The 700+ American billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom half of households. I think no billionaire has or ever will deserve that much money. Therefore, we should feel free to impose tax rates as high as is beneficial for the common good. What do you think?
Soaking the Rich
Posts
Total:
102
Eat the rich; there's only one thing they're good forEat the rich; I take one bite now, come back for moreEat the rich; I gotta get this off my chestEat the rich; I take one bite now, spit out the rest!Eat the rich; there's only one thing they're good forEat the rich; I take one bite now, come back for moreEat the rich; don't stop me now I'm going crazyEat the rich; that's my idea of a good time baby
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I think "deserving" is the wrong way of looking at it and will certainly tune people out of you use that kind of language. The issue here for me is the fact that while these individuals in most cases accomplished a great deal, they only did so within the systems and infrastructure that was already in place making it all possible so their actual contributions to society do not warrant the obscene wealth they have accumulated. That doesn't mean we should take it away from them for the sake of not letting them have it, but that we as a society are better off with a system that rewards people according to their contributions, so the greater good argument is perfectly valid here.
-->
@n8nrgim
cannibalism is not good, it may lead to prion. It is based on genes and mutations and it has no cures as of now. don't eat anyone, even if they are rich or even billionaires.
i look at it as basic fairness in resource distribution. if a caveman doesn't have what he needs to eat, it's fair for him to go eat off an apple tree or hunt on land, that the laws of man say someone else owns, if that owner has excessive amounts of land and resource. same deal in modern life.
If we raise it so high that they 'leave,
The common good is effected.
I agree with Double_R, that people work within a system,
Though sometimes that system does everything it can to 'prevent one from succeeding, or is only there to 'claim it did anything important, or other times certain system 'shouldn't exist.
. . . The State generally offers safety, army, police force,
Though I suppose one could argue individuals could handle that on their own, that's a bit more the creation of their 'own State, maybe.
The State regulates health, trade,
Though people could regulate such 'themselves. . .
Grumble,
Hm, it's not so much working 'in the system, as one works 'under the system, maybe,
And as such the State/System expects/demands tribute.
But anyway,
. . .
Suppose that there is a bushel of apples across a river filled with crocodiles,
And one individual risks his life swimming across,
Does he not 'deserve said food?
Even if other people are hungry?
If he were to swim back, the others would likely 'take at least an equal portion per person,
And that's understandable,
Hm, but what does 'deserve mean anyway?
Certainly by virtue of being human, one could argue people have an obligation towards others, though not everyone agrees.
And certainly people don't risk so much as the river of crocodiles often when making their money,
Or even if they 'did risk life and limb,
Money is easier/safer made, once one has made money, I imagine.
Just rambling.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Dwight D. Eisenhower is often quoted from his February 17, 1953 News Conference in which he said,
The fact is there must be balanced budgets before we are again on a safe and sound system in our economy. That means, to my mind, that we cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced. Now that is just to my mind sheer necessity.
Eisenhower's top marginal income tax rate in 1953 was 92%.
-->
@Double_R
Sounds like a disagreement over rhetoric than substance. "Do not warrant the obscene wealth they have accumulated" can be swapped out with "deserve" without changing the point.
-->
@FLRW
Rather than income, I'm more interested in taxation based on net worth. That's where the greatest inequality (and revenue) is. Though I don't know if taxation based on net worth is viable.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I disagree. Cannibalism is quite amusing and practiced often by various human cultures
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Doesn’t change the fact it is poisonous and unhealthy.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Doesn’t change the fact it is poisonous and unhealthy.
citation please
-->
@3RU7AL
what I thought this was common knowledge ;/
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Rather than income, I'm more interested in taxation based on net worth. That's where the greatest inequality (and revenue) is. Though I don't know if taxation based on net worth is viable.
A land tax is an example of an asset tax.
This model (of taxing assets) seems perfectly viable.
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The 700+ American billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom half of households.
Because their labor typically generates more commerce than the bottom half of households.
I think no billionaire has or ever will deserve that much money.
What measures do apply when attributing "merit"?
Therefore, we should feel free to impose tax rates
That is, you are arguing for a directive where said individuals will be coerced into paying a steep stipend, the dereliction of which will have them face a penalty, which includes the threat of deadly force, correct?
as high as is beneficial for the common good.
Excluding what's "good" for the billionaires of course.
What do you think?
Honestly, I think it's asinine. It's nothing more than a platitude that's tantamount to "I want to take their money even by force, and I'll say whatever I can to justify it."
-->
@Intelligence_06
what I thought this was common knowledge ;/
Shipwreck and plane crash victims have resorted to cannibalisms with no long-term negative consequences.
Among anthropologists, the Fore people in Papua New Guinea are known for cannibalism. Up until the late 1950s, they ate the bodies of relatives to cleanse their spirits. Thousands of Fore contracted kuru and died ("kuru" actually comes from the Fore word for shaking). But not all of them fell victim to the disease: Over the last 200 years, some Fore have also developed a genetic mutation that protects them from the prions that transmit kuru.
The Fore were adapting to cannibalism — with natural selection possibly playing a role in reducing their susceptibility to disease. Scientists have been trying to study this further, but in recent decades, cannibalism has been declining among the Fore because of changing social mores and laws. If that continues, kuru may be wiped out entirely.
-->
@Double_R
I think "deserving" is the wrong way of looking at it and will certainly tune people out of you use that kind of language. The issue here for me is the fact that while these individuals in most cases accomplished a great deal, they only did so within the systems and infrastructure that was already in place making it all possible so their actual contributions to society do not warrant the obscene wealth they have accumulated.
Do you pay periodical stipends to your parents/custodians, siblings, teachers/educators, restaurateurs who may have fed you on occasion, retail stores, barbers, or for that matter, anyone who has given you advice? No? Then I'm going to ignore this platitude that suggests that individuals are financially indebted to social systems.
Only if the rich is taxed will congress (the rich) balance the budget. With it's huge debt, the US dollar will no longer be the World Currency in 10 years.
-->
@Intelligence_06
It is not common knowledge. I will need a citation sir
-->
@Athias
does a land tax make any sense to you ?
-->
@3RU7AL
No tax makes sense to me.
-->
@Athias
What measures do apply when attributing "merit"?
Any wealth acquired through privileged birth and/or dumb luck is undeserved. Billionaires are frequently born into wealth, and they - virtually by definition - are exceedingly lucky. Compensation is earned on the basis of hard work and skill. It cannot be credibly claimed that billionaires are millions of times harder working and more intelligent than the average person. The spectrum of human capabilities simply doesn't vary that much.
I don't know why poor people (worth less than $300 million) even want to live. Can you believe that they don't have a Lear Jet?
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Any wealth acquired through privileged birth and/or dumb luck is undeserved. Billionaires are frequently born into wealth, and they - virtually by definition - are exceedingly lucky. Compensation is earned on the basis of hard work and skill.
Why stop at wealth? Why not suggest a steep tax for anyone who has received a cash gift for their birthdays (isn't that a "privilege of birth"?) or just cash gifts in general? Why not tax all charities, non-profits, and other donation based projects, right? I mean the sum of their work essentially amounts to asking for money. Hardly qualifies as "hard work and skill," right?
It cannot be credibly claimed that billionaires are millions of times harder working and more intelligent than the average person.
It can be credibly claimed that their labor generates more commerce. LeBron James is probably no more hardworking or intelligent than a coal miner, but the masses are willing to pay more to see him at work, than they would to see a coal miner. And your proposal is to penalize LeBron James for this?
The spectrum of human capabilities simply doesn't very that much.
Perhaps the inconsistency is with your measure, and not the variance in human capability.
-->
@FLRW
I don't know why poor people (worth less than $300 million) even want to live.
Are you under the assumption that those who are financially worth $299,999,999.99 are poor?
-->
@Athias
Terrence Michael Pegula is an American billionaire businessman and petroleum engineer. He is the owner of Pegula Sports and Entertainment which owns the Buffalo Sabres of the National Hockey League and, with his wife Kim Pegula, the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League. His Net worth: 5.8 billion USD (2022)
So yes.
-->
@Athias
or just cash gifts in general?
- Cash gifts up to $16,000 per year don't have to be reported.
- Excess gifts require a tax form but not necessarily a tax payment.
- Gift reporting and taxes are required of the donor, not the recipient.
- Noncash gifts that have appreciated in value may be subject to capital gains tax.
- Cash payments between individuals typically don't have to be reported.
- You must report payments of $2,400 or more made to any household employee.
- All income must be claimed on tax forms, even if it's paid in cash.
Cash Gifts Up to $16,000 a Year Don't Have to Be Reported
Cash gifts can be subject to tax rates that range from 18% to 40% depending on the size of the gift. The tax is to be paid by the person making the gift, but thanks to annual and lifetime exclusions, most people will never pay a gift tax. [**]
-->
@FLRW
Define poor.
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Are all rich people Atheists?
-->
@3RU7AL
or just cash gifts in general?
- Cash gifts up to $16,000 per year don't have to be reported.
- Excess gifts require a tax form but not necessarily a tax payment.
- Gift reporting and taxes are required of the donor, not the recipient.
- Noncash gifts that have appreciated in value may be subject to capital gains tax.
- Cash payments between individuals typically don't have to be reported.
- You must report payments of $2,400 or more made to any household employee.
- All income must be claimed on tax forms, even if it's paid in cash.
Cash Gifts Up to $16,000 a Year Don't Have to Be ReportedCash gifts can be subject to tax rates that range from 18% to 40% depending on the size of the gift. The tax is to be paid by the person making the gift, but thanks to annual and lifetime exclusions, most people will never pay a gift tax. [**]
And there are still those who say that taxation isn't theft and robbery.