The Scourge of America with Integrity (On Topic Only Please)

[DriveInDriveOut]

Marxists are so boring.
Rich people are evil blah blah blah.
Yawn.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Marxists are so boring.
Rich people are evil blah blah blah.
Yawn.

I think he’s an accidental Marxist. Lol thinks it’s kind and benevolent To punish achievers because they might be greedy. While not understanding some people who are poor, just make bad choices, and would make bad choices no matter how much money they were given.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I think he’s an accidental Marxist. Lol thinks it’s kind and benevolent To punish achievers because they might be greedy. While not understanding some people who are poor, just make bad choices, and would make bad choices no matter how much money they were given.

These leftists are just economically illiterate.

They don't even understand basic concepts like the difference between income and wealth. Billionaires aren't sitting on cash. You can't tax their wealth without having enormously negative economic impacts.

 

[...]

Post.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Post.

Malone

 

[...]

Malone

Who is that

 

[Thebrownblob]

Who is that

 

[...]

Kinda sucks.

 

[Integrity]

And you think that taking away $1,820,000 from a guy who grosses $2 million is fair?

Have you considered the economic ramifications if you greatly reduce the spending and investment of the wealthy? The job losses? Businesses closing? Think the government will create a thriving economy?

To clarify ; my main idea is progressive and actually 91% would apply only to each dollar earned above the 2 mil. anyway. Lesser %’s would apply for lesser incomes.

I think my plan would effectively accomplish the goal of de incentivizing levels of income that contribute to the absurd accumulation of wealth and the power that this wealth wields over the American Society through corruption in politics and big business.

 

[vantexan]

To clarify ; my main idea is progressive and actually 91% would apply only to each dollar earned above the 2 mil. anyway. Lesser %’s would apply for lesser incomes.

I think my plan would effectively accomplish the goal of de incentivizing levels of income that contribute to the absurd accumulation of wealth and the power that this wealth wields over the American Society through corruption in politics and big business.

You're overly optimistic to think you'll reduce corruption. There would just be a lot of cash under the table and in foreign tax havens.

 

[Integrity]

You're overly optimistic to think you'll reduce corruption. There would just be a lot of cash under the table and in foreign tax havens.

Thank you.
You are probably right.

 

[rickyb]

To all my BC Brethren,

I am firmly convinced that the scourge of American Society is the absurd accumulation of power resulting from the absurd accumulation of wealth.

In principle I am strongly in favor of a progressive income tax that de incentivizes this absurd accumulation of wealth and the resultant corrupt political power that goes along with it.

I have posted this elsewhere but I feel it need to be repeated here for possible discussion:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progressive income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Disclaimer:

My idea would certainly would put me in the 0% bracket.

Sincerely,
I

FDR proposed a 100% income tax on 500,000 in todays dollars. it was over 90% for a while.

 

[vantexan]

FDR proposed a 100% income tax on 500,000 in todays dollars. it was over 90% for a while.

He proposed a 100% tax on all income above $500k back then, not in today's dollars, which would be much much more. We've discussed this before.

 

[rickyb]

He proposed a 100% tax on all income above $500k back then, not in today's dollars, which would be much much more. We've discussed this before.

no no its todays dollars i posted the link as well

 

[vantexan]

no no its todays dollars i posted the link as well

Did FDR say $500k back then?

 

[vantexan]

no no its todays dollars i posted the link as well

OK I looked it up. FDR proposed a 100% tax on all income above $25k to help pay for the war. Didn't happen. In today's dollars that's a little over $490k.

To be clear the top income tax was 90% and the 100% proposal wasn't to attack the greedy rich or to expand the welfare state. It was about paying for WWII.

 

[rickyb]

OK I looked it up. FDR proposed a 100% tax on all income above $25k to help pay for the war. Didn't happen. In today's dollars that's a little over $490k.

To be clear the top income tax was 90% and the 100% proposal wasn't to attack the greedy rich or to expand the welfare state. It was about paying for WWII.

thats great you found that.

i think its because america was threatened with anti capitalist revolution at the time. 1 sign of this would be the unionization rate shooting up to its all time high of 33% or whatever. FDR did also expand the welfare state. maybe the war too like you said

 

[vantexan]

thats great you found that.

i think its because america was threatened with anti capitalist revolution at the time. 1 sign of this would be the unionization rate shooting up to its all time high of 33% or whatever. FDR did also expand the welfare state. maybe the war too like you said

No maybe about it. The top rate was 90% and FDR proposed 100% to pay for the war. Anyone making over $25k then was doing extremely well even by today's standards.

 

[RangerMan06]

To all my BC Brethren,

I am firmly convinced that the scourge of American Society is the absurd accumulation of power resulting from the absurd accumulation of wealth.

In principle I am strongly in favor of a progressive income tax that de incentivizes this absurd accumulation of wealth and the resultant corrupt political power that goes along with it.

I have posted this elsewhere but I feel it need to be repeated here for possible discussion:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progressive income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Disclaimer:

My idea would certainly would put me in the 0% bracket.

Sincerely,
I

I'm a conservative and I approve this message

 

[rickyb]

No maybe about it. The top rate was 90% and FDR proposed 100% to pay for the war. Anyone making over $25k then was doing extremely well even by today's standards.

I think he was afraid of the commies and socialists too which is why he taxed the rich as a reform instead of revolution. remember usa had a red scare not long after fdr. could it be because of what happened while fdr was in power?