A 70% marginal tax rate is nothing new

>they didn't actually pay it!
So? It's an indictment of the policy. If anything it's a call for stricter tax collection.

>wealth inequality is just the product of da gubbermint
Not Real Capitalism™

>big government bad
Having a higher top marginal taxrate does not empower government to do all those bad things you alluded to, and having a low top marginal taxrate does not dispower government of doing any of that. You're conflating two different things.

As a broader consertard talking point:
Government isn't like a comically big lever labeled "big/small" you pull either side. Government action is nuanced can be either good or bad. "Big government" that comes in the form of military spending is bad. "Big government" that comes in the form of universal healthcare is good. There is nothing inherent about any of it.

(If you go full anarchist (or even certain forms of orthodox Marxism), actually, they'd agree with you! The state is a tool of class oppression and just one more method of capitalist domination.)

The unrestricted free flow of capital isn't a matter of "geopolitical climate" - it's a conscious choice world governments enacted in the wake of neoliberal domination over the past few decades.
The idea that companies and people would just up and move the moment you try to tax them is not an argument for not even trying. It's an argument for stricter limitations on capital mobility.

Well yeah, that's what I mean, the entire "we have 90% marginal tax rates in the golden 40s and 50s!" talking point is effectively 100% debunked. Like I said in the other post too, I mean nobody even paid it. I have never seen evidence of one single tax receipt of someone actually paying that amount, and I have looked.

But OP pretty much reveals his true hand here . I mean this isn't just about "70% tax rates", he wants full on totalitarianism. Total control.
What they always do is try to say "Hurrrrr it's no big deal! It's been done in the past! It's nothing! It's just a tiny little change, goy!" but behind it, they are always pushing this incrementalist agenda. Their true goal is to drive you into total authoritarianism, and their strategy is very effectively, sadly. The reason Hitler did everything he did was because he realized just how effective this tactic is. He realized how completely people were willing to cede their freedom and rights to the manipulators, and so he decided to use authoritarianism to fight authoritarianism. I mean, you can agree or disagree with what he ended up doing, but that was the foundation of his philosophy, which everyone seems to conveniently forget.

yeah, it even makes lot of sense, at least on incomes over 5 million

Why does the graph start at 1913?
What about everything before that?

>bring back bretton woods and impose a sane top marginal tax rate
>LITERALLY STALIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are 1960's America "Genuine totalitarianism and authoritarianism here. Full on communism, Soviet Union Style"?

Comparing the proposal to any of the last remaining social democracies on earth is not a false equivalence. It's just literally what it is!

>nd I will also point out that the Soviet Union did not even get to experience a babyboom because of all the famines and other economic horrors that their system caused for them over there.
the soviet union had a birth rate that modern russia - actually all of europe - can only dream of

all that would happen with a higher tax rate is the government would waste more money than it already does

You should draw the line before the 1900's, in the time of monarchies, the tax rates at those times were well belong 10% most of the time, closer to 5% on average or even less. The tea tax, of 2% was considered so insane, that everyone basically rebelled.

Having capital controls in place isn't "full on totalitarianism". It's a perfect sensible policy that most country used to have - and most still do!

based jew trying to save amerimutts from their own stupidity

Fed Income tax started when Woodrow Wilson enslaved us all in 1913.

The graph should show the entire history

This entire jewish post, and not one relevant argument that actually addresses something being discussed at all. Absolute pilpul. A literal talmudic tactic.
>urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pilpul

>no argument

also, try learning what "pilpul" actually means before you start parroting it like the mindless NPC you are

IT is showing the full history, you god damn gook. Fed Income tax started in 1913

You can keep using the pilpul tactic but the fact at the end of the day is that the 90% tax rate during this time period very really did not actually exist. It existed in law, on books, in the same way sodomy laws exist on books all over the US today, but they aren't enforced, they don't practically effect anybody. There are other bizarre, random laws too that are still on the books, like "don't use your umbrella outside the library on tuesday", but they aren't real laws. They aren't really enforced. That's all. The 90% marginal tax rate during the 20th century was the same. All of your jewy rage and pilpul tactics to try to distract from that, IMO, is not going to change anything.

Based Jew

trickle down economics does not work, we should tax break people 200k and below. then tax anyone above logarithmic.

People are what stimulate the economy, they are the end user, and customers. without people buying iphones, and mac books apple wouldn't have high stock.

Trying to cut apple's tax does not help individuals. cutting indiviudal's tax rate means they spend more, and this means business hire more people which in turn spend more.

Thinking that companies will increase your wage because of a tax break is retarded. Doing so goes against capitalism, which is profit seeking greed mindset.

This is just a 100% objectively false fabrication.
>"Being authoritarian isn't authoritarianism, goy!"
Amazing judaism, truly.

Well you didn't really present an argument that was relevant or cogent or sequitur yourself, so that's why.
>Arguing about the definition of words rather than the substance of a debate in order to obfuscate from points that really matter.
>Literal Jewish pilpul

And again, this is not even an argument against the policy. I mean - if the rich do not even pay such a high rate, why are you so opposed to setting it? They'll just "exploit tax loops" or whatever they did back in the 1950's, right?

>The Israeli wants our income tax to be high so our government can keep subsidizing the ongoing human rights abuses going on in Gaza and the West Bank.
At least outright say it, trying to act like it's actually a good idea for my nation and thinking I'll believe it is insulting to my intelligence.

Every successful economy in the world runs upon the principles of "trickle down economics" so I don't understand how people can say this with a straight face. Even progressive countries like Sweden, that the left loves to say we should emulate, run on even more stringent principles of trickle down economics and libertarian economics as well than we do here in the USA. ESP before the Trump administration, who has brought us far more in line with the Nordic Model and how it operates.

Peter Schiff says it best here
youtu.be/ahMGoB01qiA?t=3432
>I've never seen any evidence that even a single one of them actually paid that rate, based on the tax receipts, because there were so many loopholes that allowed them to get out of it. So it's all really a moot point.
this

Attached: QgmHt0cF_400x400.jpg (400x400, 31K)

God this is so jewish. So what are you advocating for? A high tax rate on the rich, or a high tax rate on the rich with loopholes so they don't have to pay it? Which is it, Jew? Which one are you advocating for, LMFAO. Wow the fucking Hebrew is strong with you.

Words have meanings, buddy. Capital controls aren't any more "authoritarian" than any other basic law.

>Well you didn't really present an argument that was relevant or cogent or sequitur yourself, so that's why.
I actually did.

>Arguing about the definition of words rather than the substance of a debate in order to obfuscate from points that really matter.
Good thing I did not do this, then.

Like comon, I know this is Jow Forums, and I've had much worse, but I really fucking tried keeping it clean, simple and to-the-point in . You could at least do me the courtesy of pretending to answer any of the arguments I shat out.

I'm actually against those "abuses".
I'm a leftist, after all. Open borders for Israel (unironically) :^)

That's not when your country was founded moron. You probably dont even know when that was.

>inb4 hurr durr all history before fed income tax doesnt matter

>American
>misusing/overusing the word totalitarianism/communism/socialism/fascism
Don't try to reason with him, Ari.

Dude.......WTF? Everyone in the US knows when it was founded Jap. Income taxes started in 1913 though, with the (improperly ratified) passage of the 16th amendment. Maybe if you're going to lecture proud Americans like on the history of our country, you should actually know what the fuck you are talking about. WTF man, you can't even make up some of the blatant, left-wing stupidity in this thread even if you tried.

No it does invalidate the entire argument. You're pointing at the graph and saying "see the Economy was still successful and growing during a 90% tax rate" but nobody actually paid the fucking rate so you can't use that as evidence that the economy will be as strong/growing during the rate. May Jesus have mercy on your soul and gene pool.

>Like comon, I know this is Jow Forums, and I've had much worse
please go JIDF

Memeflaggot aside, the idea behind a high top-end marginal tax rate is to prevent consolidation of wealth among a very few number of people. Not a terrible idea in and of itself.
In actual practice, though, it's meaningless. If you confiscate every dime of wealth from the top 1%, you'll pay the government tab for like 3 months. That's not where the government gets its money.
45% is from income taxes
40% is from withholding (FICA/SS)
One favorite tropes of the right is that the rich 10% pay 40% of income taxes, but that's just 40% of the 45%.
The government is funded by the other 90% paying 60% of income taxes and nearly 100% of the withholding taxes.

Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share is a dumb leftist meme. If you want to raise government revenues, you have to tax the shit out of everybody else. There's no other way. If you propagate this dumb ass idea, you're either cripplingly stupid or a shill.

So Liberals do want to go back to the 50s

> nothing new
irrelevant, the questions is why would it be needed & how is it going to stop funneling money through offshore or midshore companies?

>dude wtf wtf dude heey duuude yoo wtf duude
You need to be of age to post here kid.

Why is abuses in quotes. Are you acting like I'm using to strong a word for your government slaughtering 3000 Palestinian women and children for someone sending a glorified bottle rocket over your very real and very high border wall.(which exists in Gaza/the West Bank)
IT'S A GRAPH OF THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX, WHICH STARTED IN 1913. THE GRAPH WOULD BE COMPLETELY FLAT BEFORE THAT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST.

Oh I think I get it now.
But this is the point for economists to argument, not retarded Jow Forumstards.

Regardless, if "nobody paid" those high tax rates (note that AOC's recent proposal is a 70% rate, not a 90%), it does put to question the reasoning behind lowering it, why capitalists were to happy when Reaganomics were put into motion, or why has inequality begun skyrocketing when this progressive taxation became much less progressive (on paper).

> Freeze their assets
literally cause the mass panic and nationwide bank run
> then confiscate and nationalize their business
good luck on running them without the experts who designed them lmao

Gulags are nothing new

Attached: FAC86A1E-9D01-4628-A284-7C3E79969398.jpg (260x434, 27K)

>Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share is a dumb leftist meme
It's not really the point. The point is that money confers real social power on its owner, and democratic principles abhor such unnatural inequalities.

>Why is abuses in quotes
because I am quoting you, idiot

>WHO CARES IF THE TAX BEFORE 1913 WAS 0% PEOPLE DIDNT EVEN HAVE INCOME SO IT DOESNT MATTER

Attached: 1524776113395.gif (650x705, 38K)

That's a really big question that I don't want to spend the time answering.(if I even have one) Wealth inequality has more factors than just a tax rate.

>money confers real social power on its owner, and democratic principles abhor such unnatural inequalities
So reduce the influence of money on democratic principles by reducing the power of democratic institutions.
Nobody cares about money in politics if politics doesn't control so many aspects of life. When buying and selling is regulated, the first thing to be bought and sold are regulators.

He never said capital controls were totalitarianism, he was referring to OP advocating for nationalization and asset forfeiture . People are calling you out for kikery because you're being blatantly dishonest in representing his points.

It isn't a graph showing income it's showing tax rates for four different income groups that are taxed over time. I don't think I'm the one who is retarded here.

>It's not really the point
I should add that if that wasn't the point, then why is it repeated by Democrats so often?
(You're right that it isn't the point. It's a sales tactic. People will be okay with higher taxes so long as they think the rich are getting soaked too. It's a lie, like most things that fall out of politicians' mouths.)

I specifically wrote "social power" and not just "political power" so that normies like you wouldn't get confused.

The basic principle at the heart of socialism is the idea of radical democracy - that people should have a say in decisions that affect their lives. This means all sorts of decisions, beginning with the simple political ones, but ranging all the way down to workplace democracy and not being subjected to the whims of your landlord.
Inequality of access to material goods or to investment capital means some people get to exert illegitimate (=undemocratic) power over others, directly or indirectly, which is why socialists dislike it.

Lol if that isn't the biggest cop out I've read all week. You quoted one word I said? Like you're making a teaser for a movie and picking one word out of the review like "fun" or "exciting. I think it's much more likely you put abuses in quotes because you disagreed with my use of the word you fucking liar.

>corporate America
What's wrong with that? Corporations are great, assuming they don't form mono/duo/triopolies, right?

Corporations tend to be hierarchical and totalitarian institutions.

t. McDonalds employee with a degree in gender studies

>mocking someone for being working class
pure ideology

>all rich people move

Like between the 40's and the 70's when rich people flooded out of the US....

Corporations are neither great nor terrible. They just are. They exist.

Within the framework of the world we live in, it becomes important to check corporate greed because a corporation's only priority from an accounting standpoint is the accumulation of capital. The accumulation of capital does not account for human need and it does not prioritise the environment or the labour force. If you want to worship this god, feel free to do so, but it grants you no favours when you do so.

Mocking you for being a retard. Don't blame others for your bad life decisions
Typical leftist

Agreed

>The basic principle at the heart of socialism is the idea of radical democracy
Neat. So when leftists gay marry and abort themselves into demographic collapse, we can vote to make sodomy illegal again.
Or is that not what you meant at all? You just wanted for people to vote for the things you like? Oh.

>Like between the 40's and the 70's when rich people flooded out of the US
To where? Europe was fucked. Everywhere else was a third world shithole.
Now? Very different.

>it does put to question the reasoning behind lowering it, why capitalists were to happy when Reaganomics were put into motion, or why has inequality begun skyrocketing when this progressive taxation became much less progressive (on paper).
Dude wealth inequality began skyrocketing in the 80s under Reagan because of a number of policies and ideas he had and instituted, which the media, esp the left-wing media, NEVER reports on. They pump up this "It's the taxes!" crap and try to distract you from the real reasons this happened.
The real reasons are what is known as "corporate welfare", which takes many forms. BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies are going to corporations. They are getting massive tax breaks, they are getting government contracts, and most of all they are getting regulations passed that "incidentally" benefit them.

THIS ISNT JUST "BECAUSE OF REAGAN" either. You know why? Because neither Clinton, Obama, nor any other Democrat has ever done anything to try to fix this problem. In fact, the only guy that ever really tried to fix this problem was Ron Paul, a Republican, but whatever. Sanders, AOC and especially Tucker Carlson all frequently address this issue. I am actually NOT trying to make a partisan issue out of this one, since both parties have been guilty of it. But the fact does remain that leftism = more government control, right-wing = less government control, so even though it's not absolute, obviously the philosophy of the right is what is going to benefit this situation overall here.
Disagree or agree, whatever, it doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out the real issues that are CAUSING this problem, and they ARENT what the mainstream, nor the socialist left THINKS they are.

AND this problem with regulations has been going on forever. Going WAY back to the robber barons. Just for example, John Jacob Astor was able to gain a near complete monopoly over the fur trade by lobbying government to outlaw foreign business.....1/2

Funny though how you see Tucker Carlson on his show talking about how AOC and Sanders are right about this issue and deserve credit, but then AOC and Sanders just call Tucker a POS and call for him to be censored. You'd think if they really saw this issue as important and wanted to fix it, they'd give the credit where it was due to the other people who were calling it out and trying to expose it. They don't though. And that is because socialism is really about the upper classes oppressing the lower classes, it just does so in a way that lets it appeal to the people who are most disenfranchised by society. False promises, false promises, false promises.

You do realize most Americans are shareholders. This particularly helps retirees.

Well whatever. My posts disappeared. I am not gonna write all of that shit out again. It was all about corporate welfare, and how that is the true cause of the issue, and about how you will just never realize that or try to actually fix it because you are Jewish and thusly metaphysically aligned with evil and the will to oppress people. Jews are the metaphysical instruments of oppression, tyranny and authoritarianism. Always have been. They have no respect for freedom. Metaphysically they only oppress others and cause problems for them. Read the old testament. Read the Jewish holy books. They are the most gross, authoritarian, sociopathic works of literature ever. Jesus Christ struggled against you people and your BS. You twisted his message. He came back 1900 years later as Adolf Hitler and tried to finally fight back against you. Again, his message has been twisted. I only wish He had been successful in purging Earth of the Satanic Jew, which has subjected us all to their authority, and continues to attempt to do so with every waking hour, every waking day, every waking breath.

The Satanic Jew will always try to impose his will upon the rest of the world. That's what socialism is. That's what Marxism is. It is the moralistic will of the Satanic Jew, manifested upon the rest of humanity.
Read the old testament. It is authoritarianism beyond authoritarianism.
All poor, beautiful, wonderful Jesus Christ ever did when he came here was say "no, don't follow those rules". He said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He got angry at his followers for following those rules when they knew in their hearts it was wrong (such as when they thought he should not heal on the sabbath).

The Jew is nothing but a sociopathic control freak, hell bent on imposing his will upon us all. He KNOWS that once he achieves full on communism, he will have us all by the balls. There will be no more humanity. There will be no more individuality. There will only be the Jew and his total, sociopathic will for control.