Most weathly people are philanthropists, so distribution of wealth happens organically, not forced by government who thinks they have a better method for spending your money.
So if a man has a business that provides employment to others and earns $1 million a year but pays 90% taxes while you work at a job and make $100k and pay 35% that man is busting his ass to end up with only $35k more than you after taxes. What is his incentive to work 10 times harder than you?
that's not how the tax system works it's the very highest tax bracket that would be 90 %.....in fact a person making a million may not even have reached that tax bracket....depending on how they set it up I think they said the post wwII highest tax bracket would be taxing today's equivalent of the portion of income above 2.4 million
Again, when it's all said and done it's not going to be 90%, I don't know how many times I have to say that. When the tax rate was in the 90's you know when America that was once great was built, people didn't actually pay in the 90 percent. Bridges, interstates, infrastructure, this entire country was built. Now you have corporations and the elite who are so fucking greedy, they would poison everyone in this country just to save a few dollars. Flint Michigan is a prime example of what happens when Republicans get their way. I notice not too many people talking about that here on this board. I'm not saying make the rich pay 90 and I don't pay shit, I'm saying that they should pay a much higher percentage because they make much more. And they shouldn't be able to park money off shore, and scale back regulations so they dump their chemicals in rivers like Duke Energy, ask @HalloweenRun about. But no every time someone talks about making the 1 percent pay their fair share your argument is basically to start calling names or tossing around insults. Not yours in particular just generally. We have over 30 years of proof that trickle down absolutely does not work, and 2 decades of proof that higher tax rates for the rich does, but let's not let facts get in the way here.
LaSalle you ignore the vast changes in the world's economic structure since then. After WWII we were the ONLY economic power. We had no competition and were operating in an artificial market. We could sell everywhere and set the prices. There was no concern for prices or costs. Unions would demand wages and benefits and management would gladly agree as they could just charge more. Featherbeding jobs public and private was endemic. Quality was a distant second place to production. Same for government they could tax and spend without concern. There was no real concern that the fountain of money would slow up or run dry. Since the 1970's there has been a complete upset in that equation. First Europe then Japan and most places acquired economic and industrial power and competed with the US. We were slow to respond and there is still a refusal to acknowledge the economic facts. Corporations keep profits offshore because the corporate tax rate is much higher than other countries. I had a corporate VP tell me that he could afford to bring several hundred million dollars from offshore to build a new fleet of vessels because it would eat up over a third of the money. Remember when Carter passed a tax on luxury yachts and destroyed the US shipbuilding business throwing thousands out of work? There is no simple equation my friend. Kennedy lowered tax rates before Reagan did and both created economic prosperity. Frankly it isn't different you can't lower taxes infinitely either. W's tax cuts were useless or worse. A 90% tax rate would be destructive because the world isn't what it was 50 years ago. We need new tax policy for today. It isn't balancing numbers but understanding the economy, world around us and having an idea of where we want to go. Government needs to encourage true growth not command or socially engineer our society.
