Support NeoGAF

[Stet]

Buffett supported increasing the top rate to 39%, but that does not nearly go far enough. We need radical increases in the capital gains and estate taxes, as well as closing all these loopholes. These are just band aids though. Mostly we need to focus on creating a system that doesn't allow such income inequality to exist in the first place, ie at the very least creating a social democracy. It's the only way we'll ever get real change.

Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with you on these points. The sticky part of your argument is where you say that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are disingenuous in their charity work because they'd be better off somehow putting money towards changing the system as it stands.

No offence, but I think eradicating polio is pretty important.

 

[Azih]

I do have one issue with the whole inheritance tax thing...

I prefer the notion of personal and small group owned business over large corporations. A company run by an individual might be more likely to prioritize differently than a corporation looking to return investments for shareholders. I'd generally prefer it if more companies were able to stay in the hands of individuals rather than large, faceless investor mobs...

However, the inheritance tax seems to necessarily limit the ability of any small group or family from inheriting a business, as the taxes would necessarily require selling off chunks of that business to others so as to retain part of the business.

Now, I'm not saying this is the most common situation, nor am I saying that it would ever apply to me. However, I prefer family/individual/privately held business setups to shareholder setups (which seem necessarily more focused on making money as opposed to taking care of their employees), and it seems as though the inheritance tax system plays directly into the hands of the corporate investor system that has done such wonderful things for our country.

Exemptions exist for passing on a small business and those are exemptions that make perfect sense.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Wealth accumulation distorts democracy by granting additional lobbying power to wealthy individuals.

Hence, wealth accumulation is anti-democratic and should be regulated strongly.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Welcome to why I enjoy vandalizing shit in walmart after the local place got pushed out.


The rare time I have to buy something from walmart I make sure to destroy 10-20X as much before I leave to make sure they do not profit off of me.

(Done in a non messy way as to not fuck over the minimum wage workers that tax dollars subsidize for walmart).

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

The sister got pulled over for drunk driving not far from where I live.

 

[csquared587]

Do you not understand tax brackets? I'm not advocating taking 80-90% in total. I'm advocating that there should be a bracket near the high end that gets up to that.

Our tax brackets are as such:


10% $0 – $8,925
15% $8,926 – $36,250
25% $36,251 – $87,850
28% $87,851 – $183,250
33% $183,251 – $398,350
35% $398,351 – $400,000
39.6% $400,001+

I think there should be more brackets. Something like:

45% $800,000
60% $2,000,000
70% $4,000,000
80% $8,000,000
90% $16,000,000

And that should account for all of your income.

And then I don't think that inheritance should really be any different. It's income. If I get taxed for working to gain that amount why shouldn't I be taxed the same for not working and getting that amount?

As for justification, it's simple: Money makes money. The more you have the easier it is to earn it. If we want a truly free market wherein the good ideas are the winners, then we can't have money free flowing to the top. That hinders progress in many ways. To put out a very simple idea, if I have a pretty good business idea someone at the top of the food chain can just stomp me out with money very easily if I threaten their existing model. That's shitty. Another example is the kid who has no real drive or work ethic. Through inheritance he can do so much more than a kid who puts his entire heart and soul into everything he does his whole life. Money can do so very many things, and is far to powerful. You can buy the political structure with it. You can create laws with it. You can circumvent laws with it.

The other thing is that in our society money flows upward. It's supposed to flow in a circular fashion. It should be like the chain on your bike tires. It keeps society moving liek that. It should go to the top then get spend downward and so on. You give your money to businesses, and they pay people. It should be a back and forth. It's not working that way right now. Money just goes up and sits there. People on the bottom get shit on. Well, the only way to recirculate that and make sure that society keeps moving is to tax it, then. I'd possibly lessen those tax brackets once society gets to a better equilibrium, but right now we need a lot. The inequality here is unacceptable.


And last, what the fuck is a "financial legacy" and why should it matter to anyone at all?

Yea man, I knew you were talking about implimenting higher tax brackets which is why I mentioned 10-20% of billions. Thanks for your explanation, I find it interesting even though I cant agree.


Financial legacy was just me another way for me to say a persons wealth they accumalte through their lifetime to be passed on to their decendants. Sorry for confusion.


edit*. My question was purely because I was curious, not because I wanted a heated debate. Didnt want it sound like I was attacking your position. Im just trying to get a better understanding from both sides here.

 

[Archer]

Small and medium sized businesses can also use these same loopholes to their advantage. If it's legal and sanctioned by the authorities, use it.

 

[Jimothy]

Buffett supports that rate because he's smart enough to know that a large increase in the rate woukd never pass. We have to take small steps towards solving the problem of wealth inequality if we ever want to gain any traction.

I guess my larger point is that we can't just focus on taxes to reduce inequality. We need radical reforms in things like healthcare and education, but as far as I can tell no obscenely wealthy people have really done anything to help on that front. Gates' support of charter schools makes it pretty evident he is not genuine when it comes to making real change.

 

[Scoot2005]

I'm Alice Walton bitch.

Edit - Google Alice Waltons DUI. She thinks she can get away with anything.

 

[RDreamer]

Yea man, I knew you were talking about implimenting higher tax brackets which is why I mentioned 10-20% of billions. Thanks for your explanation, I find it interesting even though I cant agree.

They tax 10-20% + of my income, so why shouldn't they tax that much of some other person's inheritance? Just because it's so astronomically high from being built up, it should get an exception? What about inheriting makes it more important than working?

Financial legacy was just me another way for me to say a persons wealth they accumalte through their lifetime to be passed on through to their decendants. Sorry for confusion.

There isn't confusion. I know what you mean, I'm just saying why is that a concept that we should hold dear at all? What about "financial legacy" makes it some sort of right that should trump the rights of society as a whole? Why should finance be a legacy at all, really?

Again, why should financial legacy trump actually working?

 

[The Lamp]

The law should change to keep them from dodging taxes but I don't hate the Waltons for being rich, they earned their fortune and have found means to keep it in their family. I'm not jealous, it's their right to heir their money to their family. Meh.

Maybe if you want to be a billionaire, you or someone in your family should start a multi billion dollar store chain.

 

[Phenomic]

Look at it this way. You're walking down the street and you find a suitcase full of say 10 thousand bucks.

Ok. You do the right thing say, report it to the police and a month later the police say, hey thanks for being a good citizen, nobodly claimed it, and it's not connected to any crimes. You can keep it.

You made 10,000 for no effort at all. Shouldn't you pay tax on it? I mean you pay income tax on the money you earn by spending your entire day at some job that you probably don't like. Shouldn't you pay tax on money you got for doing nothing/good fortune?

No let's say your rich uncle leaves you 5,000,000. What exactly did you do to earn that money? Why shouldn't you pay tax on it?

The suitcase example isn't necessarily the same either. There's other factors that go into that, but truthfully that money wasn't ever earned or made by you. Regardless, I'm not rich (far from it), but I don't believe in these taxes. If I make money that I earned in my lifetime it's already been taxed. Why does it need to be taxed twice? (once earned once given) It's my personal business what I do with the savings I've earned myself. If I want my kids to have it easier in life then that's my priority. If I want to give it to the charity it should also be under my judgment call. I spent the blood sweat and tears to do with it or give it to whomever I want.

What I really don't like though would be someone telling me my kids didn't earn it though. I'm going to make sure they would be model citizens to the best of my ability and not let them have it at age 16 to go waste in Vegas.

Obviously this is a personal example, but honestly telling someone else what they did and didn't do isn't necessarily fair and that errks me really bad in the wrong way on a lot of levels.

For the record I work in very small business and I'm not a cabillazionare.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The grand delusion that young, poor Americans have is that by somehow taxing these people more, that money will wind up in their hands (or the hands of their peers).

That money will merely be diverted to other corporations and rich people that are more deeply embedded into Congress. It just a redistribution at the top, with maybe some trickle down to the poor if they are in proximity of those select people. ARRA was proof of that.

All of this strikes me as pure envy or people playing off of other's envy. This proven flawed idea that money buys happiness and those that have more (than they could ever want) need to share it. Thus creating more 'happiness' or contentment. Not only that, but you expect the very same corrupt organization that allowed this system to exist to then distribute that money in a fair manner. hahaha

 

[Jenov]

I'm "a part of the problem" for holding the opinion that the Waltons acquisition and holding of immense wealth while doing whatever possible legally to keep the state from taxing the majority is OK.

You also have a problem with the 2 most prominent billionaires who have vowed to give the majority of their money away to charitable causes.

I'm not seeing that you have a coherent stance on this issue.

Then you shouldn't be dismayed when 100 years later your great great grandchildren are taken to the guillotines by the impoverished mobs of society your family bled to make that fortune.


The fact of the matter is, you can only horde and abuse so far until the peasants catch on to how unequal it has all become.

 

[csquared587]

They tax 10-20% + of my income, so why shouldn't they tax that much of some other person's inheritance? Just because it's so astronomically high from being built up, it should get an exception? What about inheriting makes it more important than working?





There isn't confusion. I know what you mean, I'm just saying why is that a concept that we should hold dear at all? What about "financial legacy" makes it some sort of right that should trump the rights of society as a whole? Why should finance be a legacy at all, really?

Again, why should financial legacy trump actually working?

I said keep 10-20% after you said taxing at 80-90%, not that it shouldnt be taxed at all. I just assumed you didnt know what I meant because you said, "what the fuck is financial legacy"? I thought you were asking me lol.
I even said I am ok with an estate tax, I was just wondering why you thought it should be so high. Again, I wasnt attacking your positition, I was just asking for clarification so I could understand your point better.

 

[captmorgan]

Welcome to why I enjoy vandalizing shit in walmart after the local place got pushed out.


The rare time I have to buy something from walmart I make sure to destroy 10-20X as much before I leave to make sure they do not profit off of me.

(Done in a non messy way as to not fuck over the minimum wage workers that tax dollars subsidize for walmart).

You do realize that by doing that your actually making more money for walmart right?
They can discount the damaged goods against their revenue at full market price of the object, instead of being forced to sell the item at a a big discount to move the object off the shelf.

When I worked at Honda I had to destroy stock all the time with a sledge hammer because it was worth more to the company as waste credit then it was worth to sell at a discount as last year stock.

You are actually making Walmart happy by making them more money so congrats.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Welcome to why I enjoy vandalizing shit in walmart after the local place got pushed out.


The rare time I have to buy something from walmart I make sure to destroy 10-20X as much before I leave to make sure they do not profit off of me.

(Done in a non messy way as to not fuck over the minimum wage workers that tax dollars subsidize for walmart).

What the fuck? So you are a wasteful vandal that inaccurately (see captmorgan's post) believes he is enacting some form of justice against multi-billionaires when in actuality you're just some internet tough-guy that appears to be quite jealous of the Waltons' fortunes, while you continue to still support them by shopping at their stores.

 

[RDreamer]

If I make money that I earned in my lifetime it's already been taxed. Why does it need to be taxed twice?

Newsflash: Everything is taxed twice. And three times. And four. Etc. We don't tax specific money. We tax when it changes hands. If I get taxed on my income from working, why should your kid not get taxed on his or her income from not working?

It's my personal business what I do with the savings I've earned myself.

Sure, and it's society's business to tax that money when it changes hands.

If I want my kids to have it easier in life then that's my priority.

And if society says that it wants all kids to have it better, and the only way to do that is that your kid has to possibly do slightly more work like everyone else, then that's society's priority.

I spent the blood sweat and tears to do with it or give it to whomever I want.

If you don't want to give back to the society that helped you earn that money through the blood sweat and tears of its collective, then you can go spend your own blood sweat and tears in the middle of a remote island and see how far that sweat gets you compared to within society.

What I really don't like though would be someone telling me my kids didn't earn it though.

That's cool. They didn't though. They were born. Woopdee fucking doo.

If they want to 'earn' it, then they can pay the taxes like all the rest of us do when we earn our money through income.

 

[Azih]

The suitcase example isn't necessarily the same either. There's other factors that go into that, but truthfully that money wasn't ever earned or made by you. Regardless, I'm not rich (far from it), but I don't believe in these taxes. If I make money that I earned in my lifetime it's already been taxed. Why does it need to be taxed twice? (once earned once given) It's my personal business what I do with the savings I've earned myself. If I want my kids to have it easier in life then that's my priority. If I want to give it to the charity it should also be under my judgment call. I spent the blood sweat and tears to do with it or give it to whomever I want.

What I really don't like though would be someone telling me my kids didn't earn it though. I'm going to make sure they would be model citizens to the best of my ability and not let them have it at age 16 to go waste in Vegas.

Obviously this is a personal example, but honestly telling someone else what they did and didn't do isn't necessarily fair and that errks me really bad in the wrong way on a lot of levels.

For the record I work in very small business and I'm not a cabillazionare.

Phen, money gets taxed everytime it changes hands (see the comic that was posted by AnotherNils). If an employee or store owner gets taxed on money they get via working (don't forget businesses and customers get taxed on that money before it gets to the employee/store owner) then why should there be an exemption for an inheritor getting money from an estate?

 

[captmorgan]

Then you shouldn't be dismayed when 100 years later your great great grandchildren are taken to the guillotines by the impoverished mobs of society your family bled to make that fortune.


The fact of the matter is, you can only horde and abuse so far until the peasants catch on to how unequal it has all become.

But the impoverished mobs did it too themselves, wal-mart doesnt put a gun to your head forcing you to shop there. If people just stopped walking through the doors, walmart would crumble pretty fast.

But of course that would mean people have to take responsibility for themselves I guess its easier to scream at the government and demand that somebody else do something about it.

 

[Zee-Row]

I always buy online , i'd rather wait a week than drive 10 minutes to Walmart and support that company. Such a horrible company that treats its employees horrible.

 

[Indrid Cold1]

Welcome to why I enjoy vandalizing shit in walmart after the local place got pushed out.


The rare time I have to buy something from walmart I make sure to destroy 10-20X as much before I leave to make sure they do not profit off of me.

(Done in a non messy way as to not fuck over the minimum wage workers that tax dollars subsidize for walmart).

Haha. You are a joke mate.

 

[captmorgan]

Phen, money gets taxed everytime it changes hands (see the comic that was posted by AnotherNils). If an employee or store owner gets taxed on money they get via working (don't forget businesses and customers get taxed on that money before it gets to the employee/store owner) then why should there be an exemption for an inheritor getting money from an estate?

Really? Dammit when my buddy lent me 20 bucks I forgot to send a check for the taxes to the government.
Or when ever I withdraw money from a ATM should it hold back 20% for taxes?

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

Wow, how unexpected. No doubt America's justice system will have all that sorted out in a jiffy.

 

[sant]

Do you not understand tax brackets? I'm not advocating taking 80-90% in total. I'm advocating that there should be a bracket near the high end that gets up to that.

Our tax brackets are as such:


10% $0 – $8,925
15% $8,926 – $36,250
25% $36,251 – $87,850
28% $87,851 – $183,250
33% $183,251 – $398,350
35% $398,351 – $400,000
39.6% $400,001+

I think there should be more brackets. Something like:

45% $800,000
60% $2,000,000
70% $4,000,000
80% $8,000,000
90% $16,000,000

And that should account for all of your income.

And then I don't think that inheritance should really be any different. It's income. If I get taxed for working to gain that amount why shouldn't I be taxed the same for not working and getting that amount?

As for justification, it's simple: Money makes money. The more you have the easier it is to earn it. If we want a truly free market wherein the good ideas are the winners, then we can't have money free flowing to the top. That hinders progress in many ways. To put out a very simple idea, if I have a pretty good business idea someone at the top of the food chain can just stomp me out with money very easily if I threaten their existing model. That's shitty. Another example is the kid who has no real drive or work ethic. Through inheritance he can do so much more than a kid who puts his entire heart and soul into everything he does his whole life. Money can do so very many things, and is far to powerful. You can buy the political structure with it. You can create laws with it. You can circumvent laws with it.

The other thing is that in our society money flows upward. It's supposed to flow in a circular fashion. It should be like the chain on your bike tires. It keeps society moving liek that. It should go to the top then get spend downward and so on. You give your money to businesses, and they pay people. It should be a back and forth. It's not working that way right now. Money just goes up and sits there. People on the bottom get shit on. Well, the only way to recirculate that and make sure that society keeps moving is to tax it, then. I'd possibly lessen those tax brackets once society gets to a better equilibrium, but right now we need a lot. The inequality here is unacceptable.


And last, what the fuck is a "financial legacy" and why should it matter to anyone at all?

Sure you can bitch about idiot rich people not contributing to society but you would rather have the money handed out to freeloaders? Believe me, they do exist. Or worse in the hands of government? The government
Is hilariously inefficient. At least with these rich people the money is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate etc. and ways that keeps the trains on time.

 

[RDreamer]

Really? Dammit when my buddy lent me 20 bucks I forgot to send a check for the taxes to the government.
Or when ever I withdraw money from a ATM should it hold back 20% for taxes?

Did you even think before throwing out this example?

 

[Stet]

Really? Dammit when my buddy lent me 20 bucks I forgot to send a check for the taxes to the government.
Or when ever I withdraw money from a ATM should it hold back 20% for taxes?

The money you withdraw from an ATM is your money, and your earnings on it in the form of interest are taxed. It's also taxed when you spend it, as is the 20 your friend lent you.

 

[AntoneM]

Really? Dammit when my buddy lent me 20 bucks I forgot to send a check for the taxes to the government.
Or when ever I withdraw money from a ATM should it hold back 20% for taxes?

No and no. But a good start would be to stop being an obtuse absolutist.

 

[Azih]

Really? Dammit when my buddy lent me 20 bucks I forgot to send a check for the taxes to the government.

Technically it's income. Most countries have exclusions in place so any gifts you get another a certain limit aren't taxed. *shrug* pragmatic enough.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/10/18/irs-raises-yearly-limit-for-tax-free-gifts/

the law is clear: if the gift exceeds a certain value and the Internal Revenue Service catches it, you could be forced to pay the tax as well as interest, and, in some cases, penalties.

Of course this is something else that gets exploited by the ultra rich.

Or when ever I withdraw money from a ATM should it hold back 20% for taxes?

You're withdrawing your own money presumably so money isn't changing hands.

 

[captmorgan]

The money you withdraw from an ATM is your money, and your earnings on it in the form of interest are taxed. It's also taxed when you spend it, as is the 20 your friend lent you.

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

 

[Jenov]

But the impoverished mobs did it too themselves, wal-mart doesnt put a gun to your head forcing you to shop there. If people just stopped walking through the doors, walmart would crumble pretty fast.

But of course that would mean people have to take responsibility for themselves I guess its easier to scream at the government and demand that somebody else do something about it.

You say that knowing that the Waltons and other uber rich use their wealth to enforce and sway politics that keep them rich... your average uneducated Joe that shops at walmart should expect his government to protect the fabric of society from such manipulation. The issue is when your goverment is no longer protecting the interests of society as a whole and is instead being slowly degraded into a pay to win scheme for the rich to gain more and more power and control.

 

[RDreamer]

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

The difference is that it's pretty fucking impossible for the government to track $20 in gift money you've given your friend. And in practice you probably won't give them enough for it to make a difference on their income or their income brackets. With 20 billion, though, it is.

It's about practicality.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

Uh, the difference is 19,999,999,980.00...so quite a lot actually

See, I can debate in the same manner you are.

 

[Eusis]

No losing $900 million dollars is no small thing lol. They are not stealing that money from anyone (if they gaining it illegally than its a different issue). If you want the money to be spread around then the government should actually do something that benefits the poor like raising minimum wage, closing loopholes for businesses to screw their employees.

Not take money someone spent their whole life to earn for their family.

I was hoping to get my point across by sheer scale and a fairly extreme example, but I guess you just saw the bigger number instead (and that was off the idea of making a billion PER YEAR anyway, even supporting a family you'd probably be hard pressed to find ways to spend all of 100 million), so let's try an analogy:

Let's say someone decides to buy AT LEAST half the milk in the store because they can afford to, and a lot of people want/need milk. Maybe they're right in doing so in a certain light, they DID pay for it legitimately and it wasn't like there were any rules at the time against buying 20 or 50 or whatever gallons, but now THEY have most of that milk and everyone else has to divide it among themselves, even though this person can't drink all the milk by themself, their family can only use so much of that milk, and now many people that would've bought a gallon for themselves can't because of this milk hoarder. That, as I understand, is kind of the problem we're facing, money IS a limited resource (technically more like a representation of resources) and so what could be circulating through the system and helping everyone ISN'T circulating, even though these people have more than enough for themselves and their family to not only live well but have blinged out iPhones if they wanted. The logic of earning it yourself and helping your family out isn't wholly wrong and absolutely applies when you have less of it, but at some point it really IS socially irresponsible to keep sitting on it and avoid letting it go, and it's a point that only really affects the 1%... maybe the 1% OF the 1%.

Not that other problems don't need remedying, mind, but there's always a million ways to improve the way the system works and the money one's sticking out like a sore thumb.

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

Let's use my earlier analogy: it's like comparing buying a gallon of milk for a friend while I'm at the store to buying out most of a store's stock of milk just to give to my kids. Unless I have a hundred of them that's way too much damn milk for someone to take for themselves.

 

[makingmusic476]

I do have one issue with the whole inheritance tax thing...

I prefer the notion of personal and small group owned business over large corporations. A company run by an individual might be more likely to prioritize differently than a corporation looking to return investments for shareholders. I'd generally prefer it if more companies were able to stay in the hands of individuals rather than large, faceless investor mobs...

However, the inheritance tax seems to necessarily limit the ability of any small group or family from inheriting a business, as the taxes would necessarily require selling off chunks of that business to others so as to retain part of the business.

Now, I'm not saying this is the most common situation, nor am I saying that it would ever apply to me. However, I prefer family/individual/privately held business setups to shareholder setups (which seem necessarily more focused on making money as opposed to taking care of their employees), and it seems as though the inheritance tax system plays directly into the hands of the corporate investor system that has done such wonderful things for our country.

How about we mandate that businesses be collectively owned by their workers, so that the workers are better motivated to contribute to the business, as it's guaranteed that their increased productivity will impact their own pocketbook.

I much prefer worker cooperatives over businesses owned by an individual or an army of faceless shareholders.

Hell, make it so that privately owned businesses are exempt from an inheritance tax, instead forcing ownership to transition to the workers, creating a hybrid of capitalism and socialism that retains many of the benefits of both.

 

[sant]

How about we mandate that businesses be collectively owned by their workers, so that the workers are better motivated to contribute to the business, as it's guaranteed that their increased productivity will impact their own pocketbook.

I much prefer worker cooperatives over businesses owned by an individual or an army of faceless shareholders.

Hell, make it so that privately owned businesses are exempt from an inheritance tax, instead forcing ownership to transition to the workers, creating a hybrid of capitalism and socialism that retains many of the benefits of both.

The whole point of companies issuing shares to the public is to raise capital. Its not some workers conspiracy. Some companies do have employee share purchase plans.

 

[RDreamer]

Sure you can bitch about idiot rich people not contributing to society but you would rather have the money handed out to freeloaders? Believe me, they do exist. Or worse in the hands of government? The government
Is hilariously inefficient. At least with these rich people the money is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate etc. and ways that keeps the trains on time.

The only reason the "government" is so bad right now is because the government is paid for by special interests and rich people. You stop that (by making sure the rich people aren't quite as rich and implementing some other sorts of reform), and it goes away.

And oh noes, freeloaders exist! Shit, I didn't know that... I think there's a greater chance of money going to a freeloader with low inheritance tax than high inheritance taxes and that money being spread out for better things. But, you know, that's just me... and logic.

 

[Aesius]

Considering that Walmart is the largest employer in the country and certainly the largest in many small towns, it would be great if the Waltons diverted some of their own personal wealth back into the company to raise employee pay to, say, $10/hr.

That will never happen though. The low level employees aren't even human to them. They are just a cost they haven't figured out how to eliminate yet.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Not sure if this is even something that can be fixed. It seems like the short-sightedness of the Waltons will eventually result in a catastrophic upheaval brought about by the haves and have-nots. People can only be pushed for so long until violence is perceived as reasonable solution.

 

[Jenov]

Not sure if this is even something that can be fixed. It seems like the short-sightedness of the Waltons will eventually result in a catastrophic upheaval brought about by the haves and have-nots. People can only be pushed for so long until violence is perceived as reasonable solution.

bingo. Too many of the rich are shortsighted.

You can blame all the middle class and poor for being too stupid and not learning to take advantage of the system as well as the rich. But when people are desperate enough, and the gap is large enough, it will not matter who is to blame, as society and rule of law won't hold up under such crushing inequality. This has been shown to be true over and over in history. "I got mine, fuck you" doesn't actually pan out very well in the long run...

 

[Brian Griffin]

Considering that Walmart is the largest employer in the country and certainly the largest in many small towns, it would be great if the Waltons diverted some of their own personal wealth back into the company to raise employee pay to, say, $10/hr.

That will never happen though. The low level employees aren't even human to them. They are just a cost they haven't figured out how to eliminate yet.

So true and so sad.

 

[disco]

Come the Revolution! Off with their heads I say!

 

[Simplet]

Ok so instead of 20 to my friend, I give 20 billion to my kids whats the difference?

The difference is nine zeros, did you really need someone to point this out to you?

The grand delusion that young, poor Americans have is that by somehow taxing these people more, that money will wind up in their hands (or the hands of their peers).

That money will merely be diverted to other corporations and rich people that are more deeply embedded into Congress. It just a redistribution at the top, with maybe some trickle down to the poor if they are in proximity of those select people. ARRA was proof of that.

All of this strikes me as pure envy or people playing off of other's envy. This proven flawed idea that money buys happiness and those that have more (than they could ever want) need to share it. Thus creating more 'happiness' or contentment. Not only that, but you expect the very same corrupt organization that allowed this system to exist to then distribute that money in a fair manner. hahaha

Actually, I believe it's been demonstrated in scientific studies that money buys you some degree of happiness up until an amount around 100k a year. Anything above that apparently has no influence in how happy you declare yourself to be. You can see how much sense it makes to redistribute the money above that threshold to all the people that have been made unhappy by their problems with money.

 

[Legendary_Red]

Do you not understand tax brackets? I'm not advocating taking 80-90% in total. I'm advocating that there should be a bracket near the high end that gets up to that.

Our tax brackets are as such:


10% $0 – $8,925
15% $8,926 – $36,250
25% $36,251 – $87,850
28% $87,851 – $183,250
33% $183,251 – $398,350
35% $398,351 – $400,000
39.6% $400,001+

I think there should be more brackets. Something like:

45% $800,000
60% $2,000,000
70% $4,000,000
80% $8,000,000
90% $16,000,000

And that should account for all of your income.

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

You want people to work for an +$4 million dollar increase for such meager <$400k in earnings?

These guys are earning the vast majority of their money through ownership of stock and other high risk investments. Why would anyone engage in high risk investments if what they earn is simply going to be stripped clean by the government who has shown time and time again it is incapable of responsibly spending money?

"Eh, I would love to invest $8 million dollars into this fascinating start up, but what I would make even if the company went big will be eaten up the government. On the flip side if things crash then all $8 million would be lost, definitely not worth it."

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I've called it a glitch in human psychology before. We suck at handling big numbers, but we like to see them go up, so we're never satisfied even when we reach the point where the money starts becoming almost literally meaningless

I mean, you see the same thing with the midfle class in first world cohntries. Pretty sure tge poorer areas of the world probably think people are insane for being stressed out about making 'moderate' amounts of money

 

[sant]

The only reason the "government" is so bad right now is because the government is paid for by special interests and rich people. You stop that (by making sure the rich people aren't quite as rich and implementing some other sorts of reform), and it goes away.

And oh noes, freeloaders exist! Shit, I didn't know that... I think there's a greater chance of money going to a freeloader with low inheritance tax than high inheritance taxes and that money being spread out for better things. But, you know, that's just me... and logic.

Then corruption goes inward and the government is accountable to no one. You think cutting down rich people solves the problem?

What better things? When the government needs to build a bridge they issue bonds. Who do you think buys these bonds? When a company issues debt or equity to raise capital who do you think purchases these instruments? Taxing people 70% at $2MM is ridiculous.

It disincentives (admittedly not completely) people from going out there and starting their own business or working for higher income jobs.

For the record I am not against the estate tax (since its only fair that it is treated as income) but your crazy tax rates.

 

[Savitar]

These poor wealthy people and their hardships.

Enough to make one cry.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

You want people to work for an +$4 million dollar increase for such meager <$400k in earnings?

These guys are earning the vast majority of their money through ownership of stock and other high risk investments. Why would anyone engage in high risk investments if what they earn is simply going to be stripped clean by the government who has shown time and time again it is incapable of responsibly spending money?

"Eh, I would love to invest $8 million dollars into this fascinating start up, but what I would make even if the company went big will be eaten up the government. On the flip side if things crash then all $8 million would be lost, definitely not worth it."

heh

I mean, you see the same thing with the midfle class in first world cohntries. Pretty sure tge poorer areas of the world probably think people are insane for being stressed out about making 'moderate' amounts of money

I've talked about this before with friends. I'm not sure what the disconnect is that allows people to see the middle class lifestyle as one that isn't worthwhile. Virtually everyone I know was raised in that class and lived comfortable and beneficial lives, myself included. People seem to think that it isn't good enough. I understand we are conditioned for the most part to want more than we have but maybe trying to change that perception would help the issue as well as people would stop daydreaming about a lifestyle they will never see and instead embrace what they have and in turn change the system to benefit their current situation and not a false hope for a life of wealth.

 

[RumblingRosco]

45% $800,000 = $440,000 left
60% $2,000,000 = $800,000 left
70% $4,000,000 = $1,200,000 left
80% $8,000,000 = $1,600,000 left
90% $16,000,000 = $1,600,000 left

Oh my God, are we seriously having this same issue AGAIN?

 

[Cow Mengde]

Quick, give them a tax break!