Taxing the rich doesn't work

How so? Workers already pay taxes on income that comes from a corporate entity, why shouldn't shareholders do the same?

Top estate tax is already 40% lad.

So bump it up 10%. That alone would pay for a lot of social services that are already too expensive, apparently.

It's because of this
People say lot of things that aren't true or argue for things that don't benefit them because (((mysterious interest groups))) tell them to

Well, generally speaking they do. And depending on your income tax bracket, the income tax is lower than the capital gains tax, too. (the latter generally being 15-20%, or higher still for securities held less than a year) The vast majority of people are not in the highest income tax bracket, of course, whereas the people most likely to pay a lot in capital gains tax will also be the ones paying the highest income tax.

Attached: FF622_1.png (1274x919, 63K)

It wouldn't even make a dent my dude.
What would make a dent is forcing all Americans to pay 32% in income tax with no deductions. All you have to do is send in a form that has your income multiplied by .32 and that total is what you pay. That alone would put the budget in surplus.

The top 5% have like 90% of the wealth tho. Tax them 90% not 60

Even then the bottom 35% don't pull their weight even compared to places like Singapore and Japan with smaller wealth gaps.

It really wouldn't unfortunately, there just aren't enough super rich to tax to death.

They do not. The rich pay a disproportionate share of income tax, see

It doesn't matter how much you tax them if their business are automated that you're never going to end up like them no matter how hard you work or invest based off the income they deemed was acceptable working for them. Technically it's correct and prophetic to say the results don't work and it hasn't been tried if they think there is a way for it to work. They can say that sort of like "geeze if I were me in a way I wouldn't do someone could do this and then it wouldn't work anymore."
They just say it because they know it wouldn't work but in some comic book way some thousands of possibilities this could maybe do it. So it rounds about in a way that it's okay to do it for them.

>whereas the people most likely to pay a lot in capital gains tax will also be the ones paying the highest income tax.

Great. Sounds ideal to me. Why consider the two types of income distinct?

Sounds fine to me, as long as Americans get an actual social safety net out of it.

>Great. Sounds ideal to me.
Yes, that's what I'm saying - it's already how things are.

You either overestimate how rich the rich are or how many of them there are. According to Forbes you could take away all billionaires' money, all of it, and if you'd distribute it evenly, we'd all get about 800 bucks.

As things are, the two types of income are taxed at different rates. Closing that loophole will create enough revenue to get secure housing for the homeless. It seems odd to argue to keep the current system.

So would you have the capital gains rate lowered to the income rate? Or the income tax raised to the max capital gains rate? Or have people pay the same capital gains tax rate that they pay on income? (ie the poor pay less capital gains than the rich)
I'm in favour of the last one but it'd immediately lead to Dimon and Blankfein receiving $1 in income and the rest in stock options to keep both taxed low.

wouldnt they just leave or find a loophole? rich people are typically smart, lol

>income tax increases as income increases
who could have guessed

You should have the chart rated against wealth not income and see how it stands up then

The point is that they are already bankrolling the unwashed hordes of negroes and retards that make up the vast majority of the US population.

>trust fund babies work harder than tradesmen
I'll believe it when I see it. And I work for enough greedy hedonistic rich cunts to know I won't see it.

Has nobody ever heard of the Laffer curve or something

As a trust fund baby, I agree. But labor theory of value was already bullshit in Marx' heyday and it sure still is today.

I'd be fine with it, but it feels like it wouldn't solve our core issue with spending
At most it'd be splurged on the current generation to make us feel good and not pay down any debt

The combined wealth of Bezos, Gates, and Buffett alone is enough to give every american $1030

This won't happen my dude for a few reasons. Many people from the top 1% to the lower 20% make out on our tax structure bleeding the government dry of money. Not to mention the 9 billion dollar industry that exists just to fill out 1040ez forms and take 20% of it.

They move their money abroad to tax havens.

That statistic was world-wide.

Yes except when you consider the actual wealth not just income they aren't, at least not to the amount being presented here.
I mean the chart is almost intentionally pointing the obvious
>who could be paying the most income tax in a country with progressive income tax
But rich don't make most of their money trough income while the poor do.
When 50% of the country works a mc job then it's pretty obvious there won't be anything to tax there.

In terms of actual wealth the richest 1% owns about the same as the bottom 90% combined

We had tax rates at 80% or higher for 30 years, and 70%+ for another 20 years.
America was built on an effective tax system and then Reagan killed it and it's impossible to reverse it, they have too much money and will never let themselves be taxed like that again.
If taxing the rich didn't work then how did we survive 1935-1985? Ironic that many conservatives see those times as the golden years or some shit.

The richest person in 1985 was the owner of Walmart with 3 billion. Now it's the owner of Amazon with 150 billion.

Attached: c14ab948-6506-409b-9fd2-c6005a8c47bb.jpg (887x340, 42K)

The rich never paid those taxes though. There were so many loopholes.

That's simply not true. The top 1% owns between 40-50% of all wealth in the US. That share has been growing, mostly because of capital gains - the S&P more than tripled its value since 08, and of course the rich are more likely to invest their money than the poor.

Yes that is what the bottom 90% owns, bit less than that actually, rest being the 10-2% category

They do in a lot of countries. Rich people often leave those countries or try to cheat more.

Guess what also happens in those countries. The government takes a nice cut from the tax money and mostly wastes the rest.

As an aside example, Seattle has a huge homeless problem and it's been the center of most political discussions. Government takes enough money in taxes for that specific problem that it equals like 17k per homeless person. Instead of just giving 17k to each homeless person to find a cheap place to live, or spending that much on solving homelessness, they just fund organizations who talk to homeless people, lawyers, and journalists, and there's hardly ever any progress. We find homes for like 50-100 people a year. It's created an entire industry that actually depends on homelessness becoming worse, because those organizations get paid more money.

Taxes are good to debate and can help balance out society. Throwing money around doesn't solve problems though. Your assumption, if it were true (society gets better if we raise taxes the rich lmao), would have the same result if government just created unlimited money to raise all their budgets. Do you think world hunger would be solved or do you think you'd just have a bunch of rich government officials who are "doing research" and "waiting on a decision"?

theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

I'd be all for higher taxes on the rich but I don't trust the Jews in government an inch more than the Jews on Wall Street.

>would have the same result if government just created unlimited money to raise all their budgets.
>what is inflation

There's the issue that the rich can leave and take their money with them (or have it in offshore accounts anyway). Consider the Russian Revolution (which was admittedly 'kill the rich and take their stuff' rather than tax them) - all the money that was going to be redistributed is nowhere to be found.

they hoard their wealth in offshore accounts and abuse tax loopholes

>WAAAH WHY ARE HARD WORKING PEOPLE RICH TAX THEM!!
You all sound like fucking lazy incels you know that, GET OFF YOUR ASS

Oy vey, I wonder who's behind this post...

Attached: 2a2a0g.jpg (640x480, 33K)

>Tax rich
>They move their jobs someplace else
What we need is lower taxes for everyone, fix loopholes and not have corporations run the government.

cope you arent entitled to anything

That's the best part about being someone so stupid that you think raising taxes automatically solves problems. Just fix the consequences of inflation by spending more money on them.

Better yet, more worker-owned businesses with profit-sharing. Stops monopolies and obscene concentrations of wealth from occurring in the first place.

Neither are the rich

Taxing rich people less means they have more to invest into the economy, taxing them less means they have less money to put into businesses. Taxing everyone less means we all have more money to spend on small business and such.

1. stop taxing the rich
2. blame them for shit economy
hmm

technically yes, in Hollywood, they just moved all their work to Georgia and overseas for tax breaks.

>Rich people
>Hard working
Originol

Keep sucking that wealthy cock user, maybe one day they'll give you a 0.001% raise

Less money is a good thing retard, do you know what inflation is?

Rich people don't spend their money as much as you might think. The hoard and pass it on to their children.
Expecting businesses to continuously grow is just capitalist brainwashing.
Taxing everyone less will lead to a reduced quality of life for the middle and poor classes.

Taxing everyone equally would be the right thing to do. Poor people are lazy and jealous and think that all problems would be solved of everyone was as poor and miserable and lazy as they are.

Rich people don't create jobs. Origaonal

Work for hotel, all my boss does is gulf and fuck women. He's been doing this forever, even as a teenager. Yeah, you're not full of shit. He just bought a brand new bmw m series, I haven't got a raise in six years.

A lot of them leave or find some sort of loophole if it's too high. I think the point of diminishing returns was at 35% ish

Attached: image.jpg (605x489, 66K)

>Fuck me harder daddy, tell me I'm better than those dirty poor people

>as it ever actually been tried? What were the results?
It was the norm in the United States until about the 80s. The rich used to be taxed at over 70%

Only sane post in the thread so far.

youtube.com/watch?v=M79o6f2TRX0

They create jobs and become rich from it retrad

Based and orijinalpilled

Maybe for a bootlicker like you

>only wealthy people believe in working for what you want
uhhh..

>Create jobs
No such thing, it's called the workforce, and the workforce are being replaced with cheap labor from 3rd world countries
Remember when it wasn't hard to support families? Why do you think whites are having less children than nigs? Ignoring the fact that nigs are nigs and race mixing
It used to be feasible to be poor and have a lot of children, think about that, think about history nig nut.

Check out how much I fucking get taxed

Attached: JUST.jpg (1484x97, 37K)

Being this obsessed with nigs lmao. Heheheheheeeeee

Jobs are created all the time though. software development didn't exist 60 years ago.

And jobs are being destroyed at the same time, automation.

>Be born
>Inherit family fortune
>I'm a job creator

Gosh those lazy poor people, when will they ever learn amirite?

>Taxing rich people less means they have more to invest into the economy,
Trouble is when you conflate this with the idea of "and then the rising tide raises all ships!" They will certainly invest more if that creates more money, that doesn't mean they'll invest in a real business in a physical location in your country which will produce actual jobs that pay worthwhile wages. They might just play stocks, or buy robots, or acquire businesses and gut them. They don't have any kind of obligation to spread the wealth to get more, if they can get more in a way that doesn't involve you, they will. Indeed, such an obligation would be categorized as a socialist's thought. Taxing them more maybe doesn't work so well if you don't physically restrict their travel, but that's no reason to think that not taxing them works any better.

The question is always "How do we stop so much money from concentrating and calcifying in a few hands, restricting the flow of the economy and impoverishing everyone in the long-term for the short-term benefit of a few actors?" I think, really, no matter what answers you have for that question, over time the answers get fewer in number and less effective. If the rich have any social mobility upward at all, if they have even the slightest ability to fortify their positions at the top against disaster, over a long enough timespan they will inevitably remove themselves from society as a whole and create their own oligarch class which runs society but is not responsible to it. Might take longer, might go quicker, but it will happen. The game of the open market is eventually won, and then it's not so open, and then it stops being a game.

Probably the only answer that can last is for there to be a set of values that rise above merely pecuniary concerns, some ideal to which the accumulation of wealth is subordinate. Only then might the inevitable flight of the wealthy be halted.

Attached: 1254764348331.jpg (500x653, 43K)

BASED AND TRUTHPILLED

It shouldn't be more than 1 page, double sided, and it shouldn't make me want to just beg them to take my money and be done with it.

Problem is also that rich people run the govt. Which makes passing any antirich legislation impossible.

It used to be 90. This is exactly why we have a problem because it's been shrinking.

You're getting dangerously close to regressive taxation, given poor people earn less from alternative, less harshly taxed forms of income (ie capital gains) than rich people. Therefore a uniform income tax places higher pressures on their total income than it does richer people.

The question of pertinence is whether jobs created outpaces jobs destroyed.

people never stop finding new ways to provide value. zuckerburgerschmidt is a billionaire because he created tons of jobs and value.

in most first world countries i've been in, most poor people live decent lives and believe that they get what they work for. once in a while there are debates over raising the minimum wage a few dollars or making healthcare slightly more affordable. you don't find people in restaurants thinking they should make a million dollars an hour and unlimited vacation or whatever.

>outpaces
this is less relevant than if the new jobs reward workers as much as the old jobs. for example, gig economy creates a ton of new jobs to replace more serious contracting companies, but may provide lower wages and benefits. workers have to refuse those conditions if they want to maintain their lifestyle, or gain new skills that the market needs.

I mean anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the most convincing. There are real problems with our society that affect poor people, as well as middle class people.
Improving the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people is not impossible.

>workers have to refuse those conditions if they want to maintain their lifestyle, or gain new skills that the market needs.
Or they can just perish. The free market doesn't have a rule that says you can't fall out of it.

Regardless, any job is obviously better for social stability than no job at all. Homeless people have the most time to make sabotage their profession.

>Kek why don't the poor people just die xD
How's sophomore year going user, are you gonna go to the prom?

Braindead contra-contrarian signaling post. It's true, from a top-down market perspective taking care of people doesn't matter, be productive or be homeless, social safety nets are not the workings of the market. I'm not judging it, it's just a factor. It's a possibility that people will fall out the bottom, and if you want the society to be stable; if, perhaps, you're at the top looking down; it would be in your interest to consider what happens when people fall out the bottom in large enough numbers. The homeless, the medieval vagrant, have been around for as long as markets have been. They're manageable even when the homelessness will kill them, but only up to a point.

>It used to be 90.

Wasn't that for a brief period to fund WWI/II?

Quality of life is constantly improving. And we need people to complain and be assholes about how "MUH LIFE SUCKS LOL" to notice where the problems really are. But if you think everything is hopeless and don't recognize the progress being made, then there's no real argument. If people truly felt that way on a large scale, only tyrants would rule because you wouldn't know the difference between absolute shit and pretty damn good if not perfect.

With the Australian election coming up next weekend, this is something I've been thinking about.
Both major parties fucking suck.
Liberals:
>giving free money to their billionaire friends
>want massive immigration to feed the boomer pyramid scheme
Liberal party sucks because they are just corrupt.

Labor:
>giving free money to NEETs, minimum wage workers and immigrants
>want massive immigration to feed the boomer pyramid scheme + virtue signalling
Labor party sucks, but a bit less, because they have identified the boomer problem.
The party is focused on helping workers and the little man, which I'm all for. But their solutions all fuck over the middle class and prevent someone from actually building wealth over the life.
>reduce tax breaks on superannuation
>remove franking credits
Superannuation and franking credits being two tax break mechanisms which allow ordinary people to build wealth over their life.

If the Labor party truly cared about workers and wanted to improve their lives they'd drastically reduce immigration.
Australia's massive artificial population growth is responsible for the past decade of wage stagnation.
But they can't do that because that would fuck over the boomer pyramid scheme.

I fucking hate this election.
If I were to vote in my own self interest I would vote for the Liberal part.
Voting in my own self interest means I have to vote for a party of corruption.

Attached: 1556331048782.png (275x251, 135K)

>raise taxes for the rich
>rich people move to a country with less taxes and take all of their money with them

Attached: 1533883535811.png (1208x1200, 84K)