You go Girl! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plans Bill to Boost Top Individual Tax Rate to 59%

[francoHFW]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

Not entirely true. You claim that Microsoft paid their employees... and even the janitor ended up millionaires.

You are implying that Microsoft was dishing out the cash. That is not true. Microsoft paid their employees very little at the start, and barely average wages once the company was growing considerably.

The way in which these employees became millionaires, is that Microsoft had company stock, as part of the compensation package. This is no different than Walmart's employee stock purchase program, where you can buy company stock (for I believe just $1).

The reason is because Microsoft grew dramatically as a company, this resulted in the value of that stock growing dramatically as well. Thus all those employees ended up millionaires.

But Microsoft was not paying the Janitor $100/hour to clean toilets. The Janitor simply was taking advantage of the company stock compensation, when the company was growing.

Walmart, and Microsoft, are treating their employees identically. The only difference is, Microsoft grew dramatically, and Walmart is not.

The irony of this conversation is that if Walmart did grow dramatically, you people on the left, would be screaming and throwing a hissy fit.... and we know this because every time Walmart gets larger, you protest it.

And here's the problem with you complaining about wealthy people.

Do you know what would happened, if the Walton heirs were poor? Nothing.

How many people gain something, when a wealthy person loses money? Zero.

Do remember back in 2008, when the Walton's lost a huge portion of their wealth when the stock market crash? I remember this. You know how many people, woke up the next day with a new car, because the Walton's lost money? None.

View attachment 290196

From 2007 to 2009, the richest 400 people in this country, collectively lost half a Trillion dollars. Almost 1/4th their total net worth.

Remember all those Americans that woke up the next morning, with new homes, new cars, and so on? No? Me neither.

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

Pure baloney, super duper. after 35 years of give away to the rich and screwing everyone else, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere and our infrastructure is falling apart. Great job! Education and training has never been more expensive and we have the worst perks of any citizens in the modern world. All to save the greedy idiot GOP rich and giant corporations from paying their fair share. Only brainwashed functional GOP moron voters make this possible....

 

[The Purge]

Again the commie democrats feel they are entitled to you money more than you are. Why does anyone feel that the government should get a bigger percentage of your income than you. Anyone that is for this has shit for brains

How is the government getting a bigger percentage than you?

I guess you had a hard time in math.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plans Bill to Boost Top Individual Tax Rate to 59%
What part of 59% do you not understand?
The government gets 59% of your pay check and you get the remaining 41%

And again, you don't make enough monies to be taxed at that rate. IT DOESN'T EFFECT/AFFECT YOU AND IT NEVER WILL. What it does do is tax the wealthy at the same effective (actual rate) as you.

1%....and we thought he was in the top 1% but seems he is in the bottom 1%...ROTFLMFAO!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you know this how...........

Understanding Percentages.

If you make 100K per year. Another makes 10 Million per year.
You spend money in various ways,
taxes, entertainment, food and shelter, for example essentials and non-essentials.

Of course someone making 10 million per year will spend more.
But as a percentage of money spent, not so much.

How much do you spend? Are we talking essentials or non-essentials?

A person making 100k might, if they are lucky, might save 10k, depending on family situation.
That means they spend 90K, or they spent 90% of their earnings.

A person making 10Million, do you really think they spend at the same rate? Meaning they would spend 9 Million!

Assumptions.

It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times "I don't participate in recessions." Well, Rush doesn't have to. Outside of how his investments are doing, he's not affected by recessions or slow downs. If he wants to buy a new car and a new set of golf clubs, it doesn't matter if it's today or 2008. He's got his pay coming to him and it's not going to stop.

It's the people who are recession proof that keep us out of a depression. If you work in the garbage disposal industry, recession proof. If you are a medical provider, recession proof. Food industry, recession proof.

All the people who are recession proof don't stop spending. In fact because of sales, they may send even more.

What keeps us going are people spending, not according to a percentage of what they make, but in dollars and cents. Wealthy people generally spend more because they have more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How would it prevent them from doing that? What's government going to do, force industry into a price freeze for their products or services? Perhaps create law that they must provide wage increases even if they no longer have the resources to provide for those increases? Please walk me through the dynamics of that.

Well....let’s start by returning tax rates on the wealthy to where they were before we started this supply side lunacy

We also need to move away from just income tax. The super wealthy will take very little income. They are compensated through stock options and other dodges that grow wealth but don’t count as income

I’d like to see a minimal sales tax on all stock and real estate transactions. This way, when they move their money around, they are taxed on it

Also tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income taxes

You guys still don't get that the wealthy, with their huge investments, are what help this country. It is why 50% have money in the stock markets. Pensions are paid through investments in the markets. When the stock market goes down, everything goes down. The markets will go way down if you discourage investment. That is a no brainer. You guys are fighting for the 50% of people who have nothing in the market, have little understanding of economics and have very little if anything to lose from any of these leftist policies because they don't have any skin in the game...they don't pay income or capitial gains taxes.

Markets are now the wealthy obtain wealth without being required to pay taxes. Put a small fee on each transaction. Brokers do it, why not the government.

That 50 percent of the population has 2/10 of a percent of the wealth. They are the ones working their whole lives for little gain. They are the ones generating wealth but receiving very little

You pay taxes on the money you make in the market, but you don't have to pay those taxes until you sell your stock. You could have Amazon for ten years, made a million dollars, and not pay a dime in taxes. But your realized profit will be taxed after you sell your stock, or if you pass away and it's liquidated to your family.

Very true
You can sit on that money indefinitely. Now, under Trump, you don’t have to pay inheritance tax when you pass it on.

That is why I want a fee on each transaction

Let's look at that:

Mr. Richy rich passes away and is worth 10 million dollars. He leaves everything to his family which consists of three children and seven grandchildren. Each person gets one million dollars. You can't buy a baseball team with that kind of money, but you're doing okay. For the grandchildren, it's a great start that will provide them with a nice house, and perhaps a good college education with a nice start of a retirement fund.

Left to Democrats, each heir would get 500K. The government would get 5 million.

My niece and nephew are heirs to a wealthy uncle who passed away a little over a year ago. While he had a lot of money, he also divided it out between many family members. He and his late wife had no children of their own. But he had two brothers and a lot of nephews and nieces.

While the assets are not totally liquidated just yet, my nephew is still working. My niece is still waiting tables in Florida, his two brothers are still working, and that's under the current inheritance tax structure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you made 10 million a year, and the commies instituted this tax plan, that's the last year you'd make 10 mil. You'd quit investing your money and taking the risks to make that kind of profit.

That is NOT true at all.
100% Fiction.

So if I got taxed at a higher rate I would quit making money to avoid paying taxes.
I don't think you understand how the tax tables work.

Making money isn't free. It takes a lot of risks no matter how you make it unless you're a billionaire and can have virtually safe investments and smaller returns.

Why would I invest money if I'm only going to get 30% of what I created? That would be stupid. If you have a lot of money tied up in investments, and we have a recession like the last one, you lost millions of dollars. Now that may come back in time, but you may also have lost everything depending on what your investments were.

So now because of this tax, I can no longer make my 10 million a year. I'll make 8 instead, and do much better after taxes.

 

[rightwinger]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

Not entirely true. You claim that Microsoft paid their employees... and even the janitor ended up millionaires.

You are implying that Microsoft was dishing out the cash. That is not true. Microsoft paid their employees very little at the start, and barely average wages once the company was growing considerably.

The way in which these employees became millionaires, is that Microsoft had company stock, as part of the compensation package. This is no different than Walmart's employee stock purchase program, where you can buy company stock (for I believe just $1).

The reason is because Microsoft grew dramatically as a company, this resulted in the value of that stock growing dramatically as well. Thus all those employees ended up millionaires.

But Microsoft was not paying the Janitor $100/hour to clean toilets. The Janitor simply was taking advantage of the company stock compensation, when the company was growing.

Walmart, and Microsoft, are treating their employees identically. The only difference is, Microsoft grew dramatically, and Walmart is not.

The irony of this conversation is that if Walmart did grow dramatically, you people on the left, would be screaming and throwing a hissy fit.... and we know this because every time Walmart gets larger, you protest it.

And here's the problem with you complaining about wealthy people.

Do you know what would happened, if the Walton heirs were poor? Nothing.

How many people gain something, when a wealthy person loses money? Zero.

Do remember back in 2008, when the Walton's lost a huge portion of their wealth when the stock market crash? I remember this. You know how many people, woke up the next day with a new car, because the Walton's lost money? None.

View attachment 290196

From 2007 to 2009, the richest 400 people in this country, collectively lost half a Trillion dollars. Almost 1/4th their total net worth.

Remember all those Americans that woke up the next morning, with new homes, new cars, and so on? No? Me neither.

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

They lost their investments meaning they lost value

Now, what happens if the loss goes to tax revenue dedicated to healthcare, education, infrastructure?

All society benefits

 

[rightwinger]

People with the financial IQ's to create and maintain billion dollar nest eggs, they don't get there by hoarding their money away in a vault. The only time the money of a super wealthy individual lays dormant is if said individual doesn't see any opportunity to turn that money into more money. Want the rich to invest more? Stop disincentivizing investment.

Waltons, Heirs of WalMart Founder. All worth 50+ Billion.
Rob , Alice , Jim each over 70 years old and living in mansions.
These people pay most of their employees a minimum wages, and many have to work multiple jobs.
This is NOT ok.

Microsoft paid their employees.
Even the Janitors that started out with Microsoft are millionaires today.
This is what Capitalism is or should be.
Allen and Gates could have paid the Janitors minimum wages, but they didn't, and
they still were the richest men in the world.

Not entirely true. You claim that Microsoft paid their employees... and even the janitor ended up millionaires.

You are implying that Microsoft was dishing out the cash. That is not true. Microsoft paid their employees very little at the start, and barely average wages once the company was growing considerably.

The way in which these employees became millionaires, is that Microsoft had company stock, as part of the compensation package. This is no different than Walmart's employee stock purchase program, where you can buy company stock (for I believe just $1).

The reason is because Microsoft grew dramatically as a company, this resulted in the value of that stock growing dramatically as well. Thus all those employees ended up millionaires.

But Microsoft was not paying the Janitor $100/hour to clean toilets. The Janitor simply was taking advantage of the company stock compensation, when the company was growing.

Walmart, and Microsoft, are treating their employees identically. The only difference is, Microsoft grew dramatically, and Walmart is not.

The irony of this conversation is that if Walmart did grow dramatically, you people on the left, would be screaming and throwing a hissy fit.... and we know this because every time Walmart gets larger, you protest it.

And here's the problem with you complaining about wealthy people.

Do you know what would happened, if the Walton heirs were poor? Nothing.

How many people gain something, when a wealthy person loses money? Zero.

Do remember back in 2008, when the Walton's lost a huge portion of their wealth when the stock market crash? I remember this. You know how many people, woke up the next day with a new car, because the Walton's lost money? None.

View attachment 290196

From 2007 to 2009, the richest 400 people in this country, collectively lost half a Trillion dollars. Almost 1/4th their total net worth.

Remember all those Americans that woke up the next morning, with new homes, new cars, and so on? No? Me neither.

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

Pure baloney, super duper. after 35 years of give away to the rich and screwing everyone else, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere and our infrastructure is falling apart. Great job! Education and training has never been more expensive and we have the worst perks of any citizens in the modern world. All to save the greedy idiot GOP rich and giant corporations from paying their fair share. Only brainwashed functional GOP moron voters make this possible....

We need to stop being afraid to hurt the feelings of the wealthy
They can take it
Working Americans have been taking it for 35 years and making due with less. I’m sure our wealthiest can survive in that scenario

 

[Winco]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

 

[Desperado]

The bottom line is that the government should never be entitled to 50% or more of someone's assets. I do not care how rich or how poor you are. This government does not deserve a cut of that size. Reduce spending first. Stop giving away money in the form of military and foreign aid

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

Then why don't you open up Company C and see how long you stay in business.

 

[Winco]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

Then why don't you open up Company C and see how long you stay in business.

huh?

Are you saying Plan C is terrible.
Owner makes $5,000,000 per year.
Seems pretty stable to me, I'm surely confused about your lack of good business sense.

 

[basquebromance]

you cant have both socialism and america. its gonna be either the end of socialist democrats or the end of america.

i chose america, my friends.

AOC wants the Sovietification of America!

 

[Winco]

So now because of this tax, I can no longer make my 10 million a year. I'll make 8 instead, and do much better after taxes.

Clearly you don't understand the tax tables.
You would in fact take home more money by making 10 Million than you would making 8 Million.
Please explain how making 2 Million more would be a worse case than making 8 Million, Tax wise.
I know what you are going to try to claim, and you will be wrong.

Ready, Set, GO!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So now because of this tax, I can no longer make my 10 million a year. I'll make 8 instead, and do much better after taxes.

Clearly you don't understand the tax tables.
You would in fact take home more money by making 10 Million than you would making 8 Million.
Please explain how making 2 Million more would be a worse case than making 8 Million, Tax wise.
I know what you are going to try to claim, and you will be wrong.

Ready, Set, GO!

Isn't that Bug Eyes plan, a 70% tax on ten million or more? I didn't see anything in the OP about a progressive plan, just an attack on the 10 million group.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if wealthy people losing their wealth helps NO ONE........ then why do you care? You know why? Greed, and Envy. That's the reason you care. It doesn't help anyone, for the Walton's to be poor.

You know this. You know it would help no one. The reason you care how much a wealthy person has, is because if you can't have it, then darn it no one should.

That's it. An entire ideology of greed and envy.

What a bunch of nonsense.
I want more Americans to be successful.

Business plan A with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 8 million, while paying the average worker $40,000 for that year.

Business plan B with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 6 million, while paying the average worker $80,000 for that year.

Business plan C with One Owner:
Company profits 10 Million a year.
Company has 50 employees, Owner takes 5 million, while paying the average worker $100,000 for that year.

I see Company C as a very successful Business, an Owner making Millions per year, and workers that are in the upper middle class.
I see Company A as a very successful Business, and Owner making Millions per year, and workers making millions for the owner while themselves making less than a median salary Nationwide.

Tell me you support business Plan C and can agree that Business Plan A's owner has a Greedy and Uncaring attitude for his/her workers.​

Then why don't you open up Company C and see how long you stay in business.

huh?

Are you saying Plan C is terrible.
Owner makes $5,000,000 per year.
Seems pretty stable to me, I'm surely confused about your lack of good business sense.

My business sense is superior to yours. HTF do you expect a business to pay that kind of money to employees and stay in competition with domestic and overseas products?

You and I both have a widget factory. You pay your employees 100K a year. I pay mine 40K a year. Now we go to sell our widgets, and nobody is buying yours because they are too expensive. I dominate the market and put you out of business.

 

[Andylusion]

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Hitler would have been so proud of you.

If we took all the poor in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would they never be missed, it would benefit society greatly.

If we took all the rich in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country would collapse.

Next time you need a job, ask a homeless man for one.

Hitler was funded by the private companies. He maintained market economy. No idea where you have your nonsense from.
And without the rich the poor would not be poor. People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

Hold on. I'll argue with you about your opinion, but this history rewriting, no....

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton

Ludwig Von Mises wrote all the way back in the 1950s..... the National Socialism, was in fact socialism. The Nazis were not capitalist free-market people.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
​

Yeah, it was more "capitalist" than the Russian version, where they just killed everyone and stole their stuff.

But leaving the "shop managers" in place, is about as close to free-market capitalism as it got. The state controlled everything. They controlled what you produced, what prices you charged, and what people got paid.... EVERYTHING. There's a famous (if questionable) statement by Hitler himself, where he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter to me if you own the cow.... as long as I own you".

Meaning, yeah on paper you own that manufacturing plant... but I'm telling you what you are going to manufacturer, and what price you'll charge, and who you'll employ, and so on.

And by the way, this is why German Socialism was superior to Russian Socialism. This is why the Russians were handing out rifles to every 5th soldier during the deployment. I told you in the other post, how terrible it is for the people with the knowledge and skills to leave the country.

The Russians killed all the people who knew out to make stuff work. That's why their entire economy imploded. While the German economy was clearly damaged by their socialistic controls, they didn't kill the people who knew how to make the businesses in the country run. They controlled them, yes, and that was harmful, but not nearly as bad as simply killing them all off like the Russians did.

But this mindless stupidity being puked out of universities today, that Hitler had a free-market capitalist economy.... I don't blame you for thinking that given the number of idiots in universities who have spouted this crap... but is crap. The people who were there, like Mises, who documented how the Nazis worked.... it wasn't free-market capitalism.... any more than me putting a gun to your head, and telling you to work.... is really voluntary exchange. BULL CRAP.

And without the rich the poor would not be poor.

Again... the rich left Cuba, and they left Venezuela, and they left N.Korea.

The people there..... are super freakin poor. More poor, than anyone here in the US. The poorest of the poor in the US, I don't see them eating grass like N.Korea. I don't see families, without mental illness, working a job.... and living in a refrigerator box, like they do in Cuba. There was a documentary that came out some years ago, where people were going to University to get a degree.... in order to be a waiter at a restaurant in Cuba.

No rich..... extremely extremely poor.

People are poor in the US because they get crappy jobs. There is no need for crappy jobs.

If they didn't have crappy job, they would have no jobs.

Again, Cuba, Venezuela, N.Korea.... so on... Not having crappy jobs, doesn't mean that you'll magically have a good job.

That's a strange concept at face value. You are implying.... that if you eliminate crappy jobs, that people without skills, will either A: Magically get skills...... Or B: that jobs that require skills, will simply hire people without them..... because there are no crappy jobs, and so they hire people without skills.

This is a stupid ideology. If I run an auto repair bay..... I'm not hiring someone who can't fix a car, just because Walmart and McDonald's no longer exist.

If I need my water heater replaced, I'm not hiring someone who can't replace one.... just because there are no crappy jobs they can work.

The reason people get crappy jobs, is because they have crappy skills. It's not like all these people have degrees in nuclear physics, and are working at Wendy's because it..... well it exists.... and they are all just waiting for you to come along and ban crappy jobs, and then they'll all work NASA or SpaceX or something.

All these Ph.Ds all flipping burgers over, just waiting for the day you'll be elected and ban Wendy's, so they can go get their Quantum Physics job.

It's not happening dude. The reason people work at Wendy's is because they are not qualified to work elsewhere. You eliminating those jobs, doesn't make them qualified elsewhere. So you get rid of no-skill jobs, just means that no-skill people will be unemployed.

Yeah yeah, you capitalism guys insist on that because evil is qual to socialism. But National Socialism is not regular socialism and therefor not comparable. All the companies you know, Messerschmitt, Mercedes, Auto Union, ect were pricately owned. You are just forming your own reality like idiots. I am long enough here and I can say that because it is true.

Right....... ok... so I'm going place my bets on the 50 years plus of research on how the Nazi economy actually worked, research done by world renowned economists and historians..... over the words of random internet poster.

So if you want to play the appeal to authority game.... I gotta let you know, that evidence from people like Mises, verses "Bleipriester" on authority... you lose that game.

Moreover, I just posted an article about how "they were privately owned" only in word, but not in practice. So repeating that they were privately owned, when I already said openly that in practice the government controlled every aspect of the companies..... doesn't make your point any more relevant.

Owning something on paper, doesn't matter, if I can control every single aspect of your life. The whole point of private ownership, is that you can do with your stuff, whatever you want. Because.... you own it.

If I can control when you drive your car, how far you can drive it, what places you can drive it to, and control who is allowed in your car.... do you really own the car? Answer..... No. You don't.

This doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept, so I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over it. You might give your son, a room to sleep in.... but do they own that room? No. Can you control what they do in that room? Yes. They don't own it.

Similarly, businesses in German might have been their private property on paper.... but the Nazi controlled everything that you did. Who hired, how much you paid, what product you made, where you bought supplies from, and who you sold products to. Yes, on paper, I get it.... it was privately owned on paper. In reality, the Nazis controlled nearly everything.

Now you can keep lying to yourself, in the face of 50 years of research to the contrary, but that just makes you an idiot. Time to grow up..... seriously.

 

[Winco]

You and I both have a widget factory. You pay your employees 100K a year. I pay mine 40K a year.

Did you miss the part about the word "Profit"

Now we go to sell our widgets, and nobody is buying yours because they are too expensive. I dominate the market and put you out of business.

When I mentioned the word "Profit", you must understand that our widgets have already been sold and we have Already paid our taxes.

Don't try to put variables that don't exist into the equation.

 

[Andylusion]

That's our point though. Every time you try and tax the rich, you end up taxing the poor. So *YOU* don't scream theft, when *YOU* end up paying the bill.

Look if that is true (it isn´t), we don´t need the rich anymore. We tax the poor anyway, if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated. But I think that the whole story is a hoax. You know US law? You have to pay up anyway, no matter where you got to. They´d have to give up on their citizenship. Also, not every rich is this unpatriotic.

But it is true. It's a statistical, historical fact.

View attachment 290063
The effective tax rate on the top 1%, isn't much different today, than it was in the 70s or 50s, when tax rates were double what they are today.

What that means is that the share of the tax burden has fallen more on the poor, than the rich, in the past.

View attachment 290064

The poorest 50% of tax payers (that would include the middle class, are paying less of the tax burden today, than they did in the 1970s with the 70% top marginal rate. Equally the top 1% are paying more of the tax burden today, than they did when the top marginal rate was 70%.

This isn't theory.... it is flat out statistical, undeniable, documented fact.

if rich refuse to pay up they should leave indeed, their money should be confiscated.

Again... that has been tried. They tried it in Venezuela. The rich packed up and left, and the government confiscated their wealth.

What you people don't seem to understand, is that it is the rich people themselves, that know how to make assets have value. That is in fact, exactly why they are wealthy.

Farms that produced enough food to feed the country, and export the surplus food.... were confiscated. The wealthy farm owners left the country. The farms stopped producing food, because shockingly peasants and poor people... don't know how to farm, and nether do the government bureaucrats.

Now they have mass starvation. What makes the assets have value is that someone knows how to make them produce value. You ditch the people who have the money and knowledge to make it work, and it doesn't work. A highly valuable farm, is now worthless.

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

You seem to be operating under the impression that wealth is static. Wealth is not static.

I worked at a Cadillac dealer. We had a poor guy that had been given a car. He wasn't super poor, but he didn't earn enough to own a Cadillac. In order to save money, he gave the car to a no-name mechanic shop, which pulled the motor apart (it needed a timing belt), and when they did that, they broke the engine block.

Expensive car, now a junk yard master piece. The value of the car changed. It wasn't worth, what it was before, when it was owned and could be maintained by a wealthy person.

This idea that you are just going to confiscate their stuff, and keep the wealth... that's not how the world works.

When Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil fields that Exxon was developing, it didn't make the government wealthy... it made the oil fields worthless. The government didn't have the equipment, nor the expertise to develop those oil fields... so they simply didn't get developed.

You know how much an oil field you can't pump oil from, is worth? Nothing.

And here's the thing.... did it hurt Exxon? In the short term, yes because they lost the money they put into those oil fields... .but in the long term it didn't hurt Exxon at all. They simply bought new equipment, and sent their skilled and knowledgeable people elsewhere in the world, and made money there, and developed oil fields there, and paid taxes in those countries, instead of Venezuela.

In the long term, Venezuela lost everything, and Exxon gained, just elsewhere.

Driving out these people, is going to be a net loss to everyone, except for the rich people.

Go back to Cuba even. The wealthy sugar plantations owners were driven out. The result wasn't that they got rich off the sugar fields. In fact, all the harvests declined after that, and Cuba became impoverished.

Meanwhile the wealthy plantation owners, simply left the country, and started businesses elsewhere, and most became wealthy again... just now they didn't benefit the poor Cubans left behind.

Your system, doesn't work. Never has in the past, and never will in the future.

That doesn´t speak in favor of the rich. It only proofs that they sponge up all the money.

If the rich stayed in Venezuela, and the government didn't socialize the food market, they would still be producing enough food to feed their people, and export to the rest of South American, just like they did before Hugo Chavez and Maduro screwed everything up.

Honestly, until you show me even one country that has lots of jobs and wealth... with zero rich people.... then yeah I think it does speak in favor of the rich.

Do tell.... how many impoverished beggars have you gotten a job from? List them all. I'd love to know.

Neither Chavez nor Maduro socialized the food market. Another idiocy by the capitalist guys. Majority of the food economy in Venezula is owened by the capitalists that now play opposition.
Example: Supermarkets

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (charitable)


Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

In Venezuela, Land Redistribution Program Backfires

This isn't up for debate. This is fact. You need to stop being stupid, and grow up a bit.

 

[Theowl32]

The democrat party is stumbling toward socialism on a massive scale

But they will need total control of congress and the white house to make it happen

And they are far from that

They will use activist judges, lawyers, and or force to get it done.

You know how we will respond?

We won't, just like history has shown.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You and I both have a widget factory. You pay your employees 100K a year. I pay mine 40K a year.

Did you miss the part about the word "Profit"

Now we go to sell our widgets, and nobody is buying yours because they are too expensive. I dominate the market and put you out of business.

When I mentioned the word "Profit", you must understand that our widgets have already been sold and we have Already paid our taxes.

Don't try to put variables that don't exist into the equation.

If you have a small company you're not making 5 mil a year in the first place. A business owner gets a paycheck just like his employees. Funds are secured to make the business operate through thick and thin.

My employer doesn't pay us the best in the business, but when the recession hit, our competitors went out of business while we survived. For much of it, he even promised us a 40 hour check every week whether there was work or not. My employer did not pocket the money during good times. He got a paycheck like everybody else, and kept most of the funds in the company.

Businesses don't open up to provide good jobs and wages. Businesses open up to sell products or services. Nobody is going to save the money, invest it, only to end up making as much as his or her employees. If you want to make as much as your employees, you would just get a job as a worker.