As a percentage of their income, the wealthiest Americans pay less. As an absolute sum, the wealthiest Americans pay more.
For what it's worth, in order for the wealthiest Americans to not pay more in absolute terms, you'd have to deliberately charge them a lower percent. You'd need to make taxes flat-out regressive, to absolutely absurd extents, in order to change this dynamic. In order for a guy making $500 grand to contribute the same taxes in absolute in terms as a guy making $50 grand, you'd have to tax the rich guy at 2% and the middle class guy at 20%!
Even a flat tax of 10% across the board would still mean the rich pay more in taxes in absolute terms. It means very little to say the rich pay more in absolute terms because that's always true--in order for it to not be true, we'd have to implement an insanely regressive tax system. No one would do that.
Frankly, I think the percentage is more meaningful. Progressive taxation is the only way to avoid crushing the poor and middle class with high tax burdens. Regressive or flat taxes would either bankrupt the public sector or devour the middle class and the poor.
The question is how progressive is enough for our taxes to be.
It's not obvious to me that our taxes are too progressive. We have much higher income inequality than other advanced countries, to the extent that our inequality is comparable to China's of all places. I'm not worried about the rich not getting enough money after taxes.
This doesn't even take into account the hard cap on Social Security taxes, which I believe is around $250,000. Essentially, if you make a couple million dollars a year, you are done paying SS taxes by MLK Day. People act like making Social Security solvent is some big mystery, when all you would really have to do is remove the cap, or at least double or triple it.
There are definitely things that need more attention. But I really dislike this idea that we only get news that "sell", as if we're all into some kind of misery voyeurism or always looking for new ways to bash political figures we dislike. The situation with Turkey in Syria is big news because of the immense human suffering and the huge shift in a war that has dominated the 2010s - all in a very short time and because of the decisions of very few people.
The only reason this is top news is because it's Trump. There are way more people being killed in other wars in the world but what sells is Trump. There are more humans dying/died in Yemen but that's not advertiser friendly. We all choose to believe what we like, unfortunately.
Congress (led by liberal Democrats) has voted twice to cut off the arms funding that is fueling the Saudis in Yemen. The Trump Administration has flat-out ignored this. Nevermind the fact that we just sent thousands of troops there and Trump's answer as to why was basically "they pay well". Yeah, they're paying for stuff alright. Whole floors at Trump properties and hotels. Trump has turned the US military into his own private mercenary business. Every single move he makes on the international stage has to be viewed through his bottomless conflicts of interest.
Excerpt: A collection of former high-ranking Obama administration national security officials who pushed a policy that led the United States to support Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen are now pleading with leaders in Congress to defund that effort.
There are definitely things that need more attention. But I really dislike this idea that we only get news that "sell", as if we're all into some kind of misery voyeurism or always looking for new ways to bash political figures we dislike. The situation with Turkey in Syria is big news because of the immense human suffering and the huge shift in a war that has dominated the 2010s - all in a very short time and because of the decisions of very few people.
The only reason this is top news is because it's Trump. There are way more people being killed in other wars in the world but what sells is Trump. There are more humans dying/died in Yemen but that's not advertiser friendly. We all choose to believe what we like, unfortunately.
Congress (led by liberal Democrats) has voted twice to cut off the arms funding that is fueling the Saudis in Yemen. The Trump Administration has flat-out ignored this. Nevermind the fact that we just sent thousands of troops there and Trump's answer as to why was basically "they pay well". Yeah, they're paying for stuff alright. Whole floors at Trump properties and hotels. Trump has turned the US military into his own private mercenary business. Every single move he makes on the international stage has to be viewed through his bottomless conflicts of interest.
Excerpt: A collection of former high-ranking Obama administration national security officials who pushed a policy that led the United States to support Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen are now pleading with leaders in Congress to defund that effort.
But of course it's because of Trump, is it?
You are right of course, but the article itself signals an ongoing problem with Trump's whole foreign policy, namely being far too friendly, to the point of deference, with Saudi Arabia. It started all the way in the beginning of his administration, when they were excluded from the travel ban.
"The ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen's Houthis threatens fresh U.S. military action in the region," they write. "President Trump recently signaled that the United States is 'locked and loaded' for possible intervention at the behest of Saudi Arabia,"
Intervening on behalf of Saudi Arabia while backing out of our other obligations is not a consistent policy. It's playing favorites, and is indefensible on several different levels.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
I'd rather trust millionaires and billionaires to spend money wisely than governments.
For example, the Gates Foundation has done more to help developing countries than majority of governments.
What would the U.S. government do if the money that was put into that foundation was taxed instead?
I just don't think it's ethical for humanities fate to be reliant upon the goodwill of billionaires rather than being in the hands of the public. Bill Gates does good work and I wouldn't take that away from him. But for every Bill Gates there's a plutocrat responsible for deindustrializing the economy, starting opioid epidemics, building their supply chains on slave labor, and putting everything on earth behind the shareholders value.
I don't think their very public, very grandiose displays of occasional charity merit the sort of massive power they have.
I'd rather trust millionaires and billionaires to spend money wisely than governments.
For example, the Gates Foundation has done more to help developing countries than majority of governments.
What would the U.S. government do if the money that was put into that foundation was taxed instead?
I just don't think it's ethical for humanities fate to be reliant upon the goodwill of billionaires rather than being in the hands of the public. Bill Gates does good work and I wouldn't take that away from him. But for every Bill Gates there's a plutocrat responsible for deindustrializing the economy, starting opioid epidemics, building their supply chains on slave labor, and putting everything on earth behind the shareholders value.
I don't think their very public, very grandiose displays of occasional charity merit the sort of massive power they have.
Not that I am not disagreeing with you, however:
If governments actually govern for the people that they represent, all the issues that you listed would be nonexistent.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.
The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.
The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
But hasn't the nation and society already decided what the fair share is? It is what it is right now. You may not agree with it, but society decided it.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.
The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
But hasn't the nation and society already decided what the fair share is? It is what it is right now. You may not agree with it, but society decided it.
Time did not end when the tax rate on the wealthy hit 23%. Since the experiment in lowering that tax rate has failed, rolling those cuts back looks like a prudent thing to do.
I'd rather trust millionaires and billionaires to spend money wisely than governments.
For example, the Gates Foundation has done more to help developing countries than majority of governments.
What would the U.S. government do if the money that was put into that foundation was taxed instead?
I just don't think it's ethical for humanities fate to be reliant upon the goodwill of billionaires rather than being in the hands of the public. Bill Gates does good work and I wouldn't take that away from him. But for every Bill Gates there's a plutocrat20 plutocrats responsible for deindustrializing the economy, starting opioid epidemics, building their supply chains on slave labor, and putting everything on earth behind the shareholders value.
I don't think their very public, very grandiose displays of occasional charity merit the sort of massive power they have.
the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here.
That sounds awfully like "employees should decide what CEO's share should be". 70 years of competition between capitalist USA and socialist USSR had very clearly demonstrated it's the reverse approach that benefits the economy more.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.
The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
But hasn't the nation and society already decided what the fair share is? It is what it is right now. You may not agree with it, but society decided it.
But that's where you get into a discussion of the political process. Decisions in recent years (in the US anyway) about this have been greatly influenced by money. Those decisions can be characterized far more as being taken by a very small segment of society rather than society as a whole.
You started with a question about what the maximum marginal rate of tax should be. I do think there's force in the argument that very high rates are self-defeating - leading to unproductive energy being spent on avoidance and not actually raising more money. I remember when the UK had a top marginal rate on investment income of 98% (standard top marginal rate for income was 83%, but there was an investment income surcharge of 15% on top) - which was totally bonkers.
Personally I would suggest a top rate of about 40% - and definitely would not like to see it go above 50%. However, I would also suggest hugely reducing the system of exemptions and allowances with the aim of making the tax system both fairer and more understandable to ordinary people.
I watched the Democratic debates with some friends of mine and we talked about politics and history for a while. My friends (all three of them liberal) were very skeptical about the debates and generally critical of a lot of the smaller candidates and Biden, even though they acknowledged that, over all, it was a solid group of intelligent politicians with integrity. One thing that stood out to one of my friends was that so many of the smaller candidates were essentially echoing ideas voiced by Sanders and Warren, but in less detail and nuance than either of them.
One new idea I hadn't heard before was a suggestion by Warren to require companies to have 40% of their board of directors be elected by their own employees. The process could be manipulated a little by companies that wanted to avoid being held accountable by their employees, but it would add a lot of democratic power to American workers and force companies to pay closer attention to their employees' well-being and interests.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.
The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.
But hasn't the nation and society already decided what the fair share is? It is what it is right now. You may not agree with it, but society decided it.
You could argue (though I think there are strong arguments against that as well) that, but then society is now discussing whether to change its mind - which it has done before and will do again.
the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here.
That sounds awfully like "employees should decide what CEO's share should be". 70 years of competition between capitalist USA and socialist USSR had very clearly demonstrated it's the reverse approach that benefits the economy more.
Do you really think CEO compensation was the main difference in systems between USA and USSR? Anyway, while the USSR may have failed yet, I think it is a bit early to say that modern capitalism has stood the test of time.
Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
If anything, the straw here was that Erdogan basically announced an ethnic cleansing on his Twitter account.
Speaking of which, Trump is now trying to negotiate a ceasefire to a conflict he essentially greenlighted by sending Pence (create a crisis and then try take credit for fixing it, except with thousands of lives being lost). Erdogan has said he won't even meet with Pence or Pompeo. What an absolute shit-show.
I'm just grabbing pop-corn now. I'm really curious what's Putin gonna do when his best friends in the region are fighting.
Trump might've just done the smartest thing to remove himself from the area and let his opponent to take all the responsibility. Unless Putin can negotiate piece between Erdogan and Asad, his relations with one of them's gonna plummet.
Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
Twitter just shows its true face. Pretending to be a force of good and silencing free speech "for your own protection", but too afraid to bark at those with the power to make it face consequences. Typical authoritarian crap.
I'm just grabbing pop-corn now. I'm really curious what's Putin gonna do when his best friends in the region are fighting.
Trump might've just done the smartest thing to remove himself from the area and let his opponent to take all the responsibility. Unless Putin can negotiate piece between Erdogan and Asad, his relations with one of them's gonna plummet.
Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
Twitter just shows its true face. Pretending to be a force of good and silencing free speech "for your own protection", but too afraid to bark at those with the power to make it face consequences. Typical authoritarian crap.
Having terms of service is has nothing to do with free speech. This forum is not "anti-free speech" because it has rules. The ONLY reason Twitter is being wishy-washy on the world leaders front is because of Trump, because he violates their terms of service on a regular basis. And the same people bitching about Twitter being authoritarian would lose their shit if Trump were banned. It's been said many times here before that if Trump was a poster of the Beamdog forums, the mods would have to ban him for conduct. Again, what does this have to do with free speech??
I once posted a comment on a Blizzard Entertainment news site that called the author sycophantic. I got banned for it. I said something (my speech) they responded with their action (their speech). None of my rights were violated. Life moved on. Incidentally, I just noticed recently this particular author got a job at Blizzard, so I may have been more on the mark than I even realized, but that is neither here nor there.
There aren't enough rich parasites to outvote us so why not just take all of their money? After all, they owe us...
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
Well don't the ultra wealthy deserve their wealth, wouldn't that also mean that they have a greater responsibility to society in how its used? But for some reason, they get the most tax cuts, the most loopholes, and pay the least out of their wealth than literally every other American who need a larger percent of their income just to survive.
Comments
For what it's worth, in order for the wealthiest Americans to not pay more in absolute terms, you'd have to deliberately charge them a lower percent. You'd need to make taxes flat-out regressive, to absolutely absurd extents, in order to change this dynamic. In order for a guy making $500 grand to contribute the same taxes in absolute in terms as a guy making $50 grand, you'd have to tax the rich guy at 2% and the middle class guy at 20%!
Even a flat tax of 10% across the board would still mean the rich pay more in taxes in absolute terms. It means very little to say the rich pay more in absolute terms because that's always true--in order for it to not be true, we'd have to implement an insanely regressive tax system. No one would do that.
Frankly, I think the percentage is more meaningful. Progressive taxation is the only way to avoid crushing the poor and middle class with high tax burdens. Regressive or flat taxes would either bankrupt the public sector or devour the middle class and the poor.
The question is how progressive is enough for our taxes to be.
It's not obvious to me that our taxes are too progressive. We have much higher income inequality than other advanced countries, to the extent that our inequality is comparable to China's of all places. I'm not worried about the rich not getting enough money after taxes.
I think this is the truth.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/democrats-congress-yemen-war/index.html
Excerpt: A collection of former high-ranking Obama administration national security officials who pushed a policy that led the United States to support Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen are now pleading with leaders in Congress to defund that effort.
But of course it's because of Trump, is it?
You are right of course, but the article itself signals an ongoing problem with Trump's whole foreign policy, namely being far too friendly, to the point of deference, with Saudi Arabia. It started all the way in the beginning of his administration, when they were excluded from the travel ban.
"The ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen's Houthis threatens fresh U.S. military action in the region," they write. "President Trump recently signaled that the United States is 'locked and loaded' for possible intervention at the behest of Saudi Arabia,"
Intervening on behalf of Saudi Arabia while backing out of our other obligations is not a consistent policy. It's playing favorites, and is indefensible on several different levels.
Of course, because there's absolutely nothing in between "Billionaires should pay a tiny percentage" and "Take every penny".
People in this forum aren't generally talking about a 'tiny percentage' from what I see. What percentage of somebody's wealth should be procured from them to make things more 'fair' in your opinion?
In my mind, a significant percentage once you go above a certain income level. I wouldn't be bothered by an 80% tax above a couple million for example. I don't think you have any particular right to vast wealth, and there are plenty of reasons why it is bad for society to allow plutocrats to exist. I am skeptical of any source of great power and influence, and the super rich are right at the top of that list.
I wouldn't be bothered with it either, considering I don't make that much. Hell, I wouldn't be 'bothered' if it was 100% above $100k/year. Whether it bothers me or not is completely irrelevant. I don't think I have any particular 'right' to take away somebody's else's wealth either. Or am I missing something here?
For example, the Gates Foundation has done more to help developing countries than majority of governments.
What would the U.S. government do if the money that was put into that foundation was taxed instead?
Answer: $20,000 hammers...
I just don't think it's ethical for humanities fate to be reliant upon the goodwill of billionaires rather than being in the hands of the public. Bill Gates does good work and I wouldn't take that away from him. But for every Bill Gates there's a plutocrat responsible for deindustrializing the economy, starting opioid epidemics, building their supply chains on slave labor, and putting everything on earth behind the shareholders value.
I don't think their very public, very grandiose displays of occasional charity merit the sort of massive power they have.
Too many good points, gotta like them all.
This exact statement applies to governments as far as I'm concerned.
Not that I am not disagreeing with you, however:
If governments actually govern for the people that they represent, all the issues that you listed would be nonexistent.
You don't have that right, but the nation and society does have a right to determine what is the fair share that should be contributed by those who benefit the most from living here. Most proposals for the high marginal tax rates coming from Democrats are nowhere near the levels proposed by obvious socialists like @WarChiefZeke and Dwight Eisenhower.
There's an opinion piece about this in the NY Times that talks more in depth about this.
A pertinent quote:
But hasn't the nation and society already decided what the fair share is? It is what it is right now. You may not agree with it, but society decided it.
Time did not end when the tax rate on the wealthy hit 23%. Since the experiment in lowering that tax rate has failed, rolling those cuts back looks like a prudent thing to do.
Fixed that for you.
But that's where you get into a discussion of the political process. Decisions in recent years (in the US anyway) about this have been greatly influenced by money. Those decisions can be characterized far more as being taken by a very small segment of society rather than society as a whole.
You started with a question about what the maximum marginal rate of tax should be. I do think there's force in the argument that very high rates are self-defeating - leading to unproductive energy being spent on avoidance and not actually raising more money. I remember when the UK had a top marginal rate on investment income of 98% (standard top marginal rate for income was 83%, but there was an investment income surcharge of 15% on top) - which was totally bonkers.
Personally I would suggest a top rate of about 40% - and definitely would not like to see it go above 50%. However, I would also suggest hugely reducing the system of exemptions and allowances with the aim of making the tax system both fairer and more understandable to ordinary people.
One new idea I hadn't heard before was a suggestion by Warren to require companies to have 40% of their board of directors be elected by their own employees. The process could be manipulated a little by companies that wanted to avoid being held accountable by their employees, but it would add a lot of democratic power to American workers and force companies to pay closer attention to their employees' well-being and interests.
You could argue (though I think there are strong arguments against that as well) that, but then society is now discussing whether to change its mind - which it has done before and will do again.
Do you really think CEO compensation was the main difference in systems between USA and USSR? Anyway, while the USSR may have failed yet, I think it is a bit early to say that modern capitalism has stood the test of time.
https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019.html
Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
If anything, the straw here was that Erdogan basically announced an ethnic cleansing on his Twitter account.
Speaking of which, Trump is now trying to negotiate a ceasefire to a conflict he essentially greenlighted by sending Pence (create a crisis and then try take credit for fixing it, except with thousands of lives being lost). Erdogan has said he won't even meet with Pence or Pompeo. What an absolute shit-show.
Trump might've just done the smartest thing to remove himself from the area and let his opponent to take all the responsibility. Unless Putin can negotiate piece between Erdogan and Asad, his relations with one of them's gonna plummet.
Twitter just shows its true face. Pretending to be a force of good and silencing free speech "for your own protection", but too afraid to bark at those with the power to make it face consequences. Typical authoritarian crap.
Having terms of service is has nothing to do with free speech. This forum is not "anti-free speech" because it has rules. The ONLY reason Twitter is being wishy-washy on the world leaders front is because of Trump, because he violates their terms of service on a regular basis. And the same people bitching about Twitter being authoritarian would lose their shit if Trump were banned. It's been said many times here before that if Trump was a poster of the Beamdog forums, the mods would have to ban him for conduct. Again, what does this have to do with free speech??
I once posted a comment on a Blizzard Entertainment news site that called the author sycophantic. I got banned for it. I said something (my speech) they responded with their action (their speech). None of my rights were violated. Life moved on. Incidentally, I just noticed recently this particular author got a job at Blizzard, so I may have been more on the mark than I even realized, but that is neither here nor there.
Well don't the ultra wealthy deserve their wealth, wouldn't that also mean that they have a greater responsibility to society in how its used? But for some reason, they get the most tax cuts, the most loopholes, and pay the least out of their wealth than literally every other American who need a larger percent of their income just to survive.