What's the argument about taxing the rich more anyway?

What's the argument about taxing the rich more anyway?

Hard mode: no appeal to emotion and class discrimination

Other urls found in this thread:

jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/21/4/311/556895/Predicting-Cross-National-Levels-of-Social-Trust
academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332/Does-Ethnic-Diversity-Have-a-Negative-Effect-on#87977272
yardeni.com/pub/ecoindirstax.pdf
investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/
youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Less incentive to work hard and become """""""rich""""""""

Tax the people who don't make as much so they don't become rich. Can't have the unpures joining the ranks of ((them))

No effect on the economy

More money for the government. Taxing the rich means more money for the public treasury.

More money

That's classism

Because our country is nothing more than an oligarchy disguised as a democracy. Why would those in power ever relinquish their grip? It's easier to control the populous when they're dumb and poor.

Finite money supply being depleted at a faster rate which means less circulation. The money must be returned to the economy at a faster rate.

>Try to tax the people that control the tax laws.

I wonder how that would work?

Rich people are Scrooge McDuck. They don't keep their wealth inside a vault. Most of them are in investments and assets.

In short, they contribute more than you will ever contribute.

There are diminishing economic returns the more money any individual person has.

Tax laws are bullshit anyway. The more laws we have the more exceptions they have. They have an army of (((lawyers))) to circumvent them.

The only ones affected are the ones who's moving up in the class ladder.

The very wealthy get their money from investments, which requires basically no real work. If your primary way of making money is just having money, then it shouldn't hurt you to get taxed for your free money.

No it's not because the rich will still end up with more money afterwards.

>the money must be returned to the economy at a faster rate
How is that bad? Just increase money to schools and hospitals and make everyone happy

What's the argument for "political authority" in the first place?
Neither I nor anyone else alive ever signed shit, so it's certainly not based in consent.

That's jealousy/envy. That's an emotional argument.

>They don't keep their wealth inside a vault. Most of them are in investments and assets.
Oh so in otherwords, they use their money to screw everyone else.

There is no argument. It's literally "you have more money, I want more"

Someone said the rich use governmental assets and public goods more often, but that would apply to businesses and not to individuals

good. i try to post this in every class warfare/muh rich people thread. too many people, even bright people who i know personally, think a mega rich guy goes to an atm and his balance reads like a billion smackaroos or something.
it's in investments. a lot of it isn't liquid. it's estimated values of assets. it's in building things and hiring and it actually does trickle down in that way. bill gates could definitely write a check from his personal checking account way bigger than i could, but it wouldn't be absurdly bigger

The government always wants more money. Of course they eye the rich, they are a big target for tax dollars. As for the lefties who want to tax them more: it's mostly fueled by envy. They just hate the rich while pretending to care for the poor.

No it isn't. How is wanting more money to defend our nation and pay back the debt an emotional argument?

I'm sure they pay more than you do.

The state wants more money in order to sustain itself and that's where they can find it.

They do but it would be great if they'd pay more.

pay back the debt by taxing rich people? wew.

it's also worth noting that the bottom 20% of earners in this country pay less than half a percent of the total income tax revenue. the wealthy pay most by a mile. you could tax them 100% and barely make a dent in the debt. and they'd also, you know, stop trickling down.

Why?

>rich people make more money
>more money is automatically taxed at an identical tax rate

ur retarded

We could balance the federal budget

sure bud

The rich benefit more from having a stable, well-functioning society because they have more to lose. Because their benefits are higher, their costs should also be higher.

Its a meme. Even if you massively increased their rates it would have little impact in our trillion dollar deficit. Also, they would not pay it anyway. They would shelter the money and their effective tax rate would still be low. Its a fuckin meme. Give them a flat rate with ni deductions and call it a fuckin day.

Rich people have more disposable income. You can't get blood from a rock and eventually when income inequality is bad enough the rich have their heads put on pikes.

>We could balance the federal budget
Why the rich?

If you say because they have more money what's the rationale behind it?

It's just the circulation of money. Take money out of the rich just increase the rate of circulation. It's going to come back to the rich anyways.

>The very wealthy get their money from investments, which requires basically no real work. If your primary way of making money is just having money, then it shouldn't hurt you to get taxed for your free money.
This is because the FED prints literally monopoly money. Some fuckin young douche sitting at a puter types in some numbers while eating his shitty food of choice and hits enter. Voila... fake money.

But you guys fall for the tax the rich meme

They will just move somewhere else.

>The very wealthy get their money from investments, which requires basically no real work
Apparently, you never invested anything in your life.

Make taxation theft again.

...

>Why the rich?
Because they have more money...

>If you say because they have more money what's the rationale behind it?
What the fuck does this even mean? The rational is that they have more money so they can contribute more to the nation while losing marginally less utility per dollar.

>remarks on perfect placement of party hat

>Because they have more money...
That's as stupid reason as white people in general should pay everyone since they benefited more than everyone else in history.

You can tax the rich for more money than the lower classes without killing their will to work.

>No emotion or class discrimination

Improve consumer spending. Rich people are rich because they save money, often as part of a social game to try and make it into higher and higher social strata. If you give a rich person a big tax break, it's mostly going into their savings and not doing anything economically productive. Conversely, taking from them does less economic harm than taking from others. There are certainly limits to how far this can go, getting rich has to be a sweet deal to motivate innovation and entrepreneurialism.

This is of course under the presumption that we need the government to foster economic activity through security, arbitration, and commons investments. This of course takes taxes, and so we try to find least harmful ways to extract that tax.

see

Good one.

Have you ever heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax?

I hadn't either until I had to pay it for a few years.

It boils down to:If you make a lot of money, we're pretty sure you are hiding even more somewhere, so pay us even more now.

Not so much.

The money they shuffle around in their businesses is generally taxed at a much lower rate. That's not really in question. It's not under their personal control.

They can also command a salary for personal use. Or receive dividends, or sell their business. At a certain point (ie 5x to 10x the average household income) a single individual has a lower economic throughput than a group of individuals.

If you want to live in a capitalistic, market based society, you need to have a progressive tax scheme. Otherwise it's old money picking winners and losers. Feudalism.

The reason some of them aren't even getting taxed as much as they should anyway is...

FUCKING TAX LAWS.

Rich people reap more from society than the impoverished so they should contribute more to its maintenance.

No, see you're arguing from a humanitarian point of view. I'm arguing from a nationalist point of view. So at this point, is just becomes an argument of ethnonationalism vs multiculturalism:

Ethnocentrism is scientifically the superior evolutionary strategy to take.
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

High trust among individuals within communities is directly correlated with ethnic homogeneity.
academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/21/4/311/556895/Predicting-Cross-National-Levels-of-Social-Trust

Ethnic diversity and social cohesion are directly negatively correlated.
academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332/Does-Ethnic-Diversity-Have-a-Negative-Effect-on#87977272

The first one is really the kicker here: acting with others in your ethnicity as a unified ingroup yields greater success than acting as an individual or acting as a humanitarian. It comes down to game theory, it's a simple prisoner's dilemma. The individual will always be outdone by the ethnic group and the ethnic group will always undermine the humanitarian.

The top 10% of earners pay 80% of all US personal income tax.

>yardeni.com/pub/ecoindirstax.pdf
>investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/

The rich always pay more tax in absolute terms no matter what tax system you use, progressive, regressive, or flat.

The rich always pay less tax in terms of relative disposable income no matter what tax system you use, progressive, regressive, or flat.

By reducing income tax on the bottom 90% of earners, you reduce government income by a marginal amount. And you increase disposable income of 90% of earners by 50%-100%. If you don't already know how this fuels economic growth, then you should read some basic econ.

By increasing income tax on the 10% of earners, you decrease their disposable income by a marginal amount and increase government income significantly. The primary economic effect of this is reducing investment.

I could write a whole other rant on why we are overspending on investments and how that it is decreasing economic growth and stability.

That's what happens when you vote for parties that want to give you (((small government))).

There's no argument against taxing the rich at 100%

thats why rich shouldn't be allowed to be rich.

>reducing investment
First off that's good because investment creates more inequality. Second no it won't because what do governments do with money, they invest it.

This, and this is exactly why the wealthy elite are so opposed to simple flat tax policies.

>That massive % drop in the $200K-$250K category
Why is this?

That's literally communism user

>inequality is inherently bad
"No"

Stop being dumb on purpose. We're all dumb until we choose to learn.

Oops, wrong pic.

Investing is not easy.
It's low-commitment, and follows the principle that you need to have money to make money, but it's definitely not free money.

>disincentivize success
>everyone works at mcdonalds, no innovation, no new industry, no new avenues of wealth

gr8 b8 m8

Why have any taxes or government at all?

Hard assets are cool, but much of their money is tied up in stocks, bonds, or buying up the debt issued to create their tax cuts.

We can (and I'm guessing do) tax the rich in ways that encourage them to make new investments instead of just parking their money preexisting things.

There was a GEO report from a few years back that found that tax cuts to the rich didn't correlate with periods of economic growth. It's possible their tax rates could return to 70's levels without causing economic downturn. Again, we don't want to over do it, but it's possible that overall GDP growth could improve with different taxing schemes, many of which might increase taxes on the rich.

Saving poor people more money so they can afford more things and contribute to the economy. There are many more poor people than rich people and in total it'd be a far greater benefit to the economy than if a few rich people spent all their money on bullshit. Tax the rich more to fund government and let the common folk have the impact on the free market.

Because the government doesn't want to fail. Taxation is safety net.

They should be allowed to fail like everyone else.

Wealthy people benefit more from the system that protects investors, prevents people from beating your head in, and fosters good business transactions.

Basically you couldn't become wealthy in the same manner in the Congo. Because a warlord would decapitate you and fuck your wife.

You're trolling bro

We used to have very rich people racking up enough deductions to pay nothing at all.

No, I am wanting you to want to be an individual.
>soniamdisappoint.jpg

But I want to be lonely.

>class discrimination

The rich own the government. The people do not and never did and never will. We fight their wars and eat their shit, so since ethics and morality never impinged on the relationship it makes sense to squeeze them a bit since they squeeze us a lot.

This has nothing to do with any specific ideology because no ideology ever in PRACTICE (fuck all theories, prove by example or piss off) changes that inevitable reality much.

Society is about relationships. For example I chose the military as a career because all parties and the American people love war as spectator sport. Fine, pay me mother fuckers. Now I'm retired but must stay actively involved to get my due deferred compensation which arrangement permitted the elites to buy my services at a modest initial rate.

There are no good humans. There are no good goverments. There can never be either. There are only gangs, money and power. The world is composed of warlords great and small. That was never different.

No ism can fix this, so I look for the minimum useful to me, white advantage, gun rights for when we have to snuff the niggers, and so forth.

Holy fuck so many bottom-feeders in this thread. I am below the poverty line right now (late 20s), but I know that I will be in the top 10% within 5 years. You greedy envious fucks, stop trying to steal money from people who chase opportunities. How is it fair that some people smoke weed 24/7, commit crimes, don't do homework, skip school, party and fuck girls instead of studying technical subjects, backpack around the world and start communes, play video games, get by on good looks and good social skills... and then hold the rusty shiv of government power to the throat of intelligent, hard working people (who might only have that going for them in life) demanding a slice of their goodies.

They have the largest amount of money available to pay for things.

>what is the social contract

>I am below the poverty line right now (late 20s), but I know that I will be in the top 10% within 5 years

Now THAT's an emotional argument.

>More money for the government. Taxing the rich means more money for the public treasury.

This is untrue
youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

I literally have job offers that would take me that high (though they involve migrating to another country), so suck a thick one, pleb.

It's not a contract.
There's nothing contractual about that notion.

Like what happened here when tax rates were at levels we'd call communist? Oh wait...

>We could balance the federal budget
Untrue

And what job is that cletus.

>the laffer curve meme
This meme is based on the fallacy that there is unlimited money, and the rich making more money somehow means more for everyone esle

You become rich by using the system which society is based upon. Sure, you worked hard to become rich, but the system let you. Thus you must pay the system for the opportunity to amass wealth.

Taxing the rich is theft.

Basically a bunch of lazy nignogs saying "gibs me dat". Rather than working for the wealth that a rich man did.

t. useful idiot

So paying off the debt by raising marginal tax rate is somehow theft? Even though that will bring the nation out of debt?

Your top dollar is worth less than your bottom dollar (note how the derivative of pic related changes with income). So, if we were to charge a flat tax, even though the poor and the rich would be paying the same number of dollars, they wouldn't be giving up something equally valuable to them. To account for this, we tax people progressively.

They're really the only ones who can afford it anyway.

The rich don't earn their money off taxable income. They earn their money off capital gains. For example, the CEO of Google has a taxable income of $1. And increasing the tax on capital gains isn't so easy because nearly everyone is in the market one way or another now. Individual investors, mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc.
SO
Increasing taxes on the top 1% of income earners is a populatist game that makes the plebeians feel good while actually helping the rich stay rich.
How's that?
Because people starting their own business generally do it by investing money they earned at their day job. The more money they earn at their day job, the more comfortable it is to spend it on such an endeavor. Actual rich people don't want this for a variety of reasons. These people become their competition and/or take away their talent. If the government taxes the shit out of these high income earners, this threat is reduced. Plus the actual wealthy person can act like a populist by demanding these high brackets are taxed more. Knowing full well that it won't touch the people the plebeians think it does.
Bottom line
Advocating tax increases on the top 1% of income earners does nothing to the actual top 1% of wealthy. So doing so makes you a useful idiot.

>the fallacy that there is unlimited money
That's directly what that film disputes, faggot. It states outright that there's not unlimited money, and what exists has already been spent.

They have a greater dependency on public services (road, education, police, etc) then does an individual - assuming they are engaged with the economy.

Huey Long's plan involved taxing all income above a certain level at 100%. If that level was 1.8 million, for example, and someone had 5.8 million, the government would take 4 million.

fiat currencies require gdp growth to justify minting more currency without devaluation of the currency.

as populations grow government spending increases. also if you have a military thats used or universal health care its a massive expenditure yearly and the cost only grows each year. even with a military it becomes more costly each year to have the same work done with the same number of people because of inflation

at a point its the only way to keep the currency from devaluing if your going to keep trying to tell the rest of the world what to do and threaten military aggression if they dont listen. not sure how republicans think you going to pay for wars since you dont want to pay lower class people more just so the government could tax them more and you keep giving rich people tax cuts./ in 10 years have fun being the only 1st world country with fewer than 100k soldiers . i will be in japan who will have grown militarily speaking to fill the void in the pacific. murica has to m,any enemies and i wouldnt want to be here when it cant even pretend to be able to defend itself

Wealth disparity, not poverty, seems to drive the homicide rate. Gotta manage that for stability. It's about perception though, so it might be managed other ways.

hahaha le ebin nigger gibsmedats meme le XDD!!!!

Lowering taxes on the rich makes plebs like you feel good.