Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%. - 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.
#15040309
Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

The following chart shows that in some industries, CEOs earn in excess of 500 times the median employee salary.
Image

This, to curb poverty, society must determine in tandem, BOTH the poverty level for living wages etc as well as the maximum wage possible, in excess of which, taxes of 99% on the tier of excess income is levied.

The competition between countries fighting for talent will NOT then be the top income tax level (it should all be 99%), but the income point where the 50% and 99% income tax bracket begins, e.g. at $5 million and $10 million respectively etc.

Graph source:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/justcapita ... r-pay/amp/
#15040311
Firstclass1188 (HWZ)  wrote:Crazy then where is the motivation to work hard and be successful?


Obviously the bracket for 99% will be quite high and only affect the top 0.1% earners.

But when some CEOs currently earn 500 times the salary of the median worker in their companies, there might be corruption involved (e.g. Enron with deliberate accounting errors) which may be moderated somewhat with this limit on wages rule.

And since some CEO earn 500 times the wages of the median worker, even a 50-99% tax at some point will mean that they still easily earn 250 times the salary of the median worker, which is still a very stupendous amount of $$$ don't you think so?

In any case, 99-100% is just a moot point, maybe we can apply something in the region of 70-80% eventually so as not to disincentive hard work. But this shall be the beginning of a debate for more progressive taxation.

Countries whose government impose higher regressive taxes like VAT, GST may be faced with higher societal wealth inequality which will cause social unrest which will also mean falling GDP or high government sovereign debt like Greece etc. Thus, this essay shall inspire greater discussion about more progressive taxation, e.g. Inheritance taxes, property taxes (of up to 60% of annual value at highest bracket) etc so as to fund the general society needs (+ military) and keep society harmonious together (not so much wealth inequality as there is in Singapore and Hong Kong).
#15040312
You will see the eternal corruption theme come into play...

Wealth finds a way.

Jeff Goldblum looks closely at the offshore bank account of an overweight Anglo-banker, a fat, fat, fat monocle wearing, cigar smoking, Anglo-banker.

These policies will perhaps bring in more money in the short-term, but in the long-run, they will only serve to make Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Bahamas, or whomever a lot wealthier as people move money around to get it to where it won't be sucked up by the government.

If anything more draconian was tried, more evasive measures would be necessary, and they would surely come into play.

It'd be awfully hard to crash as something as big as the American economy... but if you really did want to absolutely pin down everyone who made more than 20 million dollars into giving you 99 out of every 100 red cents, that might just do it. But it is far more likely that no one would ever let it get anywhere near that point.
#15040371
Perisher(hwz)  wrote:Reality is it’s impossible to have a universal tax rate for top income earners.


U mean across borders rite, like spear headed by UN across the world?

Guess will depend if people rebel against the greedy CEOs and make it necessary to pass laws to curb such greed. Which wouldn't take too long since people are nowadays uniting to protest in ever bigger numbers, e.g. Hong Kong which has since set a modern day precedence for the commitment and endurance of protesters around the world I think.

Young people are smarter nowadays and able analyse problems better, so they will more quickly accept my views and solution to promote much more progressive income taxation to limit CEO greed and corporate abuse of 'cheap labour', and perhaps shared benifit from automation and artificial intelligence etc.

Is just like anti-global warming efforts. 10 years ago, that was unheard of but today its a common refrain. Likewise the welfare state and universal healthcare, unheard of pre WW2 but common all around Europe thereafter.
#15041431
Verv wrote:You will see the eternal corruption theme come into play...

Wealth finds a way.

Jeff Goldblum looks closely at the offshore bank account of an overweight Anglo-banker, a fat, fat, fat monocle wearing, cigar smoking, Anglo-banker.

These policies will perhaps bring in more money in the short-term, but in the long-run, they will only serve to make Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Bahamas, or whomever a lot wealthier as people move money around to get it to where it won't be sucked up by the government.

If anything more draconian was tried, more evasive measures would be necessary, and they would surely come into play.

It'd be awfully hard to crash as something as big as the American economy... but if you really did want to absolutely pin down everyone who made more than 20 million dollars into giving you 99 out of every 100 red cents, that might just do it. But it is far more likely that no one would ever let it get anywhere near that point.


A few points.

The purpose of taxation isn't revenue. Those governments which are sovereign currency issuers don't require revenue, per se (although they do require resources, labor, etc.). They are able to re-direct resources and labor by spending in the private sector or directly employing labor. We don't need to worry at all whether high marginal tax rates will bring in more money in either the short or long term. Money that is taxed doesn't go into a kitty, it is cancelled; i.e., taxation annihilates money and spending creates it. Out of the void and into the void, so to speak.

The purpose of taxation in this particular case (high marginal rates) is to break up concentrations of wealth (it would also require higher capital gains rates).

We don't like concentrations of wealth for a number of reasons. First, economic power translates into political power, and over time creates oligarchic structures of government. Second, it is less efficient because more and more market power becomes concentrated into fewer hands, restraining natural competition. That's why Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts a 100+ years ago. Of course, trust busting must be periodically repeated. Breaking up wealth concentrations is only a temporarily effective measure.
#15041822
quetzalcoatl wrote:A few points.

The purpose of taxation isn't revenue. Those governments which are sovereign currency issuers don't require revenue, per se (although they do require resources, labor, etc.). They are able to re-direct resources and labor by spending in the private sector or directly employing labor. We don't need to worry at all whether high marginal tax rates will bring in more money in either the short or long term. Money that is taxed doesn't go into a kitty, it is cancelled; i.e., taxation annihilates money and spending creates it. Out of the void and into the void, so to speak.

The purpose of taxation in this particular case (high marginal rates) is to break up concentrations of wealth (it would also require higher capital gains rates).

We don't like concentrations of wealth for a number of reasons. First, economic power translates into political power, and over time creates oligarchic structures of government. Second, it is less efficient because more and more market power becomes concentrated into fewer hands, restraining natural competition. That's why Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts a 100+ years ago. Of course, trust busting must be periodically repeated. Breaking up wealth concentrations is only a temporarily effective measure.


That's very interesting. Very, very interesting. I had not thought of taxation as a means for breaking up wealth alone. I had thought of everything in terms of generating income and the government's role of providing services. While your description is a bit different, it is of course true that the created expenditures have to have some basis in reality.

I would still insist, though, that wealth will ultimately begin fleeing over taxation or use loopholes, and if the government is ultimately hostile to the wealth generating financiers and industrialists, huge amounts of the economy might flee abroad. Perhaps you accept that point and there is nothing more to say. ^^
#15042307
We should have a flat tax; everyone pays the same percentage of their taxable income.

Period.

I've worked my ass off for what I have. I reap the rewards of that hard work, and the very idea that I should have to pay more in taxes simply because I choose to work hard and make more money than someone else is offensive on its face...
#15048645
@BigSteve,
Now corps. are people.
So, did you mean for corps. to also pay the same percentage of their income before expenses? And then the owners pay it again when they get a dividend?
Or are you going to let corps. deduct their expenses but not let the average Joe deduct his expenses. Because it seems like ALL expenses by corps. are seen as deductible, but even gas to drive to work is not deductible by a worker. So, when a corp flies a CEO to Europe it's deductible but driving to work isn't. And you implied it was about fairness?

When you agree with me as above then we can talk about a "flat tax".
#15048653
Steve_American wrote:When you agree with me as above then we can talk about a "flat tax".


So I can only have the conversation if I agree with you??

Piss off...
#15048724
BigSteve wrote:
We should have a flat tax...



There are a lot of bad ideas, and that's one of the really bad ones.

Taxing someone working at McDonalds the same as a CEO (who gets a lot of his income from things besides his wage) is basically punishing the bottom half of the country.

That would set in motion a number of nasty effects. We are already moving to a defacto class of royals, that would speed up the demise of democracy.

It would also speed up the decline of most Americans, a decline in both income and political influence.

IOW, disaster.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers-ebook/dp/B007MKCQ30/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TG34NY6MDSD1&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1573840993&sprefix=stiglitz+%2Caps%2C146&sr=8-1

#15048726
late wrote:There are a lot of bad ideas, and that's one of the really bad ones.

Taxing someone working at McDonalds the same as a CEO (who gets a lot of his income from things besides his wage) is basically punishing the bottom half of the country.


Let's say you make $1,000 a week. If you're taxed 15%, you keep $850 and pay $150 in taxes.

If someone else makes $10,000 a week and is taxed at the same rate, he keeps $8,500 and pays $1,500.

How is that not fair?
#15048730
BigSteve wrote:
How is that not fair?



I already told you the punch line. It would end what there is of democracy, and slide most Americans toward poverty even faster than they are now.

And I provided a link if you wanted more.

Time to put the big boy pants on.
#15048736
late wrote:I already told you the punch line. It would end what there is of democracy, and slide most Americans toward poverty even faster than they are now.

And I provided a link if you wanted more.

Time to put the big boy pants on.


Since you're incapable of explaining how it's not fair, I will conclude that you believe it is.

Thank you...
#15048738
quetzalcoatl wrote:A few points.

The purpose of taxation isn't revenue. Those governments which are sovereign currency issuers don't require revenue, per se (although they do require resources, labor, etc.). They are able to re-direct resources and labor by spending in the private sector or directly employing labor. We don't need to worry at all whether high marginal tax rates will bring in more money in either the short or long term. Money that is taxed doesn't go into a kitty, it is cancelled; i.e., taxation annihilates money and spending creates it. Out of the void and into the void, so to speak.

The purpose of taxation in this particular case (high marginal rates) is to break up concentrations of wealth (it would also require higher capital gains rates).

We don't like concentrations of wealth for a number of reasons. First, economic power translates into political power, and over time creates oligarchic structures of government. Second, it is less efficient because more and more market power becomes concentrated into fewer hands, restraining natural competition. That's why Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts a 100+ years ago. Of course, trust busting must be periodically repeated. Breaking up wealth concentrations is only a temporarily effective measure.


100% accurate. That is exactly the issue with the concentration of wealth.

But, you got some dumbells who don't know how the economy works and identify with the oligarchs when they should do some simple mathematics and figure out that it is a bad idea for most people all over the world to have vast concentrations of wealth in few hands.

There are only about 1000 billionaires in the world. To think one single individual or even a single family can generate the equivalent of what hundreds or thousands of workers have to work for---for entire decades or generations is even fair? Boggles the mind.

But there is no accounting for brainwashing Quetzalcoatl.

1000 people....versus what 7 billion workers. Which produces more in terms of spending, consuming, working and generating wealth?

If they can't figure it out Quetzalcoatl the Feathered Serpent? Then who is going to be able to snap these people out of their ignorance? No one.

Lol.
#15048740
BigSteve wrote:
Since you're incapable of explaining how it's not fair, I will conclude that you believe it is.

Thank you...



You mean, besides ending democracy and turning the country into a 3rd world cesspool.

Why is it the people that need Stiglitz the most hide from him??

Curious and curiouser...
#15048743
late wrote:You mean, besides ending democracy and turning the country into a 3rd world cesspool.


You've failed to explain how that would occur, so I'll accept that as your acknowledgement that you understand that your point is, in fact, false.

Thank you...
#15048745
BigSteve wrote:
You've failed to explain how that would occur, so I'll accept that as your acknowledgement that you understand that your point is, in fact, false.

Thank you...



Not true, but then accuracy is not exactly your strong suit.

This needs more than you can get in a forum. Try the Nobel economist Stiglitz, in the Price of Inequality.

Not that you ever would, he says with a smile...

Too busy dodging the real world...
#15048746
late wrote:Not true, but then accuracy is not exactly your strong suit.


Very true, in fact.

I asked you why it wasn't fair to both taxpayers. You are obviously not capable of providing an answer. That would be okay if you would just admit that, but your tap-dancing and obfuscating reveals that you're not capable of doing that, either...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

The IG report is out today and it is not favorable[…]

Trump and Russiagate

That the Ukrainians tried to interfere in the 201[…]

Turn, turn, turn

1) Turn on your TV, you know, the impeachment hea[…]

How to become an EU citizen

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense whats[…]