MOAR!

The top 20% are not filthy rich. Think more like $10M+ annual income instead of $134k.

The equity ideology is straight up marxist. It's evil. The perfect track record of economic collapse and genocide aren't enough to overcome the natural bitterness and jealousy born in to people. They can't think so they just confirm their worst impulses by subscribing to ideology that has only lead to humanitarian disasters

Max cut is your classic politics rube who can't ever formulate an actual argument or counter argument. He does the same thing in the bitcoin thread. Lurks around and tosses out empty attacks. Incapable of articulating anything resembling an argument or idea. If any of you want to see what an economically illiterate political echo chamber looks like then just cruise over to the politics forum and notice that a thread dedicated to the collapse of Venezuela doesn't have any real disgust with socialism, bernie's praise of their path pre collapse, and any real curiosity of where things went wrong. Instead there is more blame directed at the USA.

As far as the market goes, it went limit down overnight as trump was leading in the polls. The market reacted negatively to positive trump news and the opposite for clinton. The day after election the market rallied hard on trumps agenda and continued to spike with tax cut news along the way before it passed. The market will absolutely start to panic if Bernie or similar is leading the polls.

That’s not going to help poor people much if at all. For instance in 2016 the total income for the ~18K households making over $10M was $538B of which they paid $140B in taxes or 26% of their income. So doubling their tax rate would increase tax revenue by $140B, which isn’t squat in the economic welfare scheme of things.

nice on the fly numbers

juan valdez, another bitter poster that regularly pollutes non-politics forums with parroted far-right fear-mongering propaganda because he's not allowed in politics. Was it racism, nazi support, hateful misogyny, or not being able to provide legit sources for your wild claims of truth that got you exiled?

Thanks (I guess). Bottom line is there simply aren’t enough of the “filthy rich” to help the poor much even if we took all their income.

My take is if you are not exiled from politics, you are a fine, upstanding person with great ideas and coherence.

No, really!

No. But, if you are exiled, there is usually a good reason for it and often not a pretty one.

I don't believe you.

It's not a matter of belief. It's math.

Should be easy to prove then, although the problem has not been well defined yet.

The top 1% pay 40% of income taxes. Quite a fair share actually.

Next time you see a filthy rich person, thank him for his tax contribution.

the top 1% are not all filthy rich... jfc you robots

You dont want them to go over there and read it because that would show you didn't. There are plenty of posters in pol who dont want socialism. Well at least real socialism. Healthcare and roads and military sure, mostly. But not forcing all business to be owned by workers.

Personally i think the real not scaremonger socialists should work the system from within. There are worker owned business in America.


Also maga bring back the tax rates of the forties and fifties.

they are. but here is the problem with socialist platforms. they dont learn from history and figure out something that might work...they keep plowing the same **** that has proven disaster. if you take to much power from the elites you create a struggle for power...and that struggle makes a country uninvestable, and when that happens money flees the country, the currency collapses and ur ****ed.

I dont think it matters who is right, and im not sure either side is right, as long as you have a society aligned it can work. but if you try to align a polorized society you will create struggle and money will leave the country...then you are ****ed.

its better to flip a coin and let one of the struggling parties win

From Capital in the Twenty-First Century:

A rate of 80 percent applied to incomes above $500,000 or $1 million a year would not bring the government much in the way of revenue, because it would quickly fulfill its objective: to drastically reduce remuneration at this level but without reducing the productivity of the US economy, so that pay would rise at lower levels. In order for the government to obtain the revenues it sorely needs to develop the meager US social state and invest more in health and education (while reducing the federal deficit), taxes would also have to be raised on incomes lower in the distribution (for example, by imposing rates of 50 or 60 percent on incomes above $200,000). (Piketty, 513)

usually when the struggle happens...it takes a while to manifest. those who oppose are generally fairly well equipped, well connected and well funded. They lobby officials with success. the government hits a brick wall and declares constitutional changes are necessary to reduce this influence. annnnnd voila you have a dictatorship.

New york is losing rich population and florida is gaining. if its a closed system you can tax them and they cant leave...but its an open system they can leave so that analysis makes no sense. now think nationally what would happen? Im not bleeding heart for the rich but unless there is an international agreement ot counter tax shelter countries you'd be foolish to chase away your biggest taxpayers. doesnt work

Funny this argument is never used for the largest expense in America our bloated military when it grows its budget. Maybe we could just use some its budget to fund healthcare. Would save more life's anyway.

Maybe. But substituting one needs based approach for another isn't optimal, imo.

I think this is at the core of it. I can't explain what's given rise to our new culture that glorifies victimhood and has so many seeking to define themselves by how oppressed they are, but directing furor at those who they perceive have it better (whether they earned it or not) is de rigueur for left-wing ideologues. I try to keep my Twitter feed fairly balanced between right and left voices, and I'm surprised by how many times I've seen the statement that one can't become a billionaire without being an evil sociopath, and how widely endorsed that sentiment is.

Really? Life's?

Im an idiot. But right.

You're right that making large changes is generally a bad idea. This is a tweet that I think sums it up well:


There is enough of a chance that the GND backfires in unexpected ways that it is probably a bad idea. But this is actually more reason to act now on climate change, not less.

We are dealing with two slowly changing things (climate and society) where changes are difficult to reverse. You can't simply wait until the effects of climate change smash you in the face because it will most likely be too late.

Small but relevant changes to need to be made over an extended period of time. This also has the effect of spreading the economic inefficiency of rebuilding an energy infrastructure that works just fine in terms of energy creation.

Your hot take on equity vs. equality is pretty terrible. It's basically "The libs used a synonym with a slightly different meaning that what MLK would have used. They are basically pissing on his grave". According to Google here are the definitions of the two words:
equality: The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities
Equity: The quality of being fair and impartial

Any sane person would see that those words have basically identical meaning and that your desire to own the libs in clouding your judgement.

There is a lot of irony is using Thomas Piketty to make an argument against wealth redistribution

There is a big difference between moving a few states over and moving to a different country. Many of those who left probably didn't even leave of change how they lived much at all. They probably already owned or bought a property in Florida and made it their primary residence. Leaving the country for tax reasons means giving up your citizenship. Most of the ultrarich aren't going to make a big change that they don't necessarily want to make just to save some money on taxes that ultimately wouldn't actually be enough have any real effect on their lifestyle.

Low intellect humans need a reason to explain why things aren't as good for them as it should be. Its too painful to admit that the overwhelming majority of us is just mediocre and normal.

What they don't get is that the filthy rich pay enormous amounts of taxes which is used for society's benefit.

Tien, before we can assess your comments, are you now or have you ever been exiled from the Politics forum?