With the elections coming soon for next year, and after reading an article over the issue it sparked a reminder of this debate. Plus this might be a relaxing turn of events from the cumbersome religion v. science debates that are constantly on this section of the forum.
The current minimum income level of the highest tax bracket is $250,000. The argument is that the Department of Treasury shall create five additional tax brackets with minimum income levels of $500,000; $1,000,000; $5,000,000; $10,000,000; and $25,000,000
First The system is antiquated. By relying on an antiquated tax system the administration is missing out on a chance to redefine the top tax brackets in order to distinguish the âso-called richâ from the really rich. By so-called rich I'm referring to the professional class: doctors, lawyers, accountants ect. But the plutocratic "executive suiteâ wealthy, are in a class of their own. Because someone making $375,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as someone making $375 million a year. It's like comparing Ochocinco to Ochocino's denist. If more tax brackets were created at the top end of the scale, more revenue could be collected from the plutocratic class, without putting an extra burden on the professional class. Thereâs a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates.
This system would not only be fairer but also create additional revenue to the economy. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue. We're looking at a reverse on trickledown economics. If the plutocratic class were to take more of the weight on taxation, the lower tax brackets are not going to have to take as much weight as before, puting more towards our defecit. This in turn will not alienate the constituents but influence them positively in support for a Bill such as this. Millionaires such as Donald Trump have voiced their opposition to proposals such as this. They claim they will state hop if this were implemented state wide rather than federal based. If a bill such as this were implemented by the Department of Treasury then there would be no way for top payers to opt out of the tax by simply switching states. Not only that but it would be wiser to alienate 3% of constituents compared to 97%. There would be political advantages, too: the reform could actually make tax hikes on top earners more popular. Critics like to describe tax hikes as hurting small business, because small-business owners make up a sizable percentage of people in the top two brackets. But because small-business owners, unlike Wall Street traders, are popular on Main Street. It would be harder to mount a defense of millionaires Which may be why last year a poll found overwhelming support, from both the right and the left, for a millionaire tax. Conclusion: A Bill such as this will reflect positively on the economic status we have now and will be supported by constituents on both sides.
It's also just plain math. Brilliance is when you layer it with specific complete sentences, sprinkled with good grammar and layer with a good style and prose. Delicious pie is also a lie.
Yeah, because the workers know how to handle a business.
Hmm... I didn't see that in the original quotation thus you're injecting your own biases of education and economic classes.
Of course, under communism, the government owns literally everything.
Lets think of worst case scenario, that is government is just a minority controlled to some degree by the people. But who is controlling the businesses, who is preventing them buying out the government and running your economy down into the ground? Seems cutting down the middleman would be beneficial. The same money the higher up CEO's pay themselves for practically no work can then be invested into society or the company. Money is just wasted on them.
That raises another point how much money do top earners need? How do you justify making billions just for yourself, not the company. Is it reasonable or needed? Money is just power and isn't it unfair for someone to have that much power?
Without government regulating minimum wage, then companies can pay people who have no where else to turn, pennies. The company has no incentive to raise the paycheck, and the worker has no incentive to pour his heart out into making food when he gets paid ten cents an hour.
If workers have no incentive to work, they start to slack off and become less productive. This IS incentive for businesses to pay their workers more because production is important.
Business owners do whatever is best for their business, and if paying their workers more money to create production is best, business owners will either pay their workers more, or go out of business since they didn't do what was best for their business.
That raises another point how much money do top earners need? How do you justify making billions just for yourself, not the company. Is it reasonable or needed? Money is just power and isn't it unfair for someone to have that much power?
You know what would be nice? Instead of taking money from the rich, let's just allow people to keep the money that they work for instead of forcing them to give it to the government! Dur.
If a private business is successful and can support itself, goods from that business become cheaper. If the business can't support itself, prices rise until their competitors are able to undercut their prices. This business then goes under. We are left with businesses selling cheaper goods.
If government controls businesses, they pay for them using your tax dollars. If the business supports itself, the government takes the extra money and uses it to provide "other" businesses. In reality, government businesses do not turn a prophet, so let's not kid ourselves here. -- When government control businesses can't support themselves, instead of raising prices or going under, they take taxes from the people to support a failing business that can't turn a prophet. This leaves people with what appears to be cheaper goods, but the people also have a smaller paycheck. (Although, the goods still have rising prices so the tax burden isn't quite so high, so the people are still paying more).
Not only that, but when competitors threaten businesses the government has their hand in, politicians create laws to put competitors out of business so they can keep their prices high.
You know what would be nice? Instead of taking money from the rich, let's just allow people to keep the money that they work for instead of forcing them to give it to the government! Dur.
You know what sounds even nicer? If people get paid for what they actually do! Wow, raise minimum wage and lower extremely high wages. A majority wins and a minority can still be happy with relative wealth. Except people will not be as angry at them! Derp.
If government controls businesses, they pay for them using your tax dollars. If the business supports itself, the government takes the extra money and uses it to provide "other" businesses. In reality, government businesses do not turn a prophet, so let's not kid ourselves here. -- When government control businesses can't support themselves, instead of raising prices or going under, they take taxes from the people to support a failing business that can't turn a prophet. This leaves people with what appears to be cheaper goods, but the people also have a smaller paycheck. (Although, the goods still have rising prices so the tax burden isn't quite so high, so the people are still paying more).
You're only kidding yourself since this is what your imagining here. There are a number of positive outcomes from that situation you just outline the worst. Also people would pay more in your situation but by increasing minimum wage or all wages it balances out nicely. But I'm not kiddie myself when I say I'm not a business major so I can't outline such a system to you. By I can say with some certainly the one we have now is not the best.
Not only that, but when competitors threaten businesses the government has their hand in, politicians create laws to put competitors out of business so they can keep their prices high.
True, but that's if you don't fix the current government system. I'm not jelly with two parties. Two parties represent only minorities and destroy options. It's not a choice if you are limited between two things you don't like.
By I can say with some certainly the one we have now is not the best.
I'm not defending the current system because the government is the cause of the current problems that we have.
True, but that's if you don't fix the current government system.
It doesn't matter how "honest" a government system is. Even if everyone working for the government was honest, government run businesses that do not produce a prophet will not go under because tax dollars are being used to keep them floating (sort of like a continuous bailout). This gives these an unfair advantage over private businesses. So even under an honest government system, the businesses would not turn a prophet.
But what if the businesses did create a prophet? There's no way of being sure that the business is as effective as it could possible be. What defines private businesses as being efficient is if they create a prophet or not within a competitive market.
Again, I don't support our current market. Anyone who thinks we live in a free market is mistaken and do not understand what a free market really is.
It doesn't matter how "honest" a government system is.
I wasn't talking about honesty. If you have a stable and well run system dishonesty will not last long. Honesty is really like the increasing the speed of the computer. You only get so far in controlling people. But if lets say you make a quantum of biological computer speed and general reliability increase. Robot overlords?
But what if the businesses did create a prophet? There's no way of being sure that the business is as effective as it could possible be. What defines private businesses as being efficient is if they create a prophet or not within a competitive market.
Ok, didn't want to nit pick but by prophet you mean profit right? Seeing it three times makes me unsure now.
Yeah, but do you know that their being as effective as they could be? It's all relative, but only this system is given a chance.
Your theories are nice, like communism but in practice, they are the stupidest concepts ever. This is why workers like communism, because for once, they aren't ****ed over by the system.
Communism is no better than capitalism. Instead there is a power switch instead of CEO's paying themselves in millions the minority in charge in the governance pay themselves.
Ok, didn't want to nit pick but by prophet you mean profit right? Seeing it three times makes me unsure now.
My bad, too much talking about the prophet Muhammad.
Want to know why strikes happened back in the day? Before government regulations, workers got paid ****, worked in horrible conditions and had no benefits. Finally, enough of them said "**** it." And walked off the job. Needless to say, having your entire workforce leave en masse is bad for your buisness, so they hired strike breakers to try and beat the strikers into submission.
This would be illegal in a libertarian government.
Communism is no better than capitalism. Instead there is a power switch instead of CEO's paying themselves in millions the minority in charge in the governance pay themselves.
The difference between government controlled businesses and private businesses is that private businesses that are poorly run go out of business. Government businesses don't because your tax dollars constantly bail them out.
If bosses don't pay their workers enough money, the workers quit or they do a poor job. This hurts the company and the owner must either fire the person or pay them more money. As was mentioned, you need workers for a successful business, so any smart man would pay their workers better.
Oh? You mean the government would interfere in the free market?
It's not interfering with the "free market." Libertarian governments don't allow people to commit acts of aggression against one another (notice this doesn't preclude self-defense).
