which is the ultimate purpose of all economic activity. Because socialism denies the legitimate property rights of those who provide producer goods to the production process, it is inferior even to capitalism in satisfying the workers' desire to consume.
#15054922
Steve_American wrote:The proposal was not to start taxing at the 99% rate at an income of $1M/year. Maybe at $50M/yr. Maybe at $10M/yr.

It is extremely rare for anyone to earn even $1M/yr from commensurate productive contributions. The greater the income, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was earned by commensurate contribution. Even the neurosurgeon is benefiting financially from the medical monopoly.
There is a risk that the rich will stop investing if they are over taxed.

The rich rarely invest in actual producer goods that increase production because they know that the returns to such investment are competed away. They invest overwhelmingly in privilege -- land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc. -- and companies that profit from privilege because the returns to privilege can't be competed away.
In so far as the economy *needs* their investment money this would be a bad thing.

It doesn't need them bidding up the prices of each other's privileges.
I would prefer that the only comp. owned by the Gov. are natural monopolies. Things like clear water, sewers, the power grid, the roads & bridges, airports, maybe railroads, etc.

Agreed: there's nothing to be gained, and much potentially to be lost, from private ownership of industries that can't benefit from competition.
If it were up to me there would be a wealth tax.

A wealth tax does not differentiate between earned and unearned wealth. A tax on privilege is far better, as the value of privilege is always unearned.
The permanent one would be intended to keep great wealth from accumulating in a few hands. A temporary one would be intended to confiscate the excess wealth that the 0.1% have stolen from the mass of the people by using their economic power to influence the economic rules of the game to be massively in their favor and for example the tax cuts for the rich that have never "trickled down", and so were pointless giveaways to the already rich.

I agree with the impulse, but a tax on privilege would remove almost all of that wealth anyway.
BTW --- after the crisis of ACC aka AGW has been resolved,

Crisis? What crisis?
I would expect that the only flying would be to cross the oceans or long non-stop flights. Travel in most of Europe, for example, can all be by high speed rail.

Check out Tony Heller's videos. Youtube has deceitfully altered its search function to show users videos that attack Heller, but not Heller's videos, which are much better and get an order of magnitude more views. The blatant dishonesty of such manipulation of people's access to information should give you pause.
#15055207
Truth To Power wrote:You admitted that, "Chattel slavery is a type of slavery." That means there is at least one type of slavery that is not chattel slavery.

Correct. There are other forms of slavery.
That means slavery does NOT mean ONLY ownership of human beings as chattels.

The definition of slavery is the ownership of humans - When a human is owned by another human. There are different manners of how a human is owned. There are different ways to own a human. Chattel slavery is one way. There are other ways as well.
Yes, I did.

Nein.
Capitalists may respect clear and honest communication more than socialists,

Capitalists respect capitalist definitions more than real conscious definitions because real conscious definitions are a threat to their false consciousness - Their manipulated motives to work such as money, Family oriented environment that conditions children to believe that they need a family oriented environment to motivate them to work, or that "Money Buys Love." These are false conscious capitalist definitions.

Socialists use real conscious terms, unlike capitalists.
but that doesn't make dictionaries "capitalist."

You are using capitalist dictionaries and definitions.
False. Production is still immutably a private act. It is always an individual human person who performs a given act of labor.

There is a difference between private acts, and Personal acts. Socially, Individual humans are personal. Economically, humans can either be private (slavery, capitalism, feudalism, fascism) or public, free from money, family, patriarchy, and social hierarchy (socialism).
The product of an individual's labor may be socialized,

They can also be exploited by capitalists.
but the act of production is always immutably private.

Personal. You are using economic terms (private versus public) onto social terms (personal).
The traditional system of village commons, for example, allocated access to land without private ownership of it.

This was before the globalist, Zionist, capitalist occupants that funded the exploiting state of Israel. When global capitalism emerged to assist on providing labour services to Israel, all lands, used or not, were charged, and that globalist money funded the Zionist state of Israel.

The traditional system of village commons was destroyed by globalist, capitalist Zionists so the Zionists could have a way on exploiting economics of non Zionist territories.
False, as proved above. You are just trying to push a false dichotomy fallacy: capitalism vs socialism. Capitalists and socialists both pretend that the other is the only alternative because they are united in their hatred of the real alternative: justice.

Your ideology has hatred to justice.
We are always reliant on wages: if not our own, then others'.

False.

Before capitalism, in economic systems such as feudalism or mercantilism, slaves and peasants were not reliant on wages. Wages did not exist before capitalism. Capitalism invented wages. Wage Slavery is a type of slavery in which the workers are owned by their wages.

In socialism, wages do not exist because private labour does not exist, wage slavery does not exist in socialism, and currency does not exist. Wages cannot exist unless if there is a currency.
The socialist just wants to rely on others' wages rather than earn his own.

Some socialists want to do this in a wage driven capitalist economy because they cannot make more wages due to capitalist economic disadvantages such as over inflated housing, utilities, or various rents.
That's why socialists always focus on income tax

Income tax does not exist in socialism because incomes and taxes do not exist in socialism because there is no currency. Currency is taxed. Incomes define the amount of currency that one is paid. These things do not exist in socialism because in socialism, there is no currency.
and oppose a just and efficient public revenue system that leaves privately created value in the hands of those who create it

This enforces the family institution, patriarchal marriages, and the social connections that people have. Under capitalism, peoples' social connections are determined by their economies.
Sweden is not socialist,

Correct, Sweden is not socialist. However, scientifically Sweden is closer to socialism than the United States. The United States is far more capitalistic than Sweden - Economically, culturally (Americans are materialistic and are obsessed with money), and politically (Americans support unstable "Laissez-faire" economics).
and workers everywhere desire to consume, which is the ultimate purpose of all economic activity.

Humans will desire or need material or wealth regardless of the economy. Czechoslovakia had a higher standard of living than Francoist Spain. The DDR had a higher standard of living than Greece. Humans will need to work in order to survive, unless if there are robots than can fully do all human capabilities.

The "ultimate purpose of all economic activity" is determined by the type of economy. In capitalism, the ultimate purpose is to make everything to be sold. Not because it is needed. Everything is profit driven. In capitalism, elitists promote a consumerist culture to manipulate the masses into buying more stuff so the elitists can make more money.

In socialism, the ultimate purpose of all "economic" activity is to make whatever humans desire or need. Nothing is made to be sold. Nothing is made for profit. Sold and profit does not exist in socialism because there are no elitist exploitation and that profit motives are not necessary since a socialist population has real consciousness and that people with real consciousness do not need profit driven economics to motivate them to work.
Because socialism denies the legitimate property rights of those who provide producer goods to the production process,

False.

In socialism, those who produce, have access to production. Those who make it, get it.

In capitalism, those who own have access to production. This is why elitist owners have a lot of wealth. A corporate executive scientifically, does not have the physical ability to produce all of the wealth they have access to from their enterprise they own. They do not work for that money. They sell for that money. In capitalism, you need money to make more money. That is how elitists get rich. Under capitalism, those who provide producer goods - The producers; Workers, only get paid for what they need to survive. The rest of the wealth that they produce goes to their elitist owner.
it is inferior even to capitalism in satisfying the workers' desire to consume.

Having a lot of wealth to consume does not ensure true happiness.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Will protesting resume after the corona virus thre[…]

Seasonality of viruses is discussed a few times i[…]

@late You should know that appeal to authority i[…]

People on Twitter were really wringing their hands[…]