Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[ilia25]

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

 

[tooAlive]

You can't raise real wages at will. Lowering taxes would not help to achieve that, but make the social programs (like SS and Medicare) unsustainable.

Why not? A business that is taxed less may actually be able to afford to pay their employees higher wages.

This thread is not about rising business taxes. It is about rising top personal tax rate. The latter only apply to the money that the company owner has decided to put in his own pocket, instead of spending them on rising wages or hiring more employees.

Higher personal taxes would actually discourage our business owner from pocketing more money, making more likely that he will spend them on expanding his business.

In other words, we're penalizing the one responsible for employing hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people for wanting to take more money home.

Do you think he would happily pay himself less? Do you think he should? After all, it's his business. It's a fruit of his hard work and vision.

See, in a perfect world you may be right. But that's not the way it works.

Why would he put so much work and effort into a business, only to live marginally better than some of his employees? Not to mention the risk involved with starting a business. Why do people risk so much to start a business? Because of the potential reward. Kill the reward, and you effectively kill the initiative along with it.

Call it greed or whatever you want, but that's the way it is.

 

[tooAlive]

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

People use the term "The 1%" to describe a few elite individuals at the top of the food chain. You don't get there (Although you could, however) by knocking someone else out; you get there by becoming elite yourself.

Again, the fat kid isn't necessarily fat because he ate the skinny kid's food.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

When the population is growing any percentage of it can get larger and people can enter any percentile group without pushing someone else into a lower one.

The last time I checked our population has not stopped growing.

By your "logic" every time a college grad entered the middle class he must push someone else into a lower class

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, the freedom to get ever richer at the expense of the poor is not a Freedom I care about.

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware of the fact that the economy is growing over time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of not knowing that.

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

How is it my stupidity when I quote your own post saying exactly that? You believe rich people get rich at the expense of poor people getting poor. You've said as much in several posts. Don't run away from your own views.

 

[ilia25]

Why not? A business that is taxed less may actually be able to afford to pay their employees higher wages.

This thread is not about rising business taxes. It is about rising top personal tax rate. The latter only apply to the money that the company owner has decided to put in his own pocket, instead of spending them on rising wages or hiring more employees.

Higher personal taxes would actually discourage our business owner from pocketing more money, making more likely that he will spend them on expanding his business.

In other words, we're penalizing the one responsible for employing hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people for wanting to take more money home.

What about his employees -- you think they are lazy, irresponsible slackers? Well, they aren't -- and yet they are being punished by the post-industrial economy that redistributes wealth from low and middle income earners to the top 1%.

We need high top tax rates to restore the fairness, if only somewhat, by bringing the inequality down to the levels we had in 60s and 70s.

Do you think he would happily pay himself less? Do you think he should? After all, it's his business. It's a fruit of his hard work and vision.

His vision would not bear him fruits if not for those little people who work for him, and for those taking other low-paying jobs. Those people make his vision possible.

Why would he put so much work and effort into a business, only to live marginally better than some of his employees?

Taking home even 10 times the average salary is hardly a marginal improvement. And he would have to take almost twice that figure before he sees 70% tax marginal rate for his income above 500 grands.

But thousands people in this country are taking home hundreds times the average salary. That is simply obscene -- and I assure you that they are not working 4000 hours per week, no sir.

Not to mention the risk involved with starting a business.

Why not -- an incentive to take the risk is the reason the 70% rates would not kick in until they are taking close to 20 times the average salary. Which well worth the risk, don't you think?

 

[Truthmatters]

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware of the fact that the economy is growing over time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of not knowing that.

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

How is it my stupidity when I quote your own post saying exactly that? You believe rich people get rich at the expense of poor people getting poor. You've said as much in several posts. Don't run away from your own views.

Dear fucking idiot,


what happened in our own country this decade?


The rich got richer and the middle class took it in the ass.

 

[ilia25]

There it is. The idea that some people can get rich only if others get poor. That is liberal economics in a nutshell.

Your stupidity never seize to amaze me. How many times did I repeat on this very thread that I'm well aware of the fact that the economy is growing over time and that new wealth is constantly created? I've lost count long time ago.

But every now and then some right-wing dumbass comes out to accuse me of not knowing that.

Just because Faux News told you what liberals think, it does not make it true.

How is it my stupidity when I quote your own post saying exactly that? You believe rich people get rich at the expense of poor people getting poor. You've said as much in several posts.

What the right-wingers can't understand for some incomprehensible reason is that BOTH statements -- "new wealth is constantly created" and "the rich are getting richer at the expense of the low/middle income earners" -- they both could be true. And they ARE true!

 

[Katzndogz]

You can only break into 1% by pushing someone else out.

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

It's a percentage. You understand percentages.

1% of 100 is 1
1% of 1000 is 10
1% of 10,000 is 100

The percentage doesn't change even as the number comprising that percentage grows.

 

[ilia25]

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

People use the term "The 1%" to describe a few elite individuals at the top of the food chain. You don't get there (Although you could, however) by knocking someone else out.

Yes you are.

The economy can support only so many high paying positions with most people having to work low/middle paying jobs. If too many people happened to make their way to the top, the market adjusts sooner or later, usually by increasing the bankruptcy rate. In the worst scenario a bubble burst and the economy sinks into recession -- although the right monetary should prevent that from happening.

 

[Truthmatters]

then there is the REAL LIFE facts of what your idiot policy created in this country cons

 

[Truthmatters]

The republican party championed policy that resulted in the enitre worlds economy crashing and making a few more wealthy.

hell the people you made more wealthy are not even nessesarily Americans

 

[ilia25]

That's flawed logic right there.

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

It's a percentage. You understand percentages.

1% of 100 is 1
1% of 1000 is 10
1% of 10,000 is 100

The percentage doesn't change even as the number comprising that percentage grows.

I'm not sure who are those 100 or 10,000 -- but this thread is about the 1% of US population. It grows at the rate 0.97% per year, which means it is stable for all practical purposes.

 

[tooAlive]

This is not a logic, this is a fact. You can't make 1% larger than 1%.

People use the term "The 1%" to describe a few elite individuals at the top of the food chain. You don't get there (Although you could, however) by knocking someone else out.

Yes you are.

The economy can support only so many high paying positions with most people having to work low/middle paying jobs. If too many people happened to make their way to the top, the market adjusts sooner or later, usually by increasing the bankruptcy rate. In the worst scenario a bubble burst and the economy sinks into recession -- although the right monetary should prevent that from happening.

The economy will continue to support high-paying positions as long as there is a demand for them. If a company decides to expand, they will hire people. And they expand because there is demand for their product or service.

How would a company expanding and increasing it's labor force contribute the the increase of the bankruptcy rate? Oh, because in order for a company to expand another one has to contract. Again, that's the flaw with your pattern of thinking. That simply isn't the case.

If that was indeed the case, the only solution to your proposed problem is full blown socialism. Since everyone with wealth undoubtedly gained it from cheating the poor, the only solution is to pay everyone the same wages and have the government take control over the means of production. Because owners will never pay their employees enough on their own.

 

[tooAlive]

His vision would not bear him fruits if not for those little people who work for him, and for those taking other low-paying jobs. Those people make his vision possible.

Why do you automatically assume that by working for him they're getting paid low, unfair wages?

Again, your pattern of thinking is based on a flawed logic.

And while you're right about his vision not being possible without the labor of the workers, it's still more valuable and should be compensated as such. You will find a few men with ideas to start their own companies, and even fewer with the initiative to take action. Workers, however, are a dime a dozen. You can pull a half decent worker off the street, but competent CEOs are few and far between.

 

[The Rabbi]

His vision would not bear him fruits if not for those little people who work for him, and for those taking other low-paying jobs. Those people make his vision possible.

Why do you automatically assume that by working for him they're getting paid low, unfair wages?

Again, your pattern of thinking is based on a flawed logic.

And while you're right about his vision not being possible without the labor of the workers, it's still more valuable and should be compensated as such. You will find a few men with ideas to start their own companies, and even fewer with the initiative to take action. Workers, however, are a dime a dozen. You can pull a half decent worker off the street, but competent CEOs are few and far between.

Forget it. You're dealing with someone who imagines rich people sitting in their offices with the factory visible from their windows wearing tuxedos and monocles.
There is no arguing with someone with that many misconceptions and that ignorant of how business actually works.

 

[ilia25]

People use the term "The 1%" to describe a few elite individuals at the top of the food chain. You don't get there (Although you could, however) by knocking someone else out.

Yes you are.

The economy can support only so many high paying positions with most people having to work low/middle paying jobs. If too many people happened to make their way to the top, the market adjusts sooner or later, usually by increasing the bankruptcy rate. In the worst scenario a bubble burst and the economy sinks into recession -- although the right monetary should prevent that from happening.

The economy will continue to support high-paying positions as long as there is a demand for them.

Yes, and that demand is NOT getting stronger simply because more people want to make their way to the top! The demand is limited, and that limits the number of high-paying jobs that economy can support at any given time. And yes, it changes over time, but the rate of change is slow and the change itself makes for even bigger inequality.

40 years ago economy was creating many middle paying jobs, and there were very few jobs that were really high paying.

Over the years that structure has changed (yes, through bankruptcies, layoffs and so on) -- now economy creates more high-paying jobs, and a lot of low paying jobs, but the number of jobs in the middle has decreased dramatically. That is the reason for growing inequality.

How would a company expanding and increasing it's labor force contribute the the increase of the bankruptcy rate?

If there is no corresponding increase in demand for the company products, then the company would revert the expansion, or go belly up. And the demand is limited -- it certainly does not increase simply because some company wants to expand.

Oh, because in order for a company to expand another one has to contract.

If the demand for both companies products hasn't increased enough, then yes -- the other company would have to contract. And it happens all the time -- this is what the free market is about, it constantly adjust the structure the economy to keep it optimal against the structure of the demand.

And in post-industrial economy the optimal structure is such that very few people hold star jobs making fortune, and most of others have to work low-paying jobs. And there is nothing we can do about that -- in particular, more education would no help.

The only thing we can do, is to reduce that inequality by taxing high income earners more, and taxing everyone else less.

Since everyone with wealth undoubtedly gained it from cheating the poor

I never claimed anything of the kind. Read the above in this post -- it is the free market and post-industrial economy naturally make for growing inequality, transferring the wealth from bottom to the top.

Why do you automatically assume that by working for him they're getting paid low, unfair wages?

Again, they getting low wages not because they work for someone else. It is because the post-industrial economy provides only low paying jobs for most workers. And it is not an assumption, it is a fact.

 

[tooAlive]

The only thing we can do, is to reduce that inequality by taxing high income earners more, and taxing everyone else less.

Riddle me this.

How will taxing the rich more increase wages for the poor?

If your entire argument is that too many people are forced to work low-paying jobs, then how will taxing the highest earners help the poor get better paying jobs? The rich will continue to be rich and the poor will starve even more.

You believe that somehow CEOs will refrain from paying themselves more and decide to pay their workers more instead. It doesn't work that way. They'll find a way to take more money home, and the poor will continue to be poor.

 

[tooAlive]

If there is no corresponding increase in demand for the company products, then the company would revert the expansion, or go belly up. And demand is limited -- it certainly does not increase simply because some company wants to expand.

That's not how business works.

If there's no demand for a product or service, the company wouldn't be expanding in the first place. If they decide to expand, it's because there is more demand than they are actually able to meet.

And that's the risk of being an entrepreneur.

Sometimes, you don't know whether or not there will be a strong demand for the product you're envisioning or not. If we resorted to only producing products that the public is currently demanding, there would be no innovation.

Nobody wanted electric light back in the late 1800's, heck, nobody even knew what it was. Yet one incredibly rich guy and an inventor teamed up to offer the world the magical electric light. What happened? They got even richer and the entire world uses electric light now. Thanks mainly to JP Morgan's "greed" and Thomas Edison's innovation.

Was there demand at first? None. Was there demand later? You bet.

 

[tooAlive]

Yes, and that demand is NOT getting stronger simply because more people want to make their way to the top! The demand is limited, and that limits the number of high-paying jobs that economy can support at any give time. And yes, it changes over time, but the rate of change is slow and the change itself makes for even bigger inequality.

Not true.

If you come up with an innovative new product tomorrow that everyone needs and is eager to buy, you've effectively created a new demand that didn't exist before.

You hire employees to help you expand and meet this newly found demand. You grow your company according to how much the market demands your product.