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.
No, because taxes aren't high enough on the rich. If you allow someone to be rich, then you give them power to do whatever they want, including shipping jobs overseas, and in the federal government's case give lobbyists tons of power over our government.
Look up tax rates during the pre-Reagan era and you tell me if today's taxes are high.
You actually think people paid a 90% tax rate? You really do?
No one paid those rates. The rich hired fancy accountants and lawyers to shelter their income.
You actually think people paid a 90% tax rate? You really do?
No one paid those rates. The rich hired fancy accountants and lawyers to shelter their income.
Yeah no one paid it, though I wouldn't be so conclusive to assume no one paid. But the point was, the tax brackets existed.
The fact is wealth inequality was much much less during that period of time so of course no one paid it (or very little people). Now? It's a different story. Just take a look at Trump's cabinet.
Globalism works out great for the rich as jobs migrate to countries with the lowest wages.
Correct.
I'm ok with globalism when it comes to preventing wars and containing terrorism, but I'm not sold on economic globalism. In a globalized economy, everybody makes Bangladesh wages.
I'm ok with globalism when it comes to preventing wars and containing terrorism, but I'm not sold on economic globalism. In a globalized economy, everybody makes Bangladesh wages.
The point is, you have to negotiate correctly. Some industries will benefit and some won't and you have to do the right trade agreements in detail.
The solution is not to say, eff it, screw everyone else close our borders and withdraw all trade agreements.
Let me ask you a question, how much stock would you purchase if your stock broker charged you 90% commission on any profits you made on that stock?
I would still purchase tons of stock because, I still make more money than if I were to just leave my money in a savings account.
Are you going to say nope I won't invest if taxes are too high? You're going to find a way to make more investments, because everyone's greedy and wants as much money as they can regardless of the tax rates.
Whether you realize it or not, you fall in one of the two camps. You are either a Patriot that puts America first or you are a Traitor that wants America to lose its sovereignty.
I would still purchase tons of stock because, I still make more money than if I were to just leave my money in a savings account.
Are you going to say nope I won't invest if taxes are too high? You're going to find a way to make more investments, because everyone's greedy and wants as much money as they can regardless of the tax rates.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that you always make money on stock.
Let me ask you a question, how much stock would you purchase if your stock broker charged you 90% commission on any profits you made on that stock?
I don't think any politician - not even Bernie - is suggesting we go back to 1950's rates; So I'm not sure why your talking about 90%. It's not an unreasonable position to support raising taxes on the rich, especially because they have been low for years. Eight men now have enough wealth as half the world, and it happened because no money is being invested back into the economy.
How many cars can a billionaire buy in one year? Hint, not enough to make a meaningful difference in a consumer based economy.
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.