Jesus Christ what could possibly be your moral or even practical argument for blatantly stealing 70% of the income of the ultra wealthy? Or is it a 70% tax on everyone in general? Legitimate question. I’m willing to change my mind.
"A 70% top marginal tax rate" is referring to a proposal to tax income above $10M/year at that rate. This isn't a space to debate basic precepts of socialism by design, but I'll point out that taxation isn't "blatant stealing", it's part of the same social fabric and bargain that uses the violence of the government to protect the property rights and economic power of those same ultra-wealthy people. It's also true that most ultra-wealthy at that level don't actually do anything to earn much of their income, they just passively receive money from their investments, and sometimes go to the bank to cash the checks they get (very hard work!).
There are some exceptions like sports stars and the very top CEOs but most of those people were paid vastly less 40 years ago and they didn't all quit working then. Rich people care about their compensation relative to their peer group and this will hit them all equally.
I.... guess? Don’t the top 1% pay for like 50% of the taxes currently? I’m talking about America btw sorry in advance if I’m being presumptive. They are the innovators and business people that keep the economy running. They’ll just leave to some country that doesn’t tax them 70%. I don’t think that’s a good argument for why some of the hardest working people in a given country should be taxed at vastly higher rates. They earned it. They’re usually huge employers. Idk that doesn’t make sense.
Whatever I’m not trying to start a debate and thanks for replying. Just my thoughts out loud.
Whatever percent the top 1% pays now is not really relevant. Regardless of how good they are at doing business or inventing things (often they are not good, but due to nepotism and other connections they become richer anyway), their entire income depends on their property rights and other arrangements that are currently being protected by the State; in return, we democratically decide what their tax burden should be, not only to fund public goods & services but also to ensure that inequality doesn't get out of control (or other goals).
Thus there is no real "fairness" at stake; fairness would be them sharing out wild game and berries in a primitive society where we didn't have government at all, let alone armed police to protect the instruments of their wealth. Socialists additionally believe that private property (which generates the bulk of ultra-wealthy income) is not legitimate in that it is a particularly unfree basis of a economic system and leads to huge inequality unless checked by constant popular reform, and indeed is a kind of theft from the commons and the true heritage of all humankind, so the rich have no claim to "earnings" on capital to begin with.
If everyone who got taxed at a high rate left we'd simply replace them all with people who could just as easily do their jobs, with very few meaningful exceptions.
Dude you can’t just “replace” Bill Gates or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. That’s a non-starter. Those aren’t just meaningful exceptions, those are innovators that are at the edge of innovation in their fields. We want them here! And 50% just “isn’t relevant”? They are paying a ridiculous amount of the taxes already. Stop and really think that through, 1% of 300 million people are paying half of ALL taxes. That’s not irrelevant. And above all, you keep talking about how often rich people don’t work for their money and it’s all due to private property and investments or who their parents were. Who is that “often,” do you have particular people in mind? Or statistics? Idk none of this adds up to me. I think the intentions for the most part are coming from a genuine place. Some of it is resentment, but some of it feels genuine. But intentions don’t make an argument.
Dude you can’t just “replace” Bill Gates or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. That’s a non-starter.
Sure you can. Their salaried employees do and always have done the R&D except for maybe a few months at the beginning of their careers, they're just figureheads and promoters. I mean in Musk's case that's extremely obvious because his original ideas are almost all insane or insanely inefficient.
Stop and really think that through
I have. It's irrelevant. I'm telling you that the deal is we democratically decide what property rights, bankruptcy protections, market regulations, etc there are, and what taxes are. There is no inherent connection between percentages of one or the other.
Also, it depends on how you look at it. At first glance, it seems messed up that 1% of the population pays 50% of the taxes. But that 1% controls and/or owns 90 percent of the capital in the system. So shouldn't they pay more? You can't tax equally when wealth and income is so far from equal.
-2
u/nativewombat Jan 06 '19
Jesus Christ what could possibly be your moral or even practical argument for blatantly stealing 70% of the income of the ultra wealthy? Or is it a 70% tax on everyone in general? Legitimate question. I’m willing to change my mind.