We need to raise corporate income taxes to 91% again. Rich people need to pay higher taxes. Fuck them

We need to raise corporate income taxes to 91% again. Rich people need to pay higher taxes. Fuck them.

Other urls found in this thread:

cbpp.org/research/tax-flight-is-a-myth
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3sure6/people_keep_saying_that_the_income_tax_rate_under/
youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
independent.co.uk/news/business/news/prostitution-and-illegal-drugs-help-uk-overtake-france-in-global-wealth-league-9945007.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

tru

>raise tax to inhuman rates
>richfags leave US of A in droves, taking USA money with them

Nice one amigo

>raise taxes to 91%
>all the rich leave
>now you have no wealth to redistribute

Gommie logic

>implying rich people pay taxes
Lol

Even if we have a flat tax rate (say, 10% or something), the rich still pay more taxes than the poor. That's not to say that I support flat tax rates per se, but that's saying that we don't need to tax the rich into poverty. 91% is full retard, considering that above a certain income rate they're effectively working for the state rather than for themselves.

Better to keep the rich in and paying their taxes, bruh.

hurrr let's punish people for their success by taxing them to death and using the money to support uneducated poor people that contribute nothing to society

Capital flight is treason, and should have a capital punishment associated.

kys

You can literally get born rich. There is a reason why loans and banks are so desirable. If you start from great position of let's say your family being able to loan you millions you have it way easier. And all those connections too.

You can't even have everyone be rich since you can't do business without labor at least for the next 50 or so years.

socialism is the enemy to communism because it supports the monetary system

the only alternative method is to introduce vouchers and slowly eliminate the monetary need

They will just decrease worker wage and increase selling price.

This.

steal money from group Y to group X

wew lad,so original

>put the money in a foundation
done

>They will just decrease worker wage
Good thing you can't just do that then.

Didn't France have some robin hood tier income tax for millionaires?

>rich people are rich because they are successful
well over half of the richest people in the world got their wealth through inheritance, and of those who made their wealth they generally were members of already wealthy families

Then they will be forced to be debt and after bankruptcy than their company will fall apart and the worker not gonna have jobs, the economy of the country falling apart and the one just become from medium to rich being taxed with 91% and reduce to medium which make the country become a circle of poverty and retarded.
Except if those "poor" accept buying product that x3 from the original. (30%-90%).
But whatever you talk, if economy collapse the poor will just unhappy and protest while the rich gonna just go suicide because they can't pay debt.

Nah the rich will find some other way to make money and the poor will be better off. People always spell doom when you talk about taxing the rich. In the end nothing happens except more money is distributed.

inheritance tax pretty much skullfucks middle class the most.

here its pretty much 10 % of the inheritance

it is really fun to pay 16000 euros of tax for an average house for example just because people are just fucking jealous and evil

Can't believe people are still falling for the 'all the rich people will leave if we tax them' meme. Trickle-down economics just doesn't work. Income inequality is rising in all western nations and whilst (((certain people))) are making outrageous amounts of money, the working-class remain poor and socially immobile. The only reason they exploit the system like they do is because we allow them to.

t. Jeremy Corbyn

Where would they go?

>let's tax the rich, the people that gives us jobs and a stable economy

Trickle down is nothing special, it's just basic economics 101 which is that a rich guy buys expensive toys like houses, cars, booze, and whatnot which thereby employ a lot of people in manufacturing and servicing said items.

Remember when USA citizen protest to increase rich tax?
Now USA in deeper in debt.
Coincidence?
The only way to fix the Income inequality is increase compete between company, but with the favourite company in people ideas, this doesn't work.
But remember when capitalism just as new and there is a lot of competition, it's kinda equality in economy.

Trickle down is a myth no one capable of rational thought believes.

>Remember when USA citizen protest to increase rich tax?
>Now USA in deeper in debt.
This is hands down the dumbest thing i've ever heard anyone say about economics.

I hope you realize very few people actually qualified for that tax bracket or even had it significantly impact their tax burden because of loopholes and historically more equal incomes

If you implemented that then overnight everyone with tons of capital would move to the Caymen Islands or Panama

>he still thinks the rich keep all their money in a sock under the bed
Come on now.

>start taxing the rich
>they move all their money to offshore banks and use loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes

tax havens like your neighbour

That's why I put the Coincidence in the comment.
When increase rich tax, only the poor company that can't afford the tax gonna dead or being subjugated by rich company and rich company which can afford can pay it, which make the capitalists even have less competitior and using the people more.
And also if you gonna argue, talk something sense not just "it's just sound dumb" or "Thing gonna bad anyway"

Simple solution, close the loopholes.

That's not a solution... they just move their business to a country that has competitive tax rates.

Easier said than done

That will never work. Rich people have written the laws to benefit them in them in their favor. There's literally nothing we can do to stop them from having that much power.

The rich own politicians, dude.

>There are people who can't separate corporations from people.
>There are people who think raising corporate taxes just means CEOs have to pay more.

Taxation is theft.

No i don't wanna argue with you. I don't feel like trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want.

Let them move their business then and (in the case of the UK) lose access to 65 million potential customers. If you operate in a country, you should pay taxes in that country.

True, but I remain hopeful.

That's what (((they))) want you to believe, that you are powerless to change things. We're seeing anti-establishment politics getting more and more popular though, with Brexit and anti-EU sentiment in Europe and the rise of Trump (and Sanders) in the US. The current system won't go on forever, it just remains to be seen whether it's the far-right or the far-left who will be the most popular.

Great idea Timmy.
And who will you tax when all the corporations leave? Taking both taxable income and business with them?

israel

We do have flat tax and its exactly 10%.

Well, just disappointed that you don't give any comment or quote that even just moving my belief a little.
Always like arguing so I can learn more and know my mistake.

I like you.

>Let them move their business then and (in the case of the UK) lose access to 65 million potential customers. If you operate in a country, you should pay taxes in that country.
and let the economy of your own country collapse? are you daft laddie

>oh wow that company that manufactures X moved away
>NOW WE WILL NEVER HAVE X AGAIN OH GOD
30 companies making the same shit will appear overnight to close the hole m8. Market forces and all that.

Why didn't they in the past?

California and Jew York have extremely high taxes, yet all the richfags stay there.

well how do you do that when the rich people are in charge?

This is really scary. It's really hard to tell if this guy is this stupid or is simply trolling. I mean it's Sup Forums so there are a lot of trolls, but then again there are a lot of stupid people who think like this.I'm confused.

Lmao this Viet bought the neoconservative shill pill

Higher taxes (to an extent) are generally not harmful to an economy.

Thanks lad.

Why would it collapse? The most talked-about examples of big tax-avoiding businesses in the UK are the likes of Starbucks and Amazon - the only reason they don't pay tax is because we allow them not to, by giving them access to these loopholes. If we closed the loopholes and taxed them at a fair rate, then leaving the UK would be purely out of spite and actually harm their business - like I say, they'd lose access to 65 million relatively wealthy customers. And if they do leave, fuck them. They'll get replaced by new companies which contribute fairly to the country where they make their profits.

You vote for Comrade Corbyn and other non-crooked politicians. Then you despair because they also advocate things like open borders and SJW bullshit, and realise they'll actually fuck up the country even more then it was already fucked up.

>tfw no traditional left-wing candidates

>If you implemented that then overnight everyone with tons of capital would move to the Caymen Islands or Panama

The US+EU forced the tax havens to report financial accounts of non-citizens recently.

I don't know the details, but as far as I know "trickle down" economics purely relies on the idea that money needs to roll. If reach people spend their money on bullshit like extravagant beach houses and musclecars, they create employment in manufacturing. If they eat out every night, they keep the restaurants running. What we need is to encourage the rich to either spend or invest.

I know France for example has this thing where the rich are taxed incredibly high... unless they invest their money in companies. The profit from these companies doesn't count as a "salary", so it's in an entirely different tax bracket. That way, they're forced to invest into the national economy, but get to keep the profits (mostly).

>Let them move their business then and (in the case of the UK) lose access to 65 million potential customers.
>Exports don't exist
You know why shitholes like Liechtenstein and Ireland are tax havens? Not exactly because of their massive consumer markets. The only thing that could throw a wrench in this plan is the UK leaving the free trade zone. First of all that might not even happen, and secondly even if they do it's about choosing between a market of 65 million and one of 300+ million. The problem with rich people is that they have money to move abroad.

>30 companies making the same shit will appear overnight to close the hole m8.
How many of them foreign? Their products will reach their markets, but who will they pay taxes to? Paying 90% taxes of course gives the government less money than paying 10% taxes, but 10% taxation is better than none at all.

cbpp.org/research/tax-flight-is-a-myth

91% on all corporate income would be a bit of a kick in the pants for corporations with already small overhead. At worst it would force a portion out of business, making it possible for only the biggest and financially toughest ones to stay alive.

All in all it would severely raise the barrier of entry for new business while at the same time forcing many more out of business. At best it would raise tax earnings by a boatload for a time but then as the economy is overtaken by said monopolies with the girth to survive tax monies might even come tumbling down.

Honestly I'm not even sure what would happen if that really happened.

Also eisenhower and 91/92% income tax is just a meme:
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3sure6/people_keep_saying_that_the_income_tax_rate_under/

...

That's why you kill them first.

Foreign corps can still pay taxes in a country they operate in. That said, 90% is stupid yeah.

Nope

It's not harming the economy directly.
But it's helping the richer capitalist and increase exclusive percentage and economy control (better or worse).
As i say that it need more Capitalist to fix the Capitalist problem itself.
Since less Capitalist = Exclusive = More Control of Economy and Politic.
More Capitalist = Competition = Less control of Economy and Politic.
And i don't think this is neoconservative.
I talk about control of Economy, dear American.

america, shut up and go hide in a cave or something

Yeah well I'd support leaving the free trade zone, purely because of reasons like that. They want to operate from a tiny tax haven? Put high tariffs on their goods.

That would be quite silly as almost all of the top 5% earners do via other means than straight income. In fact if you don't take your income mostly in other forms than those accounted on income tax, you are stupid af.

Sweden's government taxed 51% of GDP last year and spent 53%.

GDP grew 4%.

It's actually one of the only economies to post continous growth since 2009. Even America and Poland didn't.

The freeeeee market doesnt like vacuum. As soon as the big money boys leave, their territory(or market share) is open for the taking. So new companies will appear, some will fail and other will become big guys 4u.

>I talk about control of Economy, dear American.

I gave a source showing your shitpostis wrong.

But he's right. The wealthy always build infrastructure and give jobs to millions of people. When there's more infrastructure and jobs, the economy stabilizes and people are happy. Also, the rich get taxed plenty enough and it sometimes looks like they're not paying much because they use tax deductible donations. The wealthy contribute to countless humanitarian donations, give us our private scholarship money, and help fund scientific research instead of directly giving money to the government like a good goy. Honestly rich people do so much for the world but cry baby leftist can't see it because they're so entitled and ungrateful

?

How come it worked in 1953?

The whole idea of money is stupid. If you know anything about economics , you know that the entire banking system is a pyramid scheme that is going to collapse sooner or later.
We need to create an economic system based on equality and progress, not inequality and stagnation.

In other words we need a society without money.Only then humanity will prosper.

>GDP grew

GDP means nothing.

We're borrowing money during a boom, that should tell you something.

It didn't though; we had three recessions and very sluggish economic growth in the 50s.

Well, consider that is wrong.
Since after thinking a while, I think the problem is not percentage of taxes cause bankruptcy of "all" capitalist are problem, but only bankrupcty "poorer" capitalist are problem.

Yes they invest, just like farmers invest in their cow, so they can milk them afterwards.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

>The wealthy always build infrastructure and give jobs to millions of people.
(Citation needed)

America has the most wealth on earth and yet our infrastructure is absolute shit.

3.2% average growth 1950-1960 is very much good.

Especially considering the debt bubble of WW2 had to be worked off and the Cold War starting up.

How about 1940-1950? GDP grew 5% per year on average and the average tax rate was 60%. Government spending was 55% of GDP. It was the most government-led economy ever in America.

Because the 91% is just a meme

We looked like China at the time.

I'm sorry Viet but your english is hard to understand. Economics is already complex enough

>Implying the British economy can adjust itself rapidly enough to domestically produce the products they're importing
>Implying those company owners won't go abroad as soon as they start earning a significant amount of money
What then, tovarich? Make everything state owned?

GDP is pretty deceptive. If I give my neighbor 10 bucks to punch me in the dick, and he gives me 10 bucks to punch him in the dicks, we've gained nothing except sore dicks. We'll have increased our national GDP by 20 bucks though.

Actually it was about 1-2% growth in the 50s. Things seemed only prosperous compared to the recently departed Depression. Kennedy's 1960 campaign slogan was "Let's get America moving again" which wasn't the indication of a boomtime economy.

As Ronald Reagan put it, "I can remember us actors sitting in the Brown Derby Restaurant in LA discussing our tax shelters. We preferred to take the summer off rather than make an extra movie we'd have to pay additional taxes on."

>Actually it was about 1-2% growth in the 50s.

(Citation needed)

Taxes cause bankruptcy of "all" capitalist are not right and also not problem.
Taxes cause bankruptcy of "poorer" capitalist are right and also are problem.

>GDP is pretty deceptive. If I give my neighbor 10 bucks to punch me in the dick, and he gives me 10 bucks to punch him in the dicks, we've gained nothing except sore dicks. We'll have increased our national GDP by 20 bucks though.

Find a better measure of the value produced within and economy then.

Oh wait... No one has.

Sure, it would take some time to adjust, we have been under the control of (((nefarious influences))) for some time. Economy would undoubtedly suffer in the short-term while we adjust, but it would be more stable and fairer when we do adjust. I'd support the re-nationalisation of a few key industries too - the railways and the mail service at least (as well as reversing some of the privatisation of the NHS). I'm not a full-on commie though, I support capitalism as long as it is regulated and fair.

If I am reading you correctly, that doesn't make sense

Please explain more. Use numbers.

So if I gave your mom 20 bucks for a fuck, would she do it to increase GDP?

>How about 1940-1950? GDP grew 5% per year on average and the average tax rate was 60%

Europe was destroyed, there were no other heavy producer in the world outside the US

20 BUCK FUCK
0
B
U
C
K
F
U
C
K

>California and Jew York have extremely high taxes

Yes, but they are no where near 91% even considering FICA, top federal rate and NYS & NYC taxes.

t. CPA

>Europe was destroyed, there were no other heavy producer in the world outside the US

Europe being total shit doesn't help our economy user.

We have to sell the shit we produce. Them being commie or fascist doesn't increase US exports.

Kennedy was the first president to propose supply side economics instead of the New Deal orthodoxy of high taxes to force income inequality. When he made a speech in December 1962 proposing tax cuts to stimulate the economy, a Republican Congressman wryly said that he was "the most Republican president since McKinley."

Although he didn't live to see his tax proposal passed, LBJ quickly steered it through Congress and by late 1965, real GDP growth was over 6% and continued right up to the end of the decade.

>So if I gave your mom 20 bucks for a fuck, would she do it to increase GDP?
Nice meme, but that's actually how the British economy works.
independent.co.uk/news/business/news/prostitution-and-illegal-drugs-help-uk-overtake-france-in-global-wealth-league-9945007.html
Prior to Brexit, Britain's economy overtook that of France through, among other things, (legal) prostitution.

Not saying I have a better measurement, just saying it's not the end-all be-all of economics.

Yes, and that was not my point.

What is local demand.

neither of you provided any citation for your figures

>supply side economics
What a meme

>LBJ quickly steered it through Congress and by late 1965, real GDP growth was over 6% and continued right up to the end of the decade
Directly leading to the stagflation and economic disorder of the 70's.

Spending a shitload on war and welfare boosts any economy temporarily, but it creates massive inbalances and inefficiencies.

JFK and LBJ were true Keynesians. Nixon was as well.
Only with Carter and Reagan did that change.

>Nice meme, but that's actually how the British economy works.
>meme


>independent.co.uk/news/business/news/prostitution-and-illegal-drugs-help-uk-overtake-france-in-global-wealth-league-9945007.html
>Prior to Brexit, Britain's economy overtook that of France through, among other things, (legal) prostitution.
>tfw it's true