Super girls proposed tax rate 70%

[lipripper]

Is this fake news scrum?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/polit...cts/index.html

Sent from my Moto G6 using Tapatalk

Why bother?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Why bother?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

because I need to show scrum that his bias towards anything left can sometimes cloud his perspective. he looks at cortez and sees absolute perfection. a genius who can do no wrong. if that was a fox article he would attack the source. but since it's CNN who he has defended countless times on here he can't really use the same tactic. so i've painted him into a corner if you will. he'll either not respond or respond with a "lol". i made the comparison between cortez and trump earlier in this thread. the way they both play with semantics, the way they both brush over the details, the way they try to paint a picture of something that isn't fully true. but scrum cannot and will not bring himself to criticize cortez in any shape or form. that is the definition of bias. he's sees all the positive of his side and all the negative of the other side. there is nothing in between and i'm sorry but that is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

[lipripper]

because I need to show scrum that his bias towards anything left can sometimes cloud his perspective. he looks at cortez and sees absolute perfection. a genius who can do no wrong. if that was a fox article he would attack the source. but since it's CNN who he has defended countless times on here he can't really use the same tactic. so i've painted him into a corner if you will. he'll either not respond or respond with a "lol". i made the comparison between cortez and trump earlier in this thread. the way they both play with semantics, the way they both brush over the details, the way they try to paint a picture of something that isn't fully true. but scrum cannot and will not bring himself to criticize cortez in any shape or form. that is the definition of bias. he's sees all the positive of his side and all the negative of the other side. there is nothing in between and i'm sorry but that is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

He will never admit anything is right unless it goes with what he believes...when does he ever agree? He just goes silent or changes direction. That's fine at least he stands for what he believes even though nothing no one ..side...is always right.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[lipripper]

Funny I typed the same shit you did...didn't even read what you wrote untill after...tells ya something don't it...lol

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

you must be getting smarter. :D

[lipripper]

you must be getting smarter. :D

Lmfao

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Is this fake news scrum?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/polit...cts/index.html

Sent from my Moto G6 using Tapatalk

bump. :D

[Bouncer]

The Case Against 70 Percent

In what might have been an offhand comment, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat newly elected to the House of Representatives, told an interviewer that a marginal income tax of 70 percent might make sense for people earning more than $10 million a year. The idea is attracting attention, and at least one poll suggests it might be popular. The current top rate on earned income, not counting Medicare taxes, is 37 percent. Could it really make sense to almost double it?

The idea is unwise — but worth discussing.

Some economists, including respected authorities on taxes and public finance, say 70 percent could be about right. Their logic is simple. They say taking money from the rich to give to the poor makes society as a whole better off. And the evidence suggests a top rate of 70 percent on the highest incomes would be fiscally productive — meaning not so high that the disincentive to effort and enterprise would cause the government to raise less money than with a lower rate.

The principle that taxes should be progressive — raising proportionally more revenue from the rich than from people of more modest means — is almost universally accepted as fair. The current U.S. tax system is already quite progressive, and it could be made more so by closing loopholes that give the rich advantages. Most voters would probably regard reforms of that kind as making the system fairer still.

However, those very loopholes cause a big problem for high top rates. Warren Buffett famously once said his secretary faced a tax rate higher than his. The reason is that most of Buffett’s income is in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. Without comprehensive tax reform, introducing a top rate of 70 percent, or anything close, would vastly increase the profit to be made from lawful tax avoidance, including arrangements that recast income in the form of capital gains, a maneuver that’s especially appealing to those making more than $10 million a year. (While it’s true that top rates in the U.S. used to run even higher than 70 percent, it’s also true that these taxes raised relatively little additional revenue for the government.)

The U.S. tax code offers countless opportunities for avoidance. Taking this into account, and bearing in mind that over the long term very high top rates would discourage effort and enterprise more severely than most short-term estimates suggest, the rate that gathers most revenue from the rich is probably a lot lower than 70 percent, and maybe not much higher than the current rate.

Why not do both — broaden the tax base by bringing more kinds of income and consumption into consideration, eliminate loopholes, and then push the top rate as far as it can go? Because although most Americans want the rich to pay their fair share, few would regard a deliberate policy of bleeding the successful to the maximum extent possible as either fair or wise. And they’d be right. It’s hardly an accident that the U.S. is the world’s most innovative economy: This is a country that, more than most, admires enterprise and risk-taking, and deems success in business as worthy of reward.

In years ahead, U.S. taxes will need to rise. The government is committed to outlays on Social Security and other programs that far exceed projected revenues. Much additional new spending, especially on efforts addressed to energy and climate change, will also be needed — and will need to be paid for.

Tax reform that broadens the base and closes loopholes should be a main part of the fiscal strategy for dealing with this challenge — and, done right, these changes would also make the tax code more progressive. As part of this larger effort, a moderate increase in the top marginal rate should not be seen as out of bounds. But to go further and proclaim an explicit policy of soaking the rich would be unjust and, in the end, counterproductive.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...e?srnd=opinion

[Bouncer]

This was the argument I was trying to make. I know scrum will say "well a billionaire would say that"... but I'm telling you now big money will pull out of the markets and that will have a domino effect on the real economy. Dalio understands economies and markets more then just about anyone on earth. He's worth paying attention to even if you just see him as another rich guy.. he is a genuine genius who has been very concerned about mounting debt for years. He's been telling anyone who will listen that we need to fix the debt issue. Nobody seems to be listening... they are all drunk on low interest rates and markets propped up on free money. Make no mistake we are headed for a big debt crises. He may be a "fat cat" but he actually does give a shit.

-------------

‘We’re in agreement on the problem that’s behind that suggestion. We have to make capitalism work for the majority of Americans. I don’t know that we’re in agreement on the mechanics.’

That’s how Ray Dalio, the man behind the world’s biggest hedge fund, answered a question at the World Economic Forum in Davos about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70% marginal tax rate.

“How tax rates are changed will have a huge effect on incentives and could have a huge effect on capital flows, and that will have big effects on markets and economies,” the Bridgewater boss told CNBC in an interview. “It’s going to be a bigger market-influencing issue than people now realize.”

A recent poll shows Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal is gaining some bipartisan backing, with 59% of voters supporting it, including 45% of Republicans.

“This polarity issue — the income and opportunity gap — will determine who is elected and what approaches are going to be used to deal with that issue,” Dalio said. “We have entered the presidential election cycle in which different policies and their probabilities of getting enacted to deal with this income-opportunity gap issue will be really important; probably the most important issue of our time.”

Dalio also talked about the potential unintended consequences such a tax plan could ultimately have on the U.S. economy.

“If we’re to have a 70% marginal tax rate, most individuals affected by it will calculate whether they should instead operate as a corporation in order to convert ordinary income to capital gains, so I wonder how that will be handled,” he said, according to the CNBC report. “And I wonder what will be done to influence whether capital will leave the country.”

In separate remarks from a panel discussion in Davos on Tuesday, Dalio, who oversees some $160 billion in assets, shared his concerns that the next economic slowdown might not be so run-of- the-mill given a variety of factors.

“What scares me the most longer term,” he said, “is that we have limitations to monetary policy — which is our most valuable tool — at the same time we have greater political and social antagonism.”

Dalio explained that a limited monetary policy toolbox, rising populist pressures and other issues, including rising global trade tensions, are similar to the backdrop present in the latter part of the Great Depression in the late 1930s.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ra...ket-2019-01-23

[domin8]

the united states is a capitalist nation and should stay this way. the way i see it, every person should have the same tax rate because that is proportionately fair. why should someone be penalized for succeeding? that sounds like communism and will cause upcoming generations to be under-achievers. Tax rates were that high many years ago and have decreased for a reason.

[Bouncer]

Soaking the Rich? It Could Backfire for Progressives

What is the purpose of taxing the rich? Most economists would answer that the goal is to get revenue for government to spend on things that benefit society -- roads, schools, health care, housing and aid for the poor. The argument is grounded in the theory of the diminishing utility of wealth. If you take $10 million from a billionaire and split it among 1,000 poor people, the billionaire will barely notice the loss, but the poor people will see a big improvement in their lives by getting $10,000 each.

That’s the standard argument for redistribution. It definitely seems to represent the policy choices of social democracies like Denmark and Sweden, which have very high taxes and levels of social spending. But recently, some on the political left -- including some prominent economists -- have begun to make a very different argument. It’s not about raising money, they say, but because discouraging people from amassing great fortunes in the first place makes society a fairer, more equitable place.

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman make this argument:

[The] root justification is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy. It is also about safeguarding democracy against oligarchy…An extreme concentration of wealth means an extreme concentration of economic and political power.

The notion here is that the affluent use their wealth to control the political process. A second idea, suggested by Saez and his famous co-author Thomas Piketty, is that low tax rates prompt top earners to press harder for higher salaries.

If one or both of these theories is true, then simply depriving the wealthy of much of their incomes or assets would have a beneficial effect on society through a kind of trickle-down process -- free from the malign influence of the plutocrats, the political and corporate systems would become less tilted, as space opened up for workers and voters to fight more effectively for their own interests.

These theories are highly speculative. There’s currently not much empirical support for the bargaining theory, which runs counter to standard economic theories of wage setting (in which higher taxes tend to lead to higher before-tax salaries). Nor do most well-off people bargain for their riches -- instead, they tend to be the owners of companies and set their own pay. There’s also scant evidence about how much billionaires dictate the political process -- it might be a lot, or it might be only a little. The example of Japan, which has very few billionaires, but where powerful corporate and rural interests tend to get their way, and where redistributive economic policies are sparse, suggests that simply getting rid of the moneyed elite might not be sufficient to ensure a more egalitarian government.

In the end, Saez and Zucman’s argument comes down to the conviction that inequality -- which the two economists have spent their careers studying and quantifying -- is an inherently bad thing. If this is true, destroying the wealth of the upper class would be an end in and of itself, even if it doesn’t better the lot of the poor or middle class.

The idea that eliminating concentrated wealth is its own reward fits the political zeitgeist of the U.S.’s emerging anti-capitalist left. Dan Riffle, a policy adviser for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, declares that “every billionaire is a policy failure.” Journalist Tom Scocca asserts that “we should presumptively get rid of billionaires,” because “no one deserves a billion dollars.”

Thus, we may be witnessing the emergence of a new left-populism, distinct from the redistribution-focused progressive liberalism that has traditionally prevailed in the Democratic Party. For now, left-populism and progressive liberalism aren’t really in conflict -- both want higher taxes on the rich, just for different reasons. Nor do left-populists oppose traditional liberal ideas of strengthening unions, raising minimum wages, increasing anti-poverty spending, ensuring universal health care and improving infrastructure and education.

But the differing emphasis of the two approaches may eventually create disagreements over which kind of taxes to employ. For traditional progressive liberals, the measure of a tax is how much revenue it raises -- thus, they’ll be drawn to ideas like value-added taxes, or higher income taxes on a broader swath of the affluent, which are good at filling government coffers. Left-populists, however, will want punitive taxes on very high incomes or wealth concentrations, even if these don’t end up raising much revenue.

Ultimately, left-populists will be tempted to pay for government spending with deficits. This will naturally push them toward embracing modern monetary theory, a popular new idea that asserts that fiscal spending is funded by government money creation rather than by tax revenue. If that theory turns out to be flawed, and ballooning deficits eventually create inflation that the government can’t easily control after it gets started, the result could be a rapid and devastating economic collapse.

If the people of the U.S. desire left-populism, then so be it -- citizens have a right to soak the rich if they so choose. But it’s a strategy with uncertain benefits, which may eventually start to interfere with more traditional progressive priorities such as income redistribution and a larger safety net. The left should think carefully before starting down the populist road.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...e?srnd=premium

[lipripper]

Soaking the Rich? It Could Backfire for Progressives



What is the purpose of taxing the rich? Most economists would answer that the goal is to get revenue for government to spend on things that benefit society -- roads, schools, health care, housing and aid for the poor. The argument is grounded in the theory of the diminishing utility of wealth. If you take $10 million from a billionaire and split it among 1,000 poor people, the billionaire will barely notice the loss, but the poor people will see a big improvement in their lives by getting $10,000 each.



That’s the standard argument for redistribution. It definitely seems to represent the policy choices of social democracies like Denmark and Sweden, which have very high taxes and levels of social spending. But recently, some on the political left -- including some prominent economists -- have begun to make a very different argument. It’s not about raising money, they say, but because discouraging people from amassing great fortunes in the first place makes society a fairer, more equitable place.



In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman make this argument:



[The] root justification is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy. It is also about safeguarding democracy against oligarchy…An extreme concentration of wealth means an extreme concentration of economic and political power.



The notion here is that the affluent use their wealth to control the political process. A second idea, suggested by Saez and his famous co-author Thomas Piketty, is that low tax rates prompt top earners to press harder for higher salaries.



If one or both of these theories is true, then simply depriving the wealthy of much of their incomes or assets would have a beneficial effect on society through a kind of trickle-down process -- free from the malign influence of the plutocrats, the political and corporate systems would become less tilted, as space opened up for workers and voters to fight more effectively for their own interests.



These theories are highly speculative. There’s currently not much empirical support for the bargaining theory, which runs counter to standard economic theories of wage setting (in which higher taxes tend to lead to higher before-tax salaries). Nor do most well-off people bargain for their riches -- instead, they tend to be the owners of companies and set their own pay. There’s also scant evidence about how much billionaires dictate the political process -- it might be a lot, or it might be only a little. The example of Japan, which has very few billionaires, but where powerful corporate and rural interests tend to get their way, and where redistributive economic policies are sparse, suggests that simply getting rid of the moneyed elite might not be sufficient to ensure a more egalitarian government.



In the end, Saez and Zucman’s argument comes down to the conviction that inequality -- which the two economists have spent their careers studying and quantifying -- is an inherently bad thing. If this is true, destroying the wealth of the upper class would be an end in and of itself, even if it doesn’t better the lot of the poor or middle class.



The idea that eliminating concentrated wealth is its own reward fits the political zeitgeist of the U.S.’s emerging anti-capitalist left. Dan Riffle, a policy adviser for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, declares that “every billionaire is a policy failure.” Journalist Tom Scocca asserts that “we should presumptively get rid of billionaires,” because “no one deserves a billion dollars.”



Thus, we may be witnessing the emergence of a new left-populism, distinct from the redistribution-focused progressive liberalism that has traditionally prevailed in the Democratic Party. For now, left-populism and progressive liberalism aren’t really in conflict -- both want higher taxes on the rich, just for different reasons. Nor do left-populists oppose traditional liberal ideas of strengthening unions, raising minimum wages, increasing anti-poverty spending, ensuring universal health care and improving infrastructure and education.



But the differing emphasis of the two approaches may eventually create disagreements over which kind of taxes to employ. For traditional progressive liberals, the measure of a tax is how much revenue it raises -- thus, they’ll be drawn to ideas like value-added taxes, or higher income taxes on a broader swath of the affluent, which are good at filling government coffers. Left-populists, however, will want punitive taxes on very high incomes or wealth concentrations, even if these don’t end up raising much revenue.



Ultimately, left-populists will be tempted to pay for government spending with deficits. This will naturally push them toward embracing modern monetary theory, a popular new idea that asserts that fiscal spending is funded by government money creation rather than by tax revenue. If that theory turns out to be flawed, and ballooning deficits eventually create inflation that the government can’t easily control after it gets started, the result could be a rapid and devastating economic collapse.



If the people of the U.S. desire left-populism, then so be it -- citizens have a right to soak the rich if they so choose. But it’s a strategy with uncertain benefits, which may eventually start to interfere with more traditional progressive priorities such as income redistribution and a larger safety net. The left should think carefully before starting down the populist road.



https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...e?srnd=premium

What's fucked up bro...is the plan to tax is not to improve our country..but to just give it away to...people who need it ....
Lmfao. Get off your ass and earn what you get....no one.......
..deserves....free anything...it's not a right!

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

What's fucked up bro...is the plan to tax is not to improve our country..but to just give it away to...people who need it ....
Lmfao. Get off your ass and earn what you get....no one.......
..deserves....free anything...it's not a right!

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

agree with your main point. but I think you can also agree that the wealth gap has gotten pretty crazy. in no time in American history has 1 percent of the United States had more wealth than the bottom 94 percent. that sounds more like Russia or China than America bro. i think it's safe to say that capitalism isn't working for the majority. that doesn't mean i fully agree with "take from the rich and give to the poor". i just think we need to change course somehow or else we are headed for a train wreck. the biggest threat we are now facing is the debt crises. borrowed money is starting to crush us. to pay that off interest rates need to go way up which always means a recession. it's better to have a medium recession now that we can somewhat control then to have a forced recession that turns into a long term depression.

[lipripper]

agree with your main point. but I think you can also agree that the wealth gap has gotten pretty crazy. in no time in American history has 1 percent of the United States had more wealth than the bottom 94 percent. that sounds more like Russia or China than America bro. i think it's safe to say that capitalism isn't working for the majority. that doesn't mean i fully agree with "take from the rich and give to the poor". i just think we need to change course somehow or else we are headed for a train wreck. the biggest threat we are now facing is the debt crises. borrowed money is starting to crush us. to pay that off interest rates need to go way up which always means a recession. it's better to have a medium recession now that we can somewhat control then to have a forced recession that turns into a long term depression.

Agree with debt reduction...but taxing Rich to give to..poor... Ain't fixing that..putting people to work..stronger economy. And fucking putting a stop to government bullshit spending will

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

but bro there can only be so many fast food workers etc..

what do we do when "putting people to work" isn't possible because there are more then enough low iq workers already on the job. population is starting to outpace the need for those type of workers bro. the system that has worked the last 50 years is reaching a tipping point.