Why exactly would taxxing the very rich and taking most taxes off the below upper classes not work? I'm talking about taxxing the shit out of the top 10%.
>>55867763
bump
>>55867763
Because the Government is best friends with big business
>>55867763
The answer you will be given is that they will move elsewhere if you overtax them so the only logical choice is to coddle them and cave into their every whim so they don't leave
>>55867763
why not 10% flat rate?
>>55868012
Obviously I have no way of knowing this, but I would like to think that if I were a billionaire, and I were being taxed for 90% of my wealth (I would still have a hundred million dollars, enough money to live opulently for ten lifetimes), I don't think that would really be that much motivation to leave the country.
>>55868019
I think the problem with a flat rate is that we would actually lose a lot of revenue from the super rich who get taxed higher than 10%. So it would have to be a pretty high flat rate at which point you might as well just keep the system we have now and continue fucking the middle class anyway.
>>55868368
but what if you have an income of 500,000 per year and you lose 450,000 each year from taxes?
You're telling me you wouldn't move? You would make 50,000 per year for 500,000 worth of work.
>>55868368
>90% of wealth being taken away
>okay with it
>>55867763
because even if you take 100% of the wealth of the top 10% you wouldn't have enough money to run social programs the way they are now for ONE year, plus they would just leave
>>55867763
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
>>55867763
>why would not work?
to what end? Work to accomplish what?
This has been tried in many countries.
The fact of the matter is that the top 10-20% are people too. They already pay 75% of our nation's tax revenue. If you keep taxing them more and treating them like criminals they'll simply leave the US.
And no, you can't physically strap them down and force them to pay for everything. They'll simply say fuck you and go elsewhere. Not only their own wealth but all their business goes elsewhere, and it's the people and economy that suffers.
Places like Greece also thought they'd never run out of rich people to tax. Guess what?
Because money buys you options, including the option to take your money elsewhere where you can keep more of it.
People are not a resource to be harvested.
>>55868019
b/c deficit, can thank Dems for shutting down all hopes of that
>>55867763
Rich people can leave.
Middle and other cannot.
>>55868582
Last time I checked it was around 84% of federal government revenue from the top 20%.
>>55868398
The rich already pay most of the taxes in the US. Currently they are taxed about 50%. The upper class in the US pays for most government programs like schools, infrastructure, etc.
Oh wait, did you think that the lower class that gets all their tax return back actually pays for stuff and contributes to society? Cute.
a. they would leave.
b. if they dont leave they would not spend any money creating corporations for retards to work in
c. corporations are necessary, would you want your local farmer with no former knowledge of mistakes making your nabiscos.... corporations get there by trial and error bruh. and that local farmer would quit once he became top 10 percent and lands would rot blah blah blah.
getting more money is the only thing people look forward to in this life. white people anyway, im better than you attitude is why you have a fucking android or iphone dude. progression is driven by capitalism
>>55867763
It would work great for Mexico, China, and India.
>>55868477
That's not how progressive tax rates work. The percentage is on each bracket (I.E.: every dollar between 10,000-19,999 is taxed at a different rate than 50,000-99,999)
>>55867763
For a multitude of reasons, it doesn't work. When you raise federal taxes on the top earners, overall revenue decreases because they simply slow down their investments and productivity until taxes recede.
Why would I push myself up into another tax bracket when all the money I earn in that bracket will have the shit taxed out of it? It isn't worth my time, I have no reason to work at effectively half my normal pay, I'm already rich.
So they don't do the work, but because these people stand at the top of the economic foodchain them not doing work means other people don't work, which means labor that would've been done and pay that would've been paid and productivity that would have been produced goes undone.
An economy isn't just about money, it's also about production of goods and services. Raising taxes (or any form of expenses) decreases the total number of goods and services produced, period.
This is why when you raise federal taxes, revenue goes down.
Additionally, when you say "the 10%," you don't know who those people are. Most Americans end up in the 10% at some point in their lives, people who retire, sell their homes, cash in their assets, etc, in their 40s or 50s, very often enter that 10%. To "tax the shit" out of them is wildly unfair, most of them worked their entire lives to try and collect those resources, and now you just want to take them away? Why? You think you have a problem with boomers not retiring now, wait until you start robbing them for real.
>>55868723
>Currently they are taxed about 50%.
You pulled that number out of your ass it is nowhere close to 50%
If we are talking about the super wealthy the primary tax that affects them is capital gains which isn't close to that figure,
Taxes is a bitch move imo, employees are too weak to ask for cash directly so they ask the gov't to ask their employers for them. Join a union, ask for better pay or business suffers the consequences. Be a man and take what is yours.
>>55868546
Free Colleges would completely destroy the worth of a College degree and what you learn there and it would just become another mandatory education.
>>55867763
What happens when they run out of money?
>>55869103
Free college wouldn't increase the amount of people in top tier institutions. They'd go to community colleges/shitty universities, whose degrees are already worth shit.
>>55868958
>Most Americans end up in the 10% at some point in their lives
You sound like a retard when you say something like this. A majority of Americans do not end up in the top 10% of total wealth and you don't understand statistics if you actually believe this is true. How can most Americans end up in the 90th percentile?
>>55868368
most of the top 10% aren't billionaires. they have to save up for years if they want to be called millionaires.
the super rich who could probably buy your firstborn son are rich for a reason and its not giving away most of their wealth.
>>55869335
Income brackets fluctuate retard.
lrn2economics.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/282503/whos-top-1-percent-thomas-sowell
>>55867763
seriously, just learn some basic economics
>>55869654
You don't understand math if you honestly believe a majority (over 50%) makes up the 90th percentile of wealth in the United States.
Also I read the article you linked and
> A University of Michigan study showed that most of the working people who were in the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point by 1991.
Even the fucking article you linked wasn't as hyperbolic as you are and it leaves out a bunch of information. 29% of the people going from the bottom to the top (being 20% quintile) is not the same as a majority of Americans entering the 90th quintile
Do you have an actual argument or are you going to link another article you didn't understand?
>>55867763
because they run the show and that would never happen
middle class will pay for everything no matter what anyone says
>>55870012
>being this retarded
at one point in their lives does not mean their whole life. go back to reddit libc.uck
>>55868958
>>55869335
>>55869654
>>55870012
You guys need to make sure the other guy knows whether you are talking about wealth or income brackets
>>55870668
can't make a valid argument so I'll just call him a redditor :^)
So you agree that a majority of Americans (a majority being over 50%) at some point in their lives have wealth to put them in the 90th percentile?
Go ahead and provide proof for that bullshit because even the study Sowell presented does not say that.
![laffer-curve[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Wcqm78A.jpg "laffer-curve[1].jpg")
Laffer Curve
All these people who have never heard of capital controls. The rich can't leave if you don't let them.
>>55870925
Either would be incorrect with that example he gave. Income would be less skewed due to outliers but I am talking about wealth.
He made a retarded statement that's patently untrue and doubled down when called out on his bullshit
>>55871186
No, if he was talking about income he's correct, I'll assume he was because he said "income brackets fluctuate retard", even though you guys were never on the same page
>It turns out that 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution, 56% will find themselves in the top 10%, and a whopping 73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution.
http://www.aei.org/publication/evidence-shows-significant-income-mobility-in-the-us-73-of-americans-were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/
>>55871030
Too bad no one knows what it actually looks like.
>>55872094
If you are going to use their study to prove a point you may as well include context from the authors themselves on that very study
> "it would be misguided to presume that top-level income attainment is solely a function of hard work, diligence, and equality of opportunity," Hirschl and Rank write. While the results show substantial mobility in higher income brackets, they also show that race, gender, education, and having a work disability of some kind tend to keep people out of the top 20th, 10th, fifth, and first income percentiles. "A more nuanced interpretation includes the proposition that access to a top-level income is influenced by historic patterns of race and class inequality," they write.
They argue about the numbers they used for the study (Panel Study of Income Dynamics) not accounting for these particular factors. Do you agree with the authors of the study that their methodology for this study would not account those factors? If not why do you cite their study if you disagree with their methodology.
>Top 10% already pay 71+% of our taxes
>Hurr lets tax them more, they won't mind.
Fuck off.
>>55867763
Doesn't inspire innovation if you're going to heavily tax anyone who starts making a bigger profit than someone else. It's basically communism.
Seizing 100% of the assets of the "1%" would be less than 1 trillion dollars. That would not even fund medicare for 3 years.
No amount of taxing would pay all the entitlements that liberals want. What they want is literally unsustainable short of conquering other nations and forcing them to pay for it.
>>55867763
Because the rich are rich enough to flee to the Bahamas and avoid any taxation.
>>55873622
>No amount of taxing
Removal of religious exemptions would.
Welfare is the reason you guys have nigger problems in the first place.They have too much free time because they get enough free shit already. If it was a choice between getting a job or being homeless. Most of these niggers would be working shitty dumb jobs.
>>55873753
You don't understand. The cost of existing entitlements and the additional entitlements that liberals are demanding exceed the GDP of the USA. There is, quite literally, not enough money in the USA to pay for it. You could put a 100% tax rate on every American citizen and there would still be a deficit.
Bill Whittle did the math on it. You could cover everyone's welfare and needs for about a year before the money ran out. And that's if you literally took EVERYTHING.
>>55867763
Better idea. Kill the poor
>>55868012
Laffer Curve
>>55873887
You have any idea how much the Catholic church alone rakes in yearly?
ive paid 50% income tax most of my life and it enrages me. if you taxed me any more i would just kill myself or move to another country
these "super rich" people that you think about robbing in order to solve all your problems, there arent enough of them to pay for the american national debt or even the annual budget for any of the bullshit socialist programs you want
read a fucking economics book and leave us alone
>>55873993
Where does that money come from? People's income. We're already taxing 100% of people's income in this hypothetical, so we've already taken all of the church's money.
Or what, do you think that the USA is going to tax the Vatican's world wide income? That'd be a little difficult to justify, let alone enforce.
>>55873993
In the United States? Between 200-300 billion dollars. Its chump change.
>>55873389
>If you are going to use their study to prove a point you may as well include context from the authors themselves on that very study
Good thing I have no such intention
>They argue about the numbers they used for the study (Panel Study of Income Dynamics) not accounting for these particular factors. Do you agree with the authors of the study that their methodology for this study would not account those factors? If not why do you cite their study if you disagree with their methodology.
I didn't read the thesis or conclusions of the study, only the finding I was looking for, which is what % of the population enters the top 10% income bracket for 1 year in their lifetime. Those measurements don't need to account for those factors, they are just measurements, not conclusions drawn from measurements, which is a entirely different thing.
I cited their study because it was the first google result that looked reputable.
>>55874150
I'm trying to find the actual study and not a review/exerpt but I don't disagree with the results assuming they didn't fuck up
I can concede the point about income but when you are discussing the top quintile. wealth makes more sense as a metric than income since passive streams and assets will be where a majority of your wealth is located compared to just income.
Either way I think OP's idea is retarded but I sperg out about statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket
Required reading before you're allowed to talk about taxes.
>>55868546
Just watch this, OP. This should be sticked because it would stop a lot of you Bernie kekolds from spamming these threads everyday.
>>55867763
Rich people are rich because they're smart.
You push them too hard and they take their money offshore. Many other people are wanting to get their hands on it.
People also need incentive to create wealth, otherwise nobody would take the risk and we'd have no economy.
>>55873531
you're right the top 10% should pay 10% of our taxes ;^)
fair is fair ;^)
>>55867763
Liberals are like spoiled young adults begging their parents for rent money to try to continue their streak of unemployment and drug abuse and pretending to be independent
How would it "work" to take all the money they may "unfairly" have and just fucking give it to poor people for no reason? That wouldnt do fucking anything but harm in the long run.
Seriously how fucking long do you think that shit would last before businesses jump ship to other countries, the money just runs out,and we're all fucking dying of starvation due to economic collapse?
Seriously how are you not a drug addict with this kind of thinking, you sound like a gigantic fucking loser
