2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour days, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[zoraster]

We are all products of our environment, of course, but I grew up and still am by most measures "upper class." I know a lot of people who have worked hard, but I don't think there's much in the "hard work" argument.

Few people are making the argument that some wealth and income disparity is a useful or good thing. But when they think about it, they greatly underestimate what that disparity is:



Not everyone is or can be smart or valuable to the economic system. It's probably okay that they aren't rewarded in the same way, but I'd still like people to be able to live at a certain base line of existence that includes health care, a wage that can support a reasonable family, etc. That's particularly true with the knowledge that people in our system start with vastly different opportunities to make themselves economically valuable.

[hiplop]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour days, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

do you not understand how tax rates work? If its 50% above $150k, and I make $190k in a year, its not like I only pocket 90k. It's just the 150-190k that gets taxed the fifty. So I would make 170kish instead
t

[SleepyKrew]

[hiplop]

We are all products of our environment, of course, but I grew up and still am by most measures "upper class." I know a lot of people who have worked hard, but I don't think there's much in the "hard work" argument.

Few people are making the argument that some wealth and income disparity is a useful or good thing. But when they think about it, they greatly underestimate what that disparity is:



Not everyone is or can be smart or valuable to the economic system. It's probably okay that they aren't rewarded in the same way, but I'd still like people to be able to live at a certain base line of existence that includes health care, a wage that can support a reasonable family, etc. That's particularly true with the knowledge that people in our system start with vastly different opportunities to make themselves economically valuable.

Yes!! exactly! Disparity between rich and poor is fine, the issue is when its THIS huge.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour days, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

The US tax system actually isn't progressive at all; it only seems that way if you're only looking at income tax.

If you include all taxes, both local and federal, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on, the top 20% actually pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the middle 20%. The top .1% pays a lot less then that.

The key here is that sales tax, property taxes, social security and medicare taxes, and a number of others are regressive taxes, taxes that hurt the poor more then the rich. Federal income tax is progressive, but not enough to overwhelm all the other taxes. Meanwhile, the really rich people pay mostly capital gain taxes, which are much lower then all other taxes right now.

[MonkeyMan576]

Sorry for the triple post, internet issue.

Yes, I think the tax system should be more equal, but I don't think it should be unfairly progressive.

I would be in favor of a flat tax.

[Brandi]

This conversation is so interesting. Does anyone know what people in the top 1% do with all of their money? What do most of them do career wise? Also is our society not considered capitalist? I keep hearing things online about how "real capitalism is the answer' but I never see any elaborations.

[Sudo_Nym]

This conversation is so interesting. Does anyone know what people in the top 1% do with all of their money? What do most of them do career wise? Also is our society not considered capitalist? I keep hearing things online about how "real capitalism is the answer' but I never see any elaborations.

Real capitalism means basically no government oversight or taxes on anything, afaik. It's the laissez faire idea that the free market will solve everything if the government stops screwing things up by interfering.

[zoraster]

This conversation is so interesting. Does anyone know what people in the top 1% do with all of their money? What do most of them do career wise? Also is our society not considered capitalist? I keep hearing things online about how "real capitalism is the answer' but I never see any elaborations.

It depends on whether you're using wealth or income to determine the 1%. But the 1% save a lot more money than those not in the 1% (or rather, they invest it).

[Sudo_Nym]

There's also the Sam Vimes' Boot Theory of Economic Inequality, which is another underdiscussed problem.

[Untrod Tripod]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour days, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

why?

[Venmar]

put in 80 hour days

Idk if that's possible.

[Telo]

put in 80 hour days

Idk if that's possible.

It is if you have the right attitude.

[zoraster]

put in 80 hour days

Idk if that's possible.

It is if you have the right attitude.

Such as "I travel at relativistic speeds"?

[MonkeyMan576]

I meant weeks obviously.

[Rhinox]

Sorry for the triple post, internet issue.

Yes, I think the tax system should be more equal, but I don't think it should be unfairly progressive.

I would be in favor of a flat tax.

What is unfairly progressive? A flat tax is something that sounds fair in principal, until you realize that the playing field it's built on is already slanted. A family making $30k a year is hurt a lot more by a flat X% tax than a family making $1mil a year being taxed at that same X%, no matter what you set the X at. So how is a flat tax fair?

[MonkeyMan576]

It depends on your definition of "hurt". Obviously 30% of a $30K income is going to be felt more than 30% of a 100K income. But at what point of a progressive tax do you say enough is enough?

[Venmar]

Progressive tax that adjusts to how much you make is the right way to go imo. If I get taxed more depending on how much I make, then that's fair, just how it's fair that I get taxed less if I suddenly lose shitloads of hours at my job(s). I mean, if I got taxed long ago (when I made much less money), the amount I get taxed today, then i'd have made WAY less money.

[Rhinox]

It depends on your definition of "hurt". Obviously 30% of a $30K income is going to be felt more than 30% of a 100K income. But at what point of a progressive tax do you say enough is enough?

Well lets look at it another way. I'm going to completely make up some numbers because I don't know exactly what they are, but the logic still holds.

Lets say the rich are taxed at 50% and the poor are taxed at 10% and that's our progressive system. How do we switch to a flat tax without changing the total amount of tax revenue?

If you taxed everyone at 10%, tax revenue drops substantially. If you tax everyone at 50%, well then tax revenue goes up but only a little bit, comparatively. There is a point in between where tax revenue stays the same, and the point I'm trying to make is that due to the income inequality, that point is going to be substantially closer to 50% than 10%. You might end up with a flat tax of something like 48% for everyone to maintain revenue.

So by arguing for a flat tax you're basically proposing a tax reduction on the wealthy (not all that much comparatively, but still a tax cut) while simultaneously proposing a massive by comparison tax hike on the poor.

So again I ask how is a flat tax fair? It would be pretty crippling to the economy IMO.

I'm not meaning to dodge your question I just don't see how ~80% of the country isn't for an even more progressive tax system, because it's in their best interests financially. I don't understand people that argue for a flat tax fail to realize that unless you're in the top 20% it probably means your tax rate is going up. I don't get why so many people vote against their own best interests.

[MonkeyMan576]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

[Runner]

Can I just say, major respect to MM576 for talking coolly and calmly. I'm of the leftward inclination, but I still respect how you're standing up for your views despite strong opposition.