add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Thoughts on the 70%+ taxes (mostly democratic) politicians are calling for?

JRPG_Guy

3 months ago

I have mixed feelings about these proposed taxes.

On one hand I feel like extremely high taxes are wrong for anyone. That if you take away a good chunk or majority of peoples earnings they'll lose the main incentive to work as much. I'm not, but if I were rich I would abhor these taxes. But then again I think I'd give a lot of charity and know that deep down I wouldn't need all this money when all my wants and needs are metm

But on the flip side I believe some of these 10 percenters earn so much. Let's take the gaming industry for example. EA gave a new head millions for just joining the company if Im not mistaken. Instead of putting this money towards a respectable SimCity or Spore sequel they give this guy millions (don't recall his name). And correct me if I'm wrong but what do these heads do that's so special? Give orders? If anything the devs should be paid more.

On top of that the country is in need of desperate infrastructure updates. The NYC subway alone needs billions in upgrades/renovations and that's just one part of one of our cities.

I don't know. Maybe I'm leaning more towards these taxes but I don't want them to be as high. I doubt taxes will become too high but I've been wrong in the past. I don't understand how politicians still haven't made a decent budget after all these years.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

This

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

IDK, defending something you see as wrong shouldn't require you to belong to that group. Otherwise, things like this would be questioned too.

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

I personally don't feel that's in any way remotely the same. Lol

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

It's defending others against something seen as immoral. Severity is different, sure. Logic behind it's the same. Certainly one is far worse than the other, though, lol.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Don't agree. There comes a point where you can't compare apples to oranges.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yikes. Rich people are not a victimized class.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

So a class has to be victimized to be defended by those outside of that group? Also, who determines victimization and what are the qualifying prerequisites to be 'victimized?'

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Not that I am interested in taking up this argument for others, but I want to ask just to clarify: are these really questions you can't deduce answers to, are you just playing devils advocate, or do you genuinely believe we need to debate whether billionaires require outside aid or not?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't get/understand the meme.

  • 3 months ago
  • 5 points

The meme is that people who don’t even make more than $10M a year get all upset over it like it’ll affect them greatly.

Not saying they don’t have the right to have an opinion on the matter, but it’s nothing that we should really get upset over imo. The people who do make that kind of money should have more of a say though and I’m sure some of them would actually agree to it.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Ah - thank you. Sometimes I look too deep into a meme or photo and completely pass the obvious.

Yes, have an opinion, but don't freak out over it.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I think to some extent it's a "what next" situation. As in, if we increase taxes on that bracket, what about the next bracket down, or will it lead to increased taxes on middle class households? So people get upset not because of the letter of the proposal but the precedent it might set.

Edit: Should probably mention I'm only presenting this as a possible explanation, not as my personal beliefs.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I feel that some fear that once the taxes are passed, it will make it much easier to expand the area of affected people in the future.

Don't take away the incentives for success.

  • 3 months ago
  • 5 points

A CEO could just take no salary and take all his money in dividends.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Sure, anything is possible. Think one exists?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Salary = $1

Bonus = $1mil, varies each quarter Car allowance, $50k per month Live in nanny: provided Child education fund: $250k annual

In other words, they are compensated in other ways.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, thats the point and i'm agreeing with what Andrew24 said. Oftentimes they take no salary and get paid in other means.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yep, this is why it won't really do anything as presented, even if it were made law.

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

Just my thoughts on the matter, I'm assuming we're talking about the 70% tax on income above the $10m threshold?

So just for clarity, I don't intend to make an argument for or against, I also think it's not as simple as many believe it would be, because as we know, tax increases mean nothing if it's possible to circumvent them but I digress.

The tax will not affect anybody here, It's an assumption for sure but one I feel confident in making, does that mean you can't be against it? No it doesn't but that context matters.

The big 70 is just for earnings above $10m. What this means is unlike what you may believe, somebody who earns the $10m doesn't have his entire $10m taxed at 70% (which would make his income $3m instead of $10m) That's not the proposal. The proposal is 70% on earnings above the $10m threshold.

So each portion of their income would be subject to the tax brackets on their earnings. So say you earn $1m, only earnings above $510,300 will incur the rate of 37% (based upon a single earner, in the 2019 tax brackets), earnings below that will incur their specific brackets tax. (You can look up the brackets for your own income!)

So all of this to say, those big scary numbers like 70-90% tax rates, you have to understand within context of the tax system, they aren't big and scary and are also unlikely to affect you.

On just a small note, I've never understood why people aren't willing to pay more tax to develop social programs. Regardless of the tax (income,capital gains,excise etc...), I find it odd that people aren't willing. The development of such programs only seek to benefit all those who through normal private means, would be unable to benefit. To me personally, even if it meant a higher rate, the health/benefit of my country matters more.

-not an expert -not an expert -not an expert

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Tax brackets are one of the biggest misunderstandings for your typical tax payer. Many do not understand it and start making irrational claims, but you basically hit the nail on the head, so nice job. +1

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

It doesn't help that Fox News perpetuates the misunderstanding. Hannity literally went on air and, after having just aired a clip of Ocasio-Cortez explaining how it only applies to money after the first 10 million, told his viewers the government was coming to confiscate all their nice things and that this was opposed to the American dream and nobody was gonna work lol.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

This is why I don't watch the news anymore.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks for your input

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

But on the flip side I believe some of these 10 percenters earn so much. Let's take the gaming industry for example. EA gave a new head millions for just joining the company if Im not mistaken. Instead of putting this money towards a respectable SimCity or Spore sequel they give this guy millions (don't recall his name). And correct me if I'm wrong but what do these heads do that's so special? Give orders? If anything the devs should be paid more.

Consider the supply and demand of the following categories:

  1. Someone willing to take all the mud slinging, all the responsibility, call the shots and be ultimately responsible for the success or demise of a company.

  2. Someone who wants to develop games.

How often does the opportunity come along to hire someone who can handle the mud slinging, handle the hatred for success that plagues society, handle the stress, handle the 2AM phone calls, handle the sleepless nights and public speaking, all while performing business operations functions at a high level?

How often does the opportunity come along to hire an aspiring game developer... Uh... THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.

Supply and demand works. Someone needs to handle the **** show so game devs can do what they do. It's not like you find a ton of people who are both aspiring to carry that sort of responsibility while also being good at it. Until we see an influx in supply of people willing to take all that responsibility for less money, those high power positions are going to keep coming with big piles of money because it's the only way to procure such individuals.

If you want game devs to make more, there needs to be less people who want to be game devs. Problem is, that's like the dream job that every kid wants now.


Your mentality of thinking, It's like, the arrogance to think that if you were in charge, you could make everything better by turning the knobs on some funding. That's the same line of thinking that starved millions in the 20th century. Be very careful thinking like that. The road to a million dead bodies is paved with best intentions.


FYI: 70% tax rates are a great way to ensure that those who have the capability, and the fortitude to handle leadership positions, disappear. We're already seeing this. It's almost impossible to find good leadership. Insane taxes have effectively raised the price of these positions even higher already. A million bucks should buy a pretty solid leader, but if they are only taking home 500,000 after about 50% taxes (currently), why should they show up for that when they can live comfortably under the radar doing something else? Why would someone show up for 300,000 out of their well deserved million?

Consider what Gilroar is saying there. Do the math. Many of us are already taxed well over 50% if we add it all up. People who think they aren't paying very much in taxes are blind to it. Turn off wage withholding and make people pay their social security, medicare, sales tax, gas tax, state income tax, federal income tax, excise tax, sin tax, insurance tax, fees and taxes on services like phone/internet, and employer paid payroll tax, in a lump sum for the year every spring and see what happens. People might suddenly take notice to the fact they they have to write a check for half of their earnings off to the tax man. Half of these things you don't even see as they are built into the prices we pay on things, they are extracted in the form of a thousand cuts rather than one large chomp.


Life isn't fair. There is a ton of inequality all around us. Inequality and unfairness is a problem. With that said, attempting to rectify those problems by fiddling with the free market only winds up making the problems one set out to solve even worse. Tinker with those knobs at your own peril.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDRgMUoEvcg

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

70% tax rates are a great way to ensure that those who have the capability, and the fortitude to handle leadership positions, disappear.

No it isn't. They would just funnel more of their compensation into other avenues instead of salary, as they already do. By itself it won't do much at all.

We're already seeing this. It's almost impossible to find good leadership.

Are we? Is there some "CEO drought"? No, there isn't.

A million bucks should buy a pretty solid leader, but if they are only taking home 500,000 after about 50% taxes (currently), why should they show up for that when they can live comfortably under the radar doing something else?

If this made any sense we would already be seeing CEOs going, uh, "under the radar" to do other things? What does that even mean? How many under the table jobs are going to pay better for these CEOs and let them dodge taxes they would pay as executives?

Why would someone show up for 300,000 out of their well deserved million?

Continuing with the assumption that money is the only motivator for these people (highly unlikely), they would show up because they've already made millions and millions prior to that tax bracket. And they're going to get tens of millions more as stock options that won't be subjected to this tax bracket.

With that said, attempting to rectify those problems by fiddling with the free market only winds up making the problems one set out to solve even worse. Tinker with those knobs at your own peril.

We've "tinkered with the knobs" many, many times to improve society. Putting restraints in place is why we don't have child laborers and 100 hour work weeks anymore, just to name some obvious ones. This is farcical."The invisible hand of the market" is no god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDRgMUoEvcg

Posting this link without any context was not helpful. For starters, it is part 2 of a 3 part series, which is confusing. It's an hour long. Worse, there isn't much context up front for a lot of the points being discussed (perhaps part 1 had that). I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume most won't sit through it. Don't worry everyone, I've subjected myself to it. About 30 minutes in, it finally got relevant to your post. Because of your line:

Your mentality of thinking, It's like, the arrogance to think that if you were in charge, you could make everything better by turning the knobs on some funding. That's the same line of thinking that starved millions in the 20th century. Be very careful thinking like that. The road to a million dead bodies is paved with best intentions.

Which is close to a quote about 31 minutes into the video. Except, when Peterson said it (I am simplifying for brevity), he was talking about marxists saying they could have done better than Stalin, and how that is arrogant (the context is in talking about the "that wasn't real communism" trope repeated by modern day communists). You're here making this connection... with someone thinking that maybe CEOs get overpaid compared to their employees. Somehow you've taken a gigantic leap in logic: I don't think there is any probability of JRPG_Guy causing another Holodomor by raising wages for game devs.

For anyone who is interested, it's quite a rambling and humble speech by Jordan Peterson. Is this what intellectualism passes for with conservatives today? It's ******* terrible. I must admit, I've never listened to him speak for so long in one sitting. I was definitely at a disadvantage as a listener considering a lot of context was missing (he makes numerous references to events that have occurred personally with him, podcasts, other videos, etc). I took notes on some highlights if anyone wants to jump around in it (timestamps are all approximate):

4:00
Here Peterson says that if you accept taking an anti-bias training, you are admitting that you are guilty, and that you shouldn't do this. I mean this is just flatly wrong, it's not an admission of anything, but also guilty of what? Of having biases? That is weird because:

10:45
Here he acknowledges people tend to have biases, including himself. So... is he admitting to being "guilty"? Idk, it's weird, he's hung up on some Canadian law or something.

11:20
Here he tries to spin biases as a good thing because it is compassion, but only for people like themselves... yeah, see, we should be happy people are biased because it means they are compassionate for those they already understand! Empathy, hoooo!

13:10
gender identity is just a fashion statement. Woof what a take. Surprised this wasn't followed with a "Don't @ me."

15:00
seems to think people should not be held accountable if they are bigots, because that's what their mind told them to be? It's just their implicit perception that you are of the inferior race, how could you hold that against them? Hmmmmm.

19:20
extreme feminists want to take down the patriarchy. Alright.

20:55
tying the above to transgender people i guess. All transgender people are extreme feminists? Except the nice ones who wrote him letters. ///shrug

22:15
Pre-emptively acknowledges he is probably wrong about what hes trying to "oversimplify" to us. Then goes on to cite what is second rate and what isn't, on the subject he just said he doesn't know anything about. Man this one got weird.

25:00
Implies nobody is taught about Stalin and Mao killing millions of people. Has his personal anecdotes to back it up. All teachers except him must be part of a marxist plot, I guess.

28:10
draws direct tie between the idea of "white privilege", and shipping people off to gulags and starving millions. wow.

28:40
The idea that women or minorities are oppressed is a marxist "sleight of hand", invented to advance marxism in the 1970s as a replacement for class-based conflict... seriously? He's just gonna ignore all the racial and sex-based fights against discrimination prior to that? This is some "global warming was invented by the Chinese to help their industry" level nonsense.

31:00
Finally relevant to the topic maybe? Says it is the most arrogant possible statement a person could make; that if they were in Stalin's place they could have done better lol. I mean I do agree it is a pretty arrogant statement. We're all guilty of doing this though with other things. Who here doesn't think they could do X thing better than their manager? Or better than Obama/Trump? Or better than some game dev who did something they hate? Etc.

32:33
Fallacious "why don't the feminists go fight for rights in Saudi Arabia" argument. Classic.

33:30
Implies the reason feminists aren't shipping off to Saudi Arabia is because they're in league with radical islam to defeat, uh, the patriarchy? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Apparently the patriarchy is synonymous with western values now.

There is plenty inbetween that didn't raise any sort of interest with me, so again those are just some highlights lol. I kind of stopped taking notes at this point but later towards the end he says people who want to change things for the better (aka anyone for argues for social issues) should just "bear their oppression" and "try to be good"... implying that nobody actually does any good if they argue for social issues, and that if they do argue for social issues they couldn't possibly be doing other things, too. "Be a better person", aka, nobody who fights for social issues could possibly be a good person at the same time? Very dismissive of any effort to change life for the better. You'll only mess it up, don't try. "You're a dumb monkey with a wrench". Shut up and stay home. You're all just "ungrateful crazy chimpanzees". Those last two quotes are more or less verbatim.

Honestly he kind of went off his rocker at the end here and his message was just plain awful. Bow to your overlords; don't raise a fuss; don't try to change anything, you're too stupid to do it; just silently bear your burdens; try to be nice in your personal life. I mean that very last part is good advice at least.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

That's a very well thought out and detailed reply gorkti. I appreciate your passion and willingness to lay out your interpretation and impression of the video in such detail.

I think you have very valid disputes with the "Jordan Peterson Philosophies." I also think, like you said, this is a bit out of context and there is a greater context behind each point being made that I believe has to be explored more thoroughly before dismissing. I also think you're simply misinterpreting many of the points and intentionally looking for ways to twist his words into contradictions because it serves YOUR NATURAL BIASES. Do you need anti-bias training to watch a Jordan Peterson video?

I'm not going to line by line this sucker, but as an example, I think it's worth first considering Jordan Peterson as working on social/political problems from a physiological and historical perspective. When he talks with great passion about resisting participation in "anti-bias" training, it's easy to get derailed into thinking this is some sort of movement to preserve bigotry or racism. That's not what he is advocating for but it would certainly be easier to dismiss him if you simply assume that. Rather, he is advocating for a way to conceptualize biases as natural. By recognizing that we ALL have biases, and that they occur in nature, and that many of them are important to our survival, we can move forward with finding a way to characterize and transcend the biases that aren't desirable.

One thing that I have learned from watching Jordan Peterson, is that political tendencies are tied to temperaments and personality traits in a fairly significant way. I relate to his message and political leanings because of my particular temperaments. Your interpretation of his message may not "ring" true for you, the way it does for me, because you have a different temperament.

If you explore more of his philosophy, there is a theme he repeats often that I think is worth repeating here. There is inequality, there is unfairness, there is corruption. All of these things are bad. Someone needs to speak for the dispossessed. If there is a way to summarize the function and purpose of left leaning politics and those who further that side of the isle, it could be described as the political position of speaking for those who are dispossessed by the hierarchies, corruption, etc that inevitably form in free markets. If you asked the average "conservative" how they describe left leaning politics, they wouldn't have anything positive to say about it, and wouldn't have a bridge of understanding that allows them to conceptualize left wing politics as having a meaningful and important purpose in society. Jordan Peterson is the bridge that connects conservatism to a much healthier and respectful understanding of left leaning politics. Take that for what you will, but assuming you are "apposing" Jordan because you interpret what he is saying as in opposition to your political beliefs, I'd encourage you to give him more of your time to better understand the message. The bridge of understanding that he is proposing, and his efforts to pull people away from the EXTREMES of politics, is likely the only path forward that doesn't degenerate into deadly conflict.

On the subject of where you perceive him as "going off the rocker" at the end, this is one of the more extreme versions of a point he has articulated many times, that perhaps needs more context to fully appreciate. The generation I grew up in was told they could dream as big as they want, be anything they wanted to be, change the world if they put their minds to it. The result of this, is a bunch of people hell bent on changing the world, with no clue about the world to begin with. This is dangerous, as young, undeveloped minds who are not in tune with history, are apt to repeat the biggest mistakes of history whilst acting out the "greater good" that they dream big about. In Jordans eye, it's like, slow down there, take a breather, get a more well rounded education and understanding of history, let your brain finish developing, then tackle a problem at an appropriate level of granularity for your skillsets.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Thanks. I am happy you were able to digest my reply despite how obviously agitated I was. I was already agitated before I started the video yesterday tbh, and by the end of it I just couldn't believe all the people in the comments saying how it was so beautiful, it made them cry, etc. Someone said they (as an atheist) had a religious experience listening to his words, rofl.

I also think you're simply misinterpreting many of the points and intentionally looking for ways to twist his words into contradictions because it serves YOUR NATURAL BIASES.

I don't think I twisted any words out of context. I do acknowledge I distilled a great many of them and they would probably "sound better" coming from him in long-form (that doesn't mean the meaning or intent is any different), but in any event that is why I wrote down timestamps, so I could be fact checked. I realized quickly that what I was writing was going to be suspect, so I wanted to provide accountability for myself.

Also I intentionally made them a bit funny where I could lol.

Do you need anti-bias training to watch a Jordan Peterson video?

If I did that, I'd be admitting guilt!

I'm not going to line by line this sucker, but as an example, I think it's worth first considering Jordan Peterson as working on social/political problems from a physiological and historical perspective. When he talks with great passion about resisting participation in "anti-bias" training, it's easy to get derailed into thinking this is some sort of movement to preserve bigotry or racism. That's not what he is advocating for but it would certainly be easier to dismiss him if you simply assume that. Rather, he is advocating for a way to conceptualize biases as natural. By recognizing that we ALL have biases, and that they occur in nature, and that many of them are important to our survival, we can move forward with finding a way to characterize and transcend the biases that aren't desirable.

I don't think anyone is dismissing that biases (in the general sense) are natural. The natural fallacy is one I relish pointing out though. Many natural things are bad; it does not matter if they are natural. As you correctly end on, we should be trying to move forward in transcending undesirable biases. I don't see how (again I don't have all the context) an anti-bias training video would be counter to what you've just written here. Unless the subject matter of the anti-bias training video explicitly involved one of the "good biases", which is decidedly NOT the argument you or Peterson put forward. Frankly the whole thing feels like a smokescreen. To simplify: Group A says "here is a thing we can do to combat bias X". Group B says "but some biases are good, so, no." Well if X isn't one of those good biases, this argument holds no water.

If you explore more of his philosophy, there is a theme he repeats often that I think is worth repeating here. There is inequality, there is unfairness, there is corruption. All of these things are bad. Someone needs to speak for the dispossessed. If there is a way to summarize the function and purpose of left leaning politics and those who further that side of the isle, it could be described as the political position of speaking for those who are dispossessed by the hierarchies, corruption, etc that inevitably form in free markets. If you asked the average "conservative" how they describe left leaning politics, they wouldn't have anything positive to say about it, and wouldn't have a bridge of understanding that allows them to conceptualize left wing politics as having a meaningful and important purpose in society. Jordan Peterson is the bridge that connects conservatism to a much healthier and respectful understanding of left leaning politics. Take that for what you will, but assuming you are "apposing" Jordan because you interpret what he is saying as in opposition to your political beliefs, I'd encourage you to give him more of your time to better understand the message. The bridge of understanding that he is proposing, and his efforts to pull people away from the EXTREMES of politics, is likely the only path forward that doesn't degenerate into deadly conflict.

This is a very intriguing presentation of what his message is. If this is the case, this video was unfortunately a very poor 'first impression' for someone like myself (not actually my first impression but as I said, the first time I've heard him speak at great length about anything). In this video he comes off very dismissive and cynical, and spends the entire time ranting about marxists. Which to be fair, his being dismissive and cynical isn't wholly surprising considering he was citing an ongoing media coverage that was occurring at the time surrounding him. That is no doubt exhausting.

In Jordans eye, it's like, slow down there, take a breather, get a more well rounded education and understanding of history, let your brain finish developing, then tackle a problem at an appropriate level of granularity for your skillsets.

I'd argue that, as presented here by you, these are two wholly different messages. Yours is very rational, without being dismissive and condescending. It doesn't preclude trying to change the world for the better.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

I was just thinking, would this apply if you won the lottery?

Let’s say you win $100M. Does that mean the first $10M is normally taxed, and then the other $90M is taxed at 70%? If so that’s kind sucks if you were to win lol

And that’s before state and local taxes too, you’d have like $29M left lol

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Let’s say you win $100M. Does that mean the first $10M is normally taxed, and then the other $90M is taxed at 70%? If so that’s kind sucks if you were to win lol

Lottery winnings are hit as what gets paid out that year so it would depend on how it was handled since with many you can take yearly or lump sum.

And you still have to do yearly taxes on top of all that which would be at the higher amount from the winnings.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Iirc you get more from taking the yearly payments, but usually it’s better financially to take the lump sum. You can invest the lump sum to make more than what the payments would net.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Depends on how the investments perform though so it's a give and take.

If they make the taxes like that though it would be better to take it over time so you keep under the radar.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah if they did tax it like that, then taking the payments would be better.

All we gotta do now is win the lottery to find out! Lol

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

And that’s before state and local taxes too, you’d have like $29M left lol

That sounds really bad, but making $50,000 a year that would take you 580 years, assuming you had zero expenses or taxes for those 5.8 centuries.

But don't let it sound like I'm encouraging lotto playing, it's garbage lol. =)

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

580 years

900 years old, I am! Make as much money as me, they will not!

Deal in absolutes, only a Sith does.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

50% of your winningsare already taken away. Screw the government for that

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I think people need to stop treating politics like some ideological death match, and start thinking a little more rationally about things. We've got a pretty good model for managing a large, technological society. Representative government, capitalist economic engine, and some socialistic buffers to take the edge off and raise the general tone.

Politics today should be about tweaking that model. Representative government has taken a hit because of things like corporate lobbying. Needs adjustment. Capitalism has taken a hit because of things like basic greed. Needs adjustment. Socialistic buffers have taken a hit because people have a bad habit of assuming that if a little bit of something is good, a lot of it will be better. Needs adjustment.

We need to adopt a more scientific approach to policy. Every policy change is an experiment. Let's be clear about the expectations and the results, instead of attacking or defending policy based on what political "team" we're on.

Is the income gap a problem? I think so. If our society is letting some people get extremely wealthy while people at the low end are constantly struggling, then our society is failing the basic purpose of civilization. Is Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax proposal the best solution? I have no idea, because I don't know exactly what she thinks this experiment will accomplish or how she proposes to measure the results. It seems to me that the Republican experiment of cutting taxes more and more hasn't yielded any real benefits, so I suspect that just raising taxes won't help much either.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

I think people need to stop treating politics like some ideological death match, and start thinking a little more rationally about things. We've got a pretty good model for managing a large, technological society. Representative government, capitalist economic engine, and some socialistic buffers to take the edge off and raise the general tone.

Objectively this sounds so good. I agree. And in early 2016 and the rest of my life prior to it, this was my mantra. Then, Trump happened. Then the GOP fell in line with him. Now you got Republicans openly admitting that they had to pass the tax bill or their wealthy donors would cut them off (literally at least two Republicans went on record saying this); you had Paul Ryan asking corporations what they would do with the tax cut and they all said they'd do stock buybacks instead of invest in employees... this is public information yet they still lied and sold it to voters as a middle class tax cut; you got the zero tolerance policy with the specific intent of separating the maximum number of children possible from their parents at the border; you got them trying to elect a known pedophile in Alabama(to their credit, most of the GOP besides Trump called on him to drop out); you got Mitch McConnell calling the idea of trying to make it easier for Americans to vote a "power grab" move by the Democrats; you got the GOP raving mad about voter fraud (without evidence) whenever an election is hotly contested, yet mum when actual voter fraud is uncovered that was conducted by the GOP in NC (this is one of two House seats that are currently still vacant, because the election is still under investigation); all but 6 GOP Senators were complicit with Trump holding the government hostage to legislate from the executive over his wall, etc.

If the GOP dropped all their opposition to things like what kind of sexual orientation is ok between consenting adults and nonsense like this, and instead was truly the party of fiscal responsibility like they sell themselves, they'd be a decent party. Except what is the single biggest achievement of the GOP majority of the last two years? Tax cuts for the wealthy and increased military spending, ballooning the deficit. They're not actually fiscally responsible, either.

Frankly I can no longer conscientiously say "both sides are at fault". It's dishonest to say that in this day and age. Maybe it always was and I was naive, but imo there is a stark difference between pre 2016 politics and post. Both sides have flaws, I'll say that still with great ease, but one is sanity and the other is naked corruption and contempt. The GOP has dropped all pretense.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

You're kind of preaching to the choir here. I was an active Republican from 1992 to 2012. I saw the rot from the inside. I even know when it really took root, which was in 2007 to 2008. Haven't figured out exactly what happened, but there was a sea change in Republican ideology then, and it's gotten worse every year since.

As for whether both sides are at "fault" or both sides have "flaws", that's just word games, IMO. Both sides need to change. Yeah, the GOP's problems are a lot worse, but that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook.

If you really want to get into this, here's how I see things. The words "liberal" and "conservative" are essentially meaningless these days, because we no longer share a common definition. That's one reason political discussion is difficult. If I think the word "duck" refers to chickens, and you think that "duck" refers to parakeets, we're never going to have a rational discussion about ducks.

We fix this by first realizing that the fundamental political division is between conservative and progressive. A lot of our political decisions boil down to a simple question. Are we going to keep doing the same thing, or are we going to do something different? The conservative choice is do the same thing. We grow corn this way because it works. The progressive choice is do something different. We're going to try growing corn a different way, because we might get more corn.

Neither viewpoint is inherently superior. They're more like the risk and benefit sides of a risk/benefit analysis. They're guesses, hopefully informed by reason and evidence, about the likeliest outcome of a particular choice.

Put another way, the conservative role is to preserve the good ideas of the past, and the progressive role is to come up with new ideas for the future. A healthy society needs both elements.

This actually lends weight to your idea of Republicans being the worst political offenders these days, because the GOP is no longer conservative by any rational definition. It's no longer guided by the lessons of history.

I should stop, because this is awfully wordy for a PC building forum, but there's a lot more to this. The conservative/progressive split actually exists in nature as well as in politics, and it goes back about 550 million years. There's also the fundamental dilemma of conservatism, which is that everything a conservative reveres today was yesterday's progressive idea. Even America was once a new idea.

A genuine, thinking conservative is actually just a slow, fussy progressive, but very few of them understand that.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I even know when it really took root, which was in 2007 to 2008. Haven't figured out exactly what happened, but there was a sea change in Republican ideology then, and it's gotten worse every year since.

I have some theories on this, and no they don't center around the first black president getting elected (though that didn't help any, I am sure). It's more than I have time to delve into in detail right now but the short version is, around 2008 is when the first generation that grew up in a time where Fox News existed, came of voting age. A lot of people may not realize it but Fox News didn't exist before the mid-90s; people coming of age around this time (people in their early double digits in the mid 90s, that is) would be reaching or approaching adulthood/voting age around 2008. A brand new type of constituent arising around that time is if nothing else, quite a coincidence.

You are right, the Democrats aren't off the hook. But I'd say in the current climate, worrying about the Democrats is like mopping the deck of the Titanic while it's colliding with the Republican iceberg.

I should stop, because this is awfully wordy for a PC building forum, but there's a lot more to this.

My friend, now you are preaching to the choir. You should peruse some of the novels I've written in the past on here.

lol this was a good post, I could touch on everything you wrote but I'm wrapping up my day here. Largely I would just be agreeing with your points though. I'd upvote twice if I could. =)

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

elect a known pedophile in Alabama

I may not be in the know, as I haven't researched this independently, but I didn't think he had been convicted? I'm pretty hesitant to forgo the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If he is, however, he should have his nuttsack tied to the top of a tall building and then be thrown off.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

He wasn't convicted, you are right. However, Trump was never convicted of fraud with Trump University, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a well documented fraud (he just settled out of court to avoid trial).

It was public knowledge among many individuals in the area that Roy Moore would hang out at the mall and try to pick up young teenagers when he was like 35. You are correct that he wasn't convicted, but neither was OJ for murder lol.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

You are correct that he wasn't convicted, but neither was OJ for murder

While true, still doesn't sit well with me. We can just as easily be wrong in certain situations as we are right. Dangerous game, fine line, and all that jazz. lol

Also, while this is just a theory, I think OJ didn't kill those people. I think his son did and he covered for him. The glove didn't fit him, but I'm pretty sure it fit his son.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

The thing is Moore didn't even deny cruising for teenagers to sleep with. He just swears they were all 16 or older. Like he personally ID'd them all first... "Yeah I loved smashing 16 year olds in my 30s, but I would never dream of doing so with a 15 year old!"

I get what you are saying but this is the wrong hill to die on lol.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

elect a known pedophile in Alabama

That was Roy Moore right? I live in Alabama, but didn't keep up with much of the elections.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah. He's been accused of soliciting sex with underage girls. Not sure if they were young enough for it to be considered pedophilia but it is still some sick **** if true.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't know. Maybe I'm leaning more towards these taxes but I don't want them to be as high. I doubt taxes will become too high but I've been wrong in the past.

Stop some time and figure out how much you get taxed between income, sales, and pre-sales taxes.

If the government was to go to a flat 50% tax rate without all the extras many states you would actually have more money.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Really?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

There are the taxes they let you see in sales and income taxes.

And then there are all the extras they keep behind the price tag so people don't realize just how much more they are being taxed.

You buy power but are taxed so people can get rebates on green power.

Food gets taxed for things like health care for bad ingredients and paying farmers to grow and not grow crops.

You don't even want to start looking at how little things like fuel actually costs and how much it is taxed.

Every little bonus they put out these days is paid for by additional taxes on everyday goods behind the scenes and passed off as higher cost to market when things are costing less and less to produce everyday.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

It should be an increasing curve, otherwise companies will just pay their CEO $9.9999m or whatever to legally evade higher taxes, and 70% is way too severe. I could see 35% or even 50% working but 70 is insane.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Get rid of income taxes and increase sales taxes. If you want to pay less taxes, buy less stuff. We were never supposed to have a long term national income tax anyway. Thanks, WWII.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Agree.

You get a progressive tax and no free rides.

I would also be in favor of a structure similar to how SS tax is figured, X% on the first $N of income

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Get rid of income taxes

Interestingly enough some states don't have state income taxes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/state-income-tax-rate-rankings-by-state-2018-2

There doesn't seem to be much correlation in sales taxes though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

All I'm really getting from this is New Hampshire is legit.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

None in Florida either. There were no sales taxes on groceries or clothes either if memory serves me correctly.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Hmm, didn't know that. There are multiple ways people can be taxed, I'd prefer to have the option to spend less and get taxed less. Spend more and get taxed more. I still want stuff, afterall, so I'll still be buying. Not sure how predictable it would be compared to income tax, though.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Having some amount of control over your tax burden does sound nice. I don't know about practicality, though.

Taxes get really complicated.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Taxes get really complicated.

That is very true.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

For one, the 10% is a significant number. According to the University of Minnesota, the 10% earners took in $114K for 2018 and not close to millions as you suggested.

As for the head of EA - if they don't offer that incentive, they will not get the talent they want to lead the company.

I think there is a lot of waste in the the government. There was a study at the DMV in California. It found there was an employee sleep in the job, not sure if it was daily or what, but it was known by management and allowed to continue for a long time. That employee could have been doing work and made the service a bit more effective. I bet if there's this one case, there are many more. If that waste was reduced and controlled, I suspect taxes would not need to be as high.

The flip side to all this is one person in congress is stating our society is immoral to allow such people to exist, that have such enormous amounts of income. However, the same person wants to tax these people to help fund medicare for all. The plan is dependent on the existence of those high salary people, yet it is thought to be immoral to have those people.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

one person in congress is stating our society is immoral to allow such people to exist, that have such enormous amounts of income.

Important to qualify this, she said it was immoral that these people exist at the same time as people working multiple jobs, 40+ hours a week and still being unable to provide, or barely squeaking by. It wasn't that they are immoral to exist in a vacuum.

However, the same person wants to tax these people to help fund medicare for all. The plan is dependent on the existence of those high salary people, yet it is thought to be immoral to have those people.

Ok... this shouldn't have to be said but obviously, that "plan" (which I'd argue it barely qualifies as being called that) was created in a world where these people exist. Obviously that "plan" wouldn't be drawn up in a world where they don't because literally everything would be different.

It's like saying "Our military says these terrorists are immoral and shouldn't exist. However, the same military wants to be funded to fight these people. Their funding plan is dependent on the existence of those terrorists, yet they are thought to be immoral." Like... yeah, no **** lol. That's how reality works?

I think there is a lot of waste in the the government.

That's definitely true.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I also heard 100 hours - which I would think is not a consistent on going routine - plus they would get paid 1.5x and then 2x hourly rate - but it wasn't mentioned if those are hourly or salaried positions. I suspect the hourly rate is the one in mind since Amazon and Walmart have been mentioned for paying below minimum wage - which I would think is illegal.

The military isn't taking resources from the terrorists to support other programs.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Amazon and Walmart have been mentioned for paying below minimum wage - which I would think is illegal.

You would be amazed at the amount of illegal activity that goes on with wages. Sometimes, it's not even that the company is willfully doing something wrong- clerical errors, miscategorization of employees, improper handling of wage withholding/garnishments, or even just ignorance on both the employee's part and the company's resulting in a mutually agreed on but illegal proceeding.

Now just think of the number of employees even a small company could have- a local restaurant with a 4+ people in the kitchen per shift, dozens of waitstaff on various shifts, a couple management/supervisory staff, perhaps a few staff for janitorial duties and busing tables. For wages and compensation, you have to properly classify your kitchen staff and management as salaried or hourly depending on their job descriptions, ensure you have local tip law followed and tips properly recorded for all those waitstaff, calculate and record all hours worked including paid/unpaid breaks, and I'm barely scratching the surface of wages and compensation just for this small local business but I think you get the idea. There is a LOT that can go wrong, and even auditing that (whether internally or externally, IRS or law enforcement or HR) is a daunting task. So step one becomes educating the workforce on their rights so wages can be properly negotiated or illegal activity reported, and the US fails absolutely miserably in that regard.

On a side note, Amazon warehouses pay well, but the work is atrocious and impossibly demanding. Walmart gets a bad reputation, but from what I've seen the biggest offense is not properly distributing benefits according to full time equivalents and instead cutting or not allowing full time positions in order to try to skirt around health care and other benefits. The pay itself last I checked was not that bad and company wide above federal minimum wage.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

A local restaurant and small business doesn't have the political or economic exposure compared to Walmart and Amazon. They also have people doing those details as part of another job - wearing many hats so to say. Where bigger corporations have positions specific to those responsibilities. But it sounds as if you have worked at Amazon as well as in the payroll department of both.

The message of Walmart and Amazon paying their employees below minimum wage has the implication that it is going on, it is illegal and no one is doing anything about it and it continues. Very unlikely.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Where bigger corporations have positions specific to those responsibilities.

And the idea is to have the least number of people doing those. Plus, the complexity increases- from increased scrutiny for disparate impact, to more tiers of jobs, to a broader number of jobs, to potentially differences in wage due to operating in different areas, states, or countries with different market conditions and laws.

doesn't have the political or economic exposure compared to Walmart and Amazon

That exposure just increases public awareness, and the complexity required of the entire HR structure. And even if incidence rates were below 1%, that is still a lot of people. It makes the Big Evil Faceless Corporations easy targets.

Note that I'm not saying problems with worker wages are fine- they aren't, and businesses should always strive for continuous improvement. I take issue with the memes and accusations that these companies always 'pay below minimum wage' or deliberately try to shortchange employees out of malice. It's unhelpful. There are elements (like full time availability, health care benefits, etc.) that could genuinely be improved, both legally and in business policies, which have large impacts on worker quality of life. There is also the issue that the last line of defense- the worker- generally isn't up to date on how their compensation should be handled or what resources are available in this regard.

but it sounds as if you have worked at Amazon as well as in the payroll department of both

Not personally, but I have looked at jobs at both and knew people who worked at both. I also have worked at Walmart as a cashier. While it has been a while, I have had formal coursework in regards to HR with an emphasis on staffing. I'm not an expert, but at least have some experience with this field.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't see a need to tax anyone at 70% when around half of the country isn't paying anything and many are getting thousands more than they paid back in tax credits.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I dont really have much of an opinion, but just remember high taxes is part of why the U.S. even exists, and I dont mean that in a good way.

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

My thoughts? Robin Hood was a thief and deserved to be locked up, I don't see a difference here.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

wat

[comment deleted]
  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

I hate myself but I must....

In the butt?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Have you been reading Ayn Rand?

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

gonna level with you here, never heard of that before.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

That's ok. Ayn Rand is an author from the early-to-mid 1900s. In Atlas Shrugged, probably her most famous book, there is a character who characterizes Robin Hood as a great evil in literature. Seeing as he was someone who robbed people, from a strictly-legal perspective, it's true. Robin Hood was a criminal.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Never heard of her. Should I start with her other books or does it matter?

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

It does not matter, they're not connected. Her most famous books are the novels 'The Fountainhead', and 'Atlus Shrugged' which was like her magnum opus. The only other book of hers I have read is 'The Virtue of Selfishness', which is non-fiction and is kind of like an outline of her philosophy.

I am surprised you have not heard of her as she is very popular with those of a libertarian inclination. She put forth a philosophy she called Objectivism, which imo would make sense in a perfect world, but obviously we don't live in that (or at least that's how I remember feeling about it).

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

I think it is criminal and I'm not even remotely rich. The people who suggest this are beyond reason. Rich people shouldn't have to be victimized to be defended and I find it incredibly abhorrent that people should think that because someone else has it better than you they should be punished for it, nor should we be telling our people that if you work hard to obtain that sweet American dream some yahoo will tax you out of your ******** for all your hard work. That isn't how this country should work. I wouldn't want my country to work that way.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

So... Taxation is punishment?

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

I don't think my comment should have led to such an extreme response as I don't recall hinting to it. The topic is specifically about a 70%+ tax on the rich, and to such I said to specifically target and tax a number of people for their success would be a punishment regardless of whether or not you agree with calling it as such.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I don't think my comment should have led to such an extreme response as I don't recall hinting to it.

Asking you a question... Is an extreme response?

I find it incredibly abhorrent that people should think that because someone else has it better than you they should be punished for it, nor should we be telling our people that if you work hard to obtain that sweet American dream some yahoo will tax you out of your ******** for all your hard work.

I mean, doesn't this state exactly that you believe taxation is punishment? It's why I asked the question, so I could get clarification.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Taxation is ThEfT!

Lel, jk, I'm not insane.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Asking you a question... Is an extreme response?

Yes.

I mean, doesn't this state exactly that you believe taxation is punishment? It's why I asked the question, so I could get clarification.

No, because I don't really believe taxation itself is a punishment, but if we use it [further increasing taxes] on the rich simply because they have more than others and we can do it, it will certainly be a punishment in that situation. Do you understand?

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

on the rich simply because they have more than others and we can do it, it will certainly be a punishment in that situation.

I do but that's not what's happening at all. They aren't proposing the increase simply because they have more without any other justification. The main goal is to increase tax revenue. The byproduct is increasing taxation on certain groups. They believe that the top earners have the income to spare so that's the group targeted. It also doesn't hurt that it is the smallest voting base (but one of the largest vote influencing bases).

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Okay well I can't fathom how questioning our own arguments is "extreme"

But to your second point, as has been explained by Tragik, the increase is not based on the idea of "oh they have money, ha let's take it!" purely because it's great to take money from rich folk

But to add my own point, what arbitrary number would be acceptable then? because if taxes atm are not punishment (At a rate of 37% over the 510k) would 40% be punishment? How about 39%? Both are increases, and if your answer is *yes an increase is punishment" then why are you assigning the 37% value as the right value? it hasn't always been 37% is the 37% value now punishment because it was an increase from 35%??

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I wouldn't want my country to work that way.

Your country (assuming you are in the USA since you previously said "That isn't how this country should work") already works that way. It's worked that way the entire time you've lived in it. "That way" being, that tax rates are higher on higher income levels.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I meant further and further increasing it beyond the reasonable.

  • 3 months ago
  • -2 points

Solving the debt crisis should be priority number 1 before asking (or demanding) new and higher taxes.

Choices:

  • 1) Outgrow the debt
  • 2) Default on the debt
  • 3) Gold standard
  • 4) Bitcoin standard
  • 5) Or something else?
  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points
  • 5) Or something else?

bitconnect, obviously.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

So 1 is a pipe dream, 2 is a disaster for the entire world, and 3-5 are all nonsense.

How come reducing deficit spending wasn't part of the options? How come raising taxes is off limits? How come it wasn't off limits to lower taxes and balloon the deficit even higher, prior to solving 'the debt crisis'?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Default on the debt

If the US defaulted on its debt that would absolutely devestate our economy. Interest rates would soar, investors would bail, operation costs for literally everyone and everything would soar and many social services would cease to exist. It’s literally not an option.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

It is an option just a terrible one.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

A terrible option that we should hope congress never seriously considers or were in for a terrible time.

[comment deleted]
  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Why do you say we need more and higher tax brackets on capital gains? If these investors are holding their investments for more than a year in order to be given long-term cap gain treatment when they could be investing in anything else short-term, then why have to pay the same tax rate? If they are investing in something and giving the business time to get their feet under them to eventually one day become profitable/make something worth while to society why should they be punished for that? They could be using their money for anything, but they are using it in a very specific specific way. I'm not saying the investors are being charitable in nature, but this is often how businesses are born and without it, many investors would see no incentive in investing their money long-term. I just think this would have some detrimental effects to new businesses in the US if the tax laws in this particular section were modified.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Why do you say we need more and higher tax brackets on capital gains?

Because as I illustrated, it is trivially easy for the wealthy to shell game their money into stocks. The individual I cited above had 90% of their income hidden away from their income tax bracket. It is, functionally, a giant tax exemption for millionaires.

If these investors are holding their investments for more than a year in order to be given long-term cap gain treatment when they could be investing in anything else short-term, then why have to pay the same tax rate?

I am not sure I follow here. I'm not necessarily saying the rates should be the same between income tax and capital gains (I mean I didn't say that at all). Also it's not clear what you mean by 'when they could be investing in anything else short-term'.

If they are investing in something and giving the business time to get their feet under them to eventually one day become profitable/make something worth while to society why should they be punished for that? They could be using their money for anything, but they are using it in a very specific specific way.

Cause they're just holding stock and options of their own company long enough/for when they want some extra money. It's not like they're going out and investing in startups; they're being issued company stock/options. EA isn't giving their CEO shares for some tech startup in the valley that's trying to cure cancer with bitcoin or some crap; they've giving them EA shares, giving them a larger stake in their own company.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

That individual did not hide their money. Unless they are paid in cash by some means of miscellaneous expense account, there is no way to hide your income. And $10M would be pretty hard to miss during an audit of a company. And saying it is a tax exemption for millionaires is inaccurate. See below in my 3rd point.

What I mean in this second point is that people are given preferential tax treatment on Long-term investments because they are providing their capital in exchange for an investment for longer than 1 year. They could choose to invest and move that around to whatever is most attractive at that time, but many businesses are born from stock investment. If hte investors are willing to put up their money for longer than a year so a business can develop, why should they pay the same rate as someone who moves it place to place whenever a more attractive option appears? In addition, if a long term investment by one of these millionaires goes bust, those capital gains cannot immediately go against their income. They are limited to something like $3,000 per year, where a short term loss can go against your income all at once. So the long-term investment is a double edged sword. Can yield a lower tax rate, but can also be a pain in the *** if it is a loss.

Lastly, I had to review this piece in the tax code, but stock based compensation is taxed at ordinary rates, just like wages are for income you and I make. It is also subject to tax withholding, just like normal wages we make, for the value of the stock. In addition, when it is sold, the individual receives cap gain treatment. So you are not only taxed for the initial value of the stock, you are then taxed on any gain you make from it as well. Executives are not paid in this manner so that they can hide their income. They are paid this way so the performance of the company is tied to their salary. The better the company does, the better they do.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I am for it, except it would be a largely symbolic move as stated. The idea is great in spirit, but the problem is that we are talking about income tax. The majority of highly paid CEOs in America don't get paid salaries over $10 million, which is what you would need for this to be effective. CEOs get paid a few million in salary and bonuses, and then tens of millions in company stock. For example, since you mentioned EA, let's look at their executive team. Their CEO took home a higher cash value than anyone else, and it didn't even top $4 million (that's including cash bonuses). He did however take home over 32 million dollars in stock awards in the same year. 90% of his compensation was stock-based. That stock doesn't get taxed as income unless they sell it that year, which they (typically) won't. They'll hold onto it and let it become a long term investment (which only requires holding it for a year or two), at which point it will be taxed by the capital gains rates when they choose to sell it, which top out at merely 20%. And of course as others have said, companies who are currently paying their CEOs over 10 million in cash would just switch to limiting their pay below 10 million and pushing the rest into stock.

All that being said, again, I am for it in spirit. I think it just needs refinement. And more importantly, we need more and higher capital gains tax brackets.

I am deleting my comment but preserving it here. Because you are right! You are correct that regular stock compensation is taxed as income, so I don't want my misleading comment at the top of this chain anymore. I was making an argument mistakenly, using incentive stock options as the basis of my argument, but these are not widely used for compensation (at least not at a big company like EA) and are limited in scope.

Regular stock compensation is still not necessarily taxed all right away depending on the conditions of its issuance, but when they do tax it, it will be taxed as regular income. Thanks for making me do more homework and correct my errors. All that being said... now I just support AOC's 70% proposition even more, as it means it will be harder for multi-millionaires to avoid paying it.

I still think the stock market is a bastardization of capitalism, and I think the capital gains tax rates may still be too low, but now I can't really commit to saying that they need to have higher brackets until I think on this more.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

No problem! : ) Yep it's always a grey area, I don't think there will ever be a time when people will be in 100% agreement over taxes. In a perfect world, people would not need to pay tax because they would volunteer to give whatever money they could when needed for whatever project or public need arose. But it'll never happen, just not the nature of society.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

The greatest time in our history, where incomes were highest and people only needed 1 job to raise a family, buy a new house and car, and provide for the house most anything they needed, was in the 50's when the tax rate on the wealthiest was at 91%

That doesn't mean there is correlation between any of those things. That was a time when the housing market in many areas wasn't nearly as pricey as it is today due to zoning laws / codes, increases in population, etc. Also, you don't think being the banker for the world during all of WWII and holding MASSIVE amounts of foreign debt had anything to do with it? We literally reshaped world currency backings during this time due to all of the debt we held.

tomtomj2 (who is obviously a brainwashed Republican), has no clue what he's talking about, and advocates screwing himself over.. SAD.

:O

I....uhh....don't think he's Republican at all, although I could be incorrect. But, I'm a Republican (mostly a conservative with little loyalty to the party). So, please elaborate how I might be brainwashed. Perhaps we can both provide evidence to support our claims and have a good discussion.

I'll start with a question: What is unfair about these tax rates?

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

HAHA, Yep you are indeed brainwashed.

Sure. I never think critically and I always believe what I'm told.

First let me say that chart is accurate, but it doesn't tell the tale, and that's why people such as yourself fall for it.

Yes, it is accurate. Yes, it does "tell the tale" (are you a 17th century narrator? lol). I didn't fall for it I interpreted the data accurately. Not sure how that's a bad thing. Whoops, guess someone told me to believe that.

On it's face value, it would seem that, wow, the less you make, the less you pay.

In absolute value, absolutely. Also by percentage of income (if actually salary income and not hidden in dividends). Let's do some math, it'll be fun:

Top 1% threshold is around 450K / year (not that much if in a city like Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, or San Fransico). 27% of 450K is 121.5K / year in income taxes.

Now, let's look at lower middle class (~40k / year): 10.6% of 40K is ~4.2K / year.

Absolute value wise, the 1% pays FAR more in income taxes than someone in a lower tax bracket. And, they pay more rate wise as well. I don't see how you can argue that away.

As I said before, when something gets cut, in order to compensate, something else goes up, or a new tax is added.

As tomtomj2 said, that's how budgeting works...But, to add to that, there are many forms of income generation used by the federal government, not just taxes (issuing bonds, buying / selling foreign currency, etc). So, they don't necessarily have to increase taxes to make up for a tax cut depending on if the deficit can be sourced from other means.

Something that will affect YOU personally, for instance

Yeah, it does affect me. Not sure why that matters. It just means I deal with the taxes and don't *****. Granted, I'd love to see a gross rollback of social programs, a massive cut in taxes, and privatization in the areas where it can take place. But, as of now welfare, social security, and medicaid / medicare aren't going anywhere. They'll just keep on being massively inefficient systems that barely fulfill their intended purposes (until they don't - I'm looking at you social security).

Now tell me that chart is fair.

That wasn't a chart. It was a list of possible taxes (in the most facebook propaganda style imaginable). As for the contents of the list, many MANY of those don't apply in most situations. For example. I don't pay for the following:

  • Property Tax (I rent - I guess I pay it through my rent, technically).
  • Business Registration & Permit Fees
  • Court Fees
  • Dog License Tax
  • Gift Taxes
  • Estate Tax
  • Garbage Tax (as it was included in the list twice - Waste management tax...)
  • Gun Ownership Fees (I own MANY guns. Don't pay fees on any of them).
  • Highway Toll Fees (anyone can avoid this by not driving toll roads).
  • Import Taxes
  • Inheritance Tax
  • Insect Control Tax
  • Inspection Fees
  • IRS Interest & Penalty Charges (it's called pay your taxes)
  • Library Card Fees
  • Luxury Tax
  • Parking Meter Fees
  • Passport Fees
  • Biodiesel Fuel Tax
  • Professional License Fees
  • Recreational Vehicle Tax
  • Self-Employment Tax
  • Service Charge Taxes
  • Sports Stadium tax
  • State Park Entrance Fees
  • Tanning Tax (that's a thing?)

Things this listed that weren't recurring taxes or taxes at all:

  • Marriage License Fees
  • Business Registration & Permit Fees
  • Court Fees
  • Drivers License Fees
  • Fishing License Fees
  • Gun Ownership Fees
  • Highway Toll Fees
  • Hunting License Fees
  • Inspection Fees
  • IRS Interest and Penalty Charges
  • Library Card Fees
  • License Plate Fees
  • Parking Meter Fees
  • Passport Fees
  • Professional License Fees
  • State Park Entrance Fees

This states that these are taxes the "Average American is asked to pay." Let me ask you this, do you really think the average citizen is asked to pay even half of those taxes? Tell Tina to quit making propaganda and spreading it across facebook.

Add all that up, and the percentages people pay (especially if you are poor) really hit the pocketbook and make it harder to be a consumer.

********. I am very poor and don't pay much in taxes at all.

And the thing of it is, that image only lists a few, I bet you personally can think of several more that were missed.

I doubt it. It seems like the person the made that list grasped at every straw they could possibly reach. Which explains why many of the inclusions make no sense or aren't even remotely what an average person will be expected to pay.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah that list is just "what taxes exist?" [google] "Time to put them on a list claiming the average American pays all these."

I mean at a glance earlier today, the average American will NEVER pay the estate or inheritance taxes. That was just an easy one. Also not everyone gambles, fishes, shoots game, etc.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

But...but...but...that doesn't fit their agenda at all!

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Keep it polite or don't comment on this site.

You can disagree on things, but keep personal attacks out of it. This is your last warning.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

tomtomj2 (who is obviously a brainwashed Republican), has no clue what he's talking about, and advocates screwing himself over.. SAD.

I’m actually an Independent and last election I put in my provisional ballot for Bernie Sanders, voted mostly democrat during the mid terms and local elections and I plan to vote for Bernie again if he runs.

I don’t actually support this policy though as it wouldn’t work anyway, like Gork said in his post, most of those people don’t make $10M+ salaries, they just get it from investments, dividends and assets. But I agree with some of your sentiment.

I think you took my meme too seriously AND you have it backwards. But thanks for the slander, greatly appreciated. Lmao

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

On it's face value, it would seem that, wow, the less you make, the less you pay.

We assume this to be true, yes.

As I said before, when something gets cut, in order to compensate, something else goes up, or a new tax is added.

Yes, that’s how economics work.

Something that will affect YOU personally, for instance: https://pics.me.me/list-f-taxes-the-average-american-is-asked-to-pay-7270572.png

Ok.

Now tell me that chart is fair. Add all that up, and the percentages people pay (especially if you are poor) really hit the pocketbook and make it harder to be a consumer. And the thing of it is, that image only lists a few, I bet you personally can think of several more that were missed. Something to think about.

Uh, ok?

So since I never actually disagreed in the first place, how does this make me a brainwashed Republican? What does this have to do with like the three things I said in this thread, one a harmless meme that you flipped on it’s head, one about an unrelated topic (National deficit) and one was literally “wat”. Lol

???

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

So since I never actually disagreed in the first place, how does this make me a brainwashed Republican?

Because it fits their narrative Reasons!

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

Lol spot on

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

You say you are not, that you are an independent (another word for Republican too ashamed to admit they vote Republican)

Ahaha funny

we'll take it on face value that you are being honest.

Well of course I’m being honest, I have no reason to hide my opinions over the Internet where we are all masked anyway by screens and keyboards.

Obviously you take that as an insult

Because you insulted me, with lies and slander. So obviously I’d be offended, by an insult.

Just because you may not understand, like, or even read someone else’s opinions, doesn’t mean you have to call them insults from the other side you don’t agree with. We may only partially agree but it seems because of this, I’m the bad guy, to you. Everything wrong with Politics in a nutshell. Lol

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

You say you are not, that you are an independent (another word for Republican too ashamed to admit they vote Republican)

lol I'm an independent and I voted Democrat all the way down the ticket the last two elections and spend half my time on PCPP blasting the Republican party. Get real man. edit also spent the last election canvassing, phone banking, and donating for Democratic candidates. edit 2.0 also I talk to tomtom quite frequently outside PCPP and although he is a curious fellow, one thing he definitely isn't is a Republican.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Didn't know

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube