Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You realize the capital gains rate was only 25% during that time, right? The country at the time needed to pull as many people as possible away from the grey economy into the black and white one. Put your company into a business and pay a much lower tax rate...keep it all to yourself and the government will crush you. Companies in turn hold their employees on the books.
The richy riches of the world are profitable because they own pieces of a company that creates value beyond their own labor by channeling the labor of many.
Warren Buffet "only" pays himself $1,000,000 a year in salary. The rest is capital gains. Tax earned income too much and you'll crystalize the top tier as the only ones who will ever be able to afford owning the industries that generate wealth.
Sorry...you can't make a steel mill with $50K. You also can't "trap" someone with $5B into handing it over. Capital pledges allegiance to no flag.
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
Try venezuala.
Wealth redistribution is marxist.
Blaming the rich is a sure fire way to make a failure of ones life.
It's funny - I often hear waxing nostalgic for the 'good old days' of the 1950s, and this is typically from those outraged over taxation. But the top income tax bracket for the decade of the 1950s, years by year, is as follows:
Bill and Larry start work at the same company, doing the same job, on the same day. Both make the same wage, buy houses in the same neighborhood at the same time for the same price, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids, etc., etc. In other words, their economic situations are as similar as they can possible be.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
Bill and Larry start work at the same company, doing the same job, on the same day. Both make the same wage, buy houses in the same neighborhood at the same time for the same price, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids, etc., etc. In other words, their economic situations are as similar as they can possible be.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
This is not what people are referring to when they talk about income inequality.
Bill and Larry start work at the same company, doing the same job, on the same day. Both make the same wage, buy houses in the same neighborhood at the same time for the same price, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids, etc., etc. In other words, their economic situations are as similar as they can possible be.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
Because Bill, Susan, Gertrude, Sam, and Donnie did not save anything and they are going to die, since there are not enough working people to provide tax money to keep them alive. The government has a choice, take Larry's money and keep them alive or leave Larry alone and let them die. Larry will still have more money than anyone else.
That is where I believe we will be in about 20 - 40 years. It makes it hard to dump money into a 401K knowing the government will likely take half of it to support those who are out snowmobiling, scuba diving and skydiving instead of saving. I still do it, but I suspect I might end up regretting it. I may not be as broke as the others when I am old, but I will still be struggling financially and I will have never gone skydiving. Sometimes I am tempted to move my 401K $ offshore as soon as I retire. Not sure whether I can do that, beside I probably would not keep 100% of my money if it meant Bill, Susan, Gertrude, Sam, and Donnie are all going to die because I will not share.
Because Bill, Susan, Gertrude, Sam, and Donnie did not save anything and they are going to die, since there are not enough working people to provide tax money to keep them alive. The government has a choice, take Larry's money and keep them alive or leave Larry alone and let them die. Larry will still have more money than anyone else.
That is where I believe we will be in about 20 - 40 years. It makes it hard to dump money into a 401K knowing the government will likely take half of it to support those who are out snowmobiling, scuba diving and skydiving instead of saving. I still do it, but I suspect I might end up regretting it. I may not be as broke as the others when I am old, but I will still be struggling financially and I will have never gone skydiving. Sometimes I am tempted to move my 401K $ offshore as soon as I retire. Not sure whether I can do that, beside I probably would not keep 100% of my money if it meant Bill, Susan, Gertrude, Sam, and Donnie are all going to die because I will not share.
This is the typical “people will die in the streets” nonsense. IMO, those who consume all their incomes deserve to live in tents/huts. It is this socialistic safety net system that created dependency. Without it, people will do what they should to survive. Charities can handle the “truly” needy.
This is the typical “people will die in the streets” nonsense.
It's one of the dystopian nightmare scenarios that some seem to gravitate toward.
Any specific one can be called nonsense but to ignore the entire realm might be more so.
Quote:
Charities can handle the “truly” needy.
Because they did that so well before the social agencies?
Quote:
IMO, those who consume all their incomes deserve to live in tents/huts.
It is this socialistic safety net system that created dependency.
Without it, people will do what they should to survive.
nice imagery
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
