Why arguments against a 70% marginal tax rate for income over $10 million is absurd (look at all that money they'd STILL have):
@Ferretsyndicate No one should ever be taxed at those insane rates. Especially when there is more than enough money to go around just most of it is wasted on things we shouldnt be spending on (like military). Fix the budget, lower taxes for everyone, including the rich, and you get my support...
The billionaire defender has arrived...
@Ferretsyndicate Oh sorry, I thought you were someone who discussed things maturely. Wasnt aware your just going to use childish rhetoric rather than addressing the actual message. My mistake.
Let's look at the reverse: should anyone ever be able to be a billionaire?
@Ferretsyndicate normally I'd be more than happy to discuss that point, it would be a worthwhile point to discuss for sure.
But since you opened with clear immaturity I am more likely to think that it would just be a conversation involving me listening to you throw a temper tantrum on any point I might make that you would disagree with, rather than a discussion.
As such I'd rather just exit the conversation.
@Ferretsyndicate Refusing to have discourse with people who act immature and rude is not a rage quit. I wouldn't want to interrupt the little circle jerk you all have going there with opposing opinions. Continue...
I'm sorry higher taxes on Jeff Bezos makes you upset.
@Ferretsyndicate I've asked twice now to be removed from this conversation. Please do not tag me again.
Plz untagg me.
@Ferretsyndicate dear anyone who enjoys the beatles: george hamilton wrote a song complaining about marginal tax rates
@Ferretsyndicate Ypu can't take everything they have, though.
Sure you can.
@Ferretsyndicate You can, but it's a bad idea. They'll leave the country and go somewhere that doesn't take all their money.
So your argument is: they own us and we should back down.
That's hopelessness. Thanks but I'll pass--there are always solutions even if they haven't been found yet.
[Image description] Show more
@Ferretsyndicate A graph diving each income between $0 and $12,000,000 into a "Take-home" portion (blue) and a "Maximum Taxes" portion (green).
A tiny box in the lower lefthand corner is labelled "Where 94% of US is".
A vertical dashed line at $10,000,000 crosses the graph. At this point, the "Take-home" income is a little over $6,000,000. Starting at this point, a narrow wedge below the bottom edge of the green line shows the difference in take-home income created between the former highest marginal bracket and the new proposed 70% marginal rate. The total height of this triangle is less than 10% of the take-home income at an income of $12,000,000, on the right edge of the graph.
If a project is valuable it can be funded in ways other than theft.
Yes, which is why we should stop capitalists from stealing the value of their worker's labor for profit--I agree.
@Ferretsyndicate That's not what people are usually arguing about when they argue about taxes, though...
They're arguing about what the tax dollars are going towards. Especially if it's a different "group" from their own.
@mdm @Ferretsyndicate exactly, I also avoid paying taxes when I can. Simply because then I can decide not to fund military and waste of money in subsidy of big corporations… then I can invest in local projects or put it to work for things I like. but it's also the question if you use the states money or our own.
This is what almost the entire discussion has been about since AOC suggested a 70% top income tax.
As far as what it's going towards: these tax raises are a means and an end: Having this much concentrated wealth is bad; it encourages corruption, distorts electoral systems, and drives up prices of high-demand commodities like housing and education.
And if ppl don't want more money going to the military from increased taxes? Cool. Defund the military and do something else w/ the money.
@Ferretsyndicate My favorite thing was some jag on twitter crunching numbers on this shit and saying that 27% of Warren Buffett's net worth would be wiped out in 50 years, like an 88 year old man will be alive in 50 years even if anyone gave a shit about that
@Ferretsyndicate Am I the only one that think that nobody should be able to earn so much? After a certain amount the economical power becomes political power i.e. goodbye democracy
@Ferretsyndicate Does this image have a source?
Just to be clear, property rights have no part of this discussion right?
No. But wealth taxing (which includes property assets) is important as well. We're talking about income, however.
So we don't believe in property rights anymore? That's too bad. I really like owning my cellphone... and my own wealth... and you know, the food I grow. It's too bad so many people are okay with saying property rights don't exist.
@poetgrant cool you can still own it. I didn't realize it was so important for you to have gov't recognize your ownership. But that's "small gov't" right wing libertarians for ya. Always want the gov't authority backing things up for them.
That's not the argument. I am asserting that the govt wants to take away ownership. I don't need a govt to tell me I own something. It is the govt that exerts force to say that I don't own anything anymore. I can argue, but you are the one proposing we use guns to take away people's property.
How do you propose to establish ownership of, say, a large plot of land that you don't live on and/or rarely use w/o gov't? What's to stop someone else from staking their claim of it?
You need gov't for private property to exist.
That is the place of the homestead philosophy. The only reason for govt is to defend property rights. I am no anarchist by any means. But the govt should never have the ability to take away property (i.e. taxation and regulation). If there is a huge piece of land that is unused and not owned, then the homesteaders are the ones who can claim it and use it. This is a principle established as far back as medieval Iceland.
But not in America, where the state is firmly in the hands of propertied interests. We're not proposing the gov't taking land either on the SocLib left.
The problem in the US is that the corps have a firm grasp on the govt and their guns. We can thank FDR and Rockafeller for blazing that trail.
All the presidents are to blame--FDR gave workers far more stake in their workplaces, allowing them to unionize.
He also redistributed wealth much more evenly.
If you wanna blame anyone, blame Reagan, who allowed corporations to run rampant and union bust--and allowed the wealthy to retain more wealth and thus influence the political system for their benefit.
But of course, right wingers always have a narrative to keep up.
Oh these are things I can agree with in part. FDR enslaved the workers though, through his agreements with Rockafeller. The New Deal was more of a PR stunt. But he handed entire industries to the Rockafellers. He created a cartel single handedly. The first president that did not do this in the 20th century was Harding... but that is because he was too busy cheating on his wife.
Reagan was horrible too. His 'free market' initiative further deepened that cartelism of the entire economy. Cartels can only exist through govt force. Worse than Reagan was Bush and worse than Bush was Obama. They all hand monopolies to big business so that they can advance their own pet projects that never turn out well.
Likewise, we're digressing from the original issue--something right wingers always do when they recognize popular opinion isn't on their side.
The original issue is a 70% marginal income tax over $10 million. No one's labor is worth that much and these people will be completely fine even if you took 99% of income over 10 million.
I didn't ask the question about land. The issue is that that billionaires built a company with their mind and labor and hired people to increase the productivity of their ideas and decisions. That company and all of its productivity therefore belongs to the creator and owner of the company. It isn't a matter of 'how much' they make. It is a matter of stealing their property at the point of a gun by looters.
Nope. They didn't create that wealth. Their workers did and they scraped money off the top.
They created the wealth and paid employees to expand that creation. The employees have been compensated for their productivity. They fulfilled a contract and that is the end of it.
No, they haven't: they were undercompensated for their labor, just look at the cruelly low minimum wage for example--there is no recourse for poor uneducated individuals but to take these jobs. It's hardly voluntary.
How do you know it is not voluntary? Until recently I barely made more than minimum wage, but I understood that that wage was all they were willing to pay. That is their choice. They own the business. My productivity is worth more to me than what they were paying, so I became less productive to match the wage they paid. Then I educated myself in something until I was able to be more competitive.
You came to the wrong conclusion. You sympathized with the person abusing you, justifying people living in poverty despite being productive members of societies--instead of coming to the obvious conclusion: it's morally unjust for millionaires to exist when just one person goes hungry or homeless.
Then you don't believe it is immoral to hold a gun to someone's head and steal their money?
Point me to where I suggested that. Taxation is not holding a gun to someone's head--and if you consider that to be a gun-to-head situation, than paying minimum wage is a bazooka to the head. Stop w/ the Ben Shapiro-esque dramatic analogies.
Minimum wage is a gun to the head situation too. How is it not? The govt says you must pay a minimum wage. If you don't you are in trouble. How do they back all that up? Well the only thing they have to enforce their rulings is a gun. No one stole wealth in the employee/employer relationship. How do you justify that claim? Specifically how do you justify that claim? (I am asking honestly, I am not trying to start a row)
Jfc you're arguing that billionaires should be "free" to pay ppl less than minimum wage--what's next? Should they be "free" to hire child labor?
The sheer callousness you have towards workers and the poor is blatant. I can't argue with an asshole of this magnitude. Bye.
Bahaha, still you haven't made an argument. This is why I only occasionally try to converse with socialists. They don't know how to argue their own stance.
Thank you for the fun.
Lol, dude you're arguing for child labor--a morally abominable position to 99% of the public and anyone with common sense.
I don't need to debate a jackass to prove child labor is wrong.
All I have to do is screenshot it. Get ready to get dragged across multiple social media platforms.
And why shouldn't they be allowed to hire people under 16 if the 16 year old wants to work?
I was working 50-60 hours a week when I was 15 in a Chinese kitchen while going to a junior college.
Of course it is. What I'm saying is: it's not their money to begin with. They stole it from their employees' labor by underpaying them.
My problem with your argument is that I cannot morally justify using a gun to get what I want.
A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.