to wuf: faultlines and the rich, obama's failings

[Lukie]

@jack

Thanks for posting that again. I understand well the concept of decreasing marginal utility. And while I don't agree that a 90% top tax is anything evening approaching fair or ideal, a 90% tax above $1,000,000 is far different than wuf's proposition of a 100% tax above $250,000.

Beyond that though I think there is a fundamental and philosophical difference of opinion here that no amount of debate will change.

[a500lbgorilla]

Jacks entire last post is caesar salad.

Beyond that though I think there is a... philosophical difference of opinion here that no amount of debate will change.

This (edited) every time. That's why I tried to show my hand as best I could in my last post. Whatever it is that places you on one side of the divide from the other, it strikes me as something which isn't grounded in any true difference. That your opinion can become my opinion and vice versa but if we both pursue the truth, debate is not the tool that shall get us there. Debate/ discussion/ rhetoric is the tool that we use to share the truth once we've found it. It's just that we've all learned long ago how to share the truth without actually having the truth.

[Sasquach991]

...we've all learned long ago how to share the truth without actually having the truth.

I like this. My new sig.

[a500lbgorilla]

I like this. My new sig.

Wear it with pride, my friend. :P

[Sasquach991]

If you taxed the top 1% at 100% would this help?

[Jack Sawyer]

If you taxed the top 1% at 100% would this help?

10 CEOs On $1 Salaries (Apart From Their $Millions in Stock Options) | Business Pundit


But no, that's not it. The idea is not to take all the money away; the idea is that those who can easily carry a higher burden for the good of the entire society, to actually do so.Having a 10 figure salary is nice, but it also means that you can proportionality carry a much higher burden than someone who has a 5 figure salary.

[NightGizmo]

The idea is not to take all the money away; the idea is that those who can easily carry a higher burden for the good of the entire society, to actually do so.Having a 10 figure salary is nice, but it also means that you can proportionality carry a much higher burden than someone who has a 5 figure salary.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because you raise the tax rate does not mean that you collect more taxes.

[wufwugy]

@jack

Thanks for posting that again. I understand well the concept of decreasing marginal utility. And while I don't agree that a 90% top tax is anything evening approaching fair or ideal, a 90% tax above $1,000,000 is far different than wuf's proposition of a 100% tax above $250,000.

Beyond that though I think there is a fundamental and philosophical difference of opinion here that no amount of debate will change.

FWIW, if I were in charge I would probably go for something like 60% at income above 1 million. My other proposal would drastically change the world and would do things like stifle some aspects of globalization. But I think it would actually boost technological advances. Regardless, the perfect world paradigm is very tight-nit with very low inequality

[Lukie]

FWIW, if I were in charge I would probably go for something like 60% at income above 1 million. My other proposal would drastically change the world and would do things like stifle some aspects of globalization. But I think it would actually boost technological advances. Regardless, the perfect world paradigm is very tight-nit with very low inequality

what are people paying above 1 million now? 35% federal income tax + payroll taxes (capped) + state + local? Isn't that close to 50% already for someone making $1m/year? Heck pre-Bush tax cuts it is probably right around that 60%.

I don't think the current sytem is as bad as you make it out to be. Perhaps closing some particularly egregious tax loopholes would be a good start.

edit: I am not an economist and am not claiming to know what an ideal top tax rate is

[daven]

what are people paying above 1 million now? 35% federal income tax + payroll taxes (capped) + state + local? Isn't that close to 50% already for someone making $1m/year? Heck pre-Bush tax cuts it is probably right around that 60%.

I don't think the current sytem is as bad as you make it out to be. Perhaps closing some particularly egregious tax loopholes would be a good start.

edit: I am not an economist and am not claiming to know what an ideal top tax rate is

I wonder what would happen to the tax take if nobody tried to evade any tax? or if everyone involved in tax evasion (the people paying less tax AND the lawyers and accountants who signed in on it) was busted and charged - jail is probably more of a deterrent (1/2 of the deterrent/punishment thing) to these people than to your average neighbourhood crack dealer...

[wufwugy]

what are people paying above 1 million now? 35% federal income tax + payroll taxes (capped) + state + local? Isn't that close to 50% already for someone making $1m/year? Heck pre-Bush tax cuts it is probably right around that 60%.

I don't think the current sytem is as bad as you make it out to be. Perhaps closing some particularly egregious tax loopholes would be a good start.

edit: I am not an economist and am not claiming to know what an ideal top tax rate is

Exemptions and capital gains. I think it's accurate to say that the majority of enormous earnings come in form of capital gains, which are taxed low. Regardless, big earners avoid sooooooooooo much taxation through exemptions. I believe it was Warren Buffet who said he pays a lower rate than his secretary

[Jack Sawyer]

Exemptions and capital gains. I think it's accurate to say that the majority of enormous earnings come in form of capital gains, which are taxed low. Regardless, big earners avoid sooooooooooo much taxation through exemptions. I believe it was Warren Buffet who said he pays a lower rate than his secretary

BBC News - Warren Buffett demands to pay more tax


Edit: well played, Coccobill