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.
Those are examples of business taxation, not personal liabilities (which this thread is about). I was waiting for someone to drop the "it will cost jobs" card...
One word for you: shareholders. When publicly traded corporations are taxed, that means less profit goes to the shareholders, which is an invisible albeit real form of additional taxation on individuals.
Its marginal so nobody would be paying 70%. It would encourage investment in the company, higher salaries for employees, capital etc.
What is clear is the current trajectory of wealth inequality is unsustainable.
The only problem with that is very little CapEx and such comes out of personal financing, at least at the $10M+ levels we're addressing. There's a whole world of financing instruments solely devoted to business requirements. The old rule #1 of getting wealthy: Use someone else's money.
Why is it that Trump attempted (and failed) to get a loan for $150M from Deutsche Bank to fix up a golf course in Scotland when presumably he has that kind of cash sitting around if he's as wealthy as advertised?
Thanks for the philosophy lesson but bottom-line is it's no skin off the nose of anyone posting here and considering the increased run up in the budget deficient the funds will be of use.
So cut spending then.
There is no moral justification for taxing any American citizen at a higher or lower percentage of his income than any other American citizen.
One word for you: shareholders. When publicly traded corporations are taxed, that means less profit goes to the shareholders, which is an invisible albeit real form of additional taxation on individuals.
But we're talking about AOC's proposal on personal income taxes. You're implying that investment would cease if the ROI gets nicked more. Nope.
That is part of the social contract and what the people agreed upon in the US and every other country on Earth. Unlike you I am a pragmatist I am for what works. You are a idealist you think nice sounding theories are a better basis for organizing a society.
I never signed a "social contract" .
And I certainly would have never signed one that allows the other party in the contract to change the rules of the contract at their sole discretion.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" does not mean that Ceasar gets to decide how much is his and how much is yours.
Great move to Somalia or go live off grid if it bothers you so much. No skin off my back if you choose to stand by your convictions and drop out.
And I certainly would have never signed one that allows the other party in the contract to change the rules of the contract at their sole discretion.
Not really sure what your driving at here. If you don't like the laws lobby to change them its pretty simple. Of course running away and hiding in the woods is easier.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" does not mean that Ceasar gets to decide how much is his and how much is yours.
Sure it does thats how governments work. Don't like it go hide in the woods at least then you are standing by your principles.
Responses in Red.
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.
