I just saw the comment regarding punching my wife.

What the fuck man. What the fuck.

10/3/2018 8:30:32 PM

Quote :

"He just makes the mistake of assuming socialism is going reduce the quality of his lifestyle when he's not exactly living it up as it is."

Please tell me this was typed as a joke.

10/3/2018 8:58:04 PM

^^ yeah that is pretty fucked up

10/3/2018 8:58:36 PM

Quote :

"But is really taxing someone at 94% fair? How is it right to tell someone they can only keep 6% of their income?"

We created money to be a proxy for resources to make it easy for people to exchange labor for food/housing.

We very early in created laws to make sure that people didn’t game this resource allocation system so we could make sure everyone had enough resources

A high marginal rate deters people from hoarding society’s resources, instead using their position of power to hopefully keep those resources circulating to people who might need it more.

It was never the intention when we created money for people like trump and his dad to literally lie and cheat to steal food and housing both directly and indirectly from the working class.

Was Fred industrious and clever to figure out how to capitalize on federal loan programs to become wealthy? Sure. Does this mean he deserves to hoard wealth and resources for himself and his family? Nope.

We as a society have lost track of what the purpose of economics is. It’s not to create loot boxes of money for people to figure out how to game the system to unlock. It was meant to help us allocate resources in a self-adapting way to make sure everyone had the necessities of life.

10/3/2018 10:19:04 PM

Quote :

" just saw the comment regarding punching my wife. What the fuck man. What the fuck."

I thought we were all being satirical/hyperbolic since it's TWW and this a thread about Donald Trump. I meant what I said about the gravy train with free childcare/iphones though

10/3/2018 10:30:37 PM

Quote :

"But is really taxing someone at 94% fair? How is it right to tell someone they can only keep 6% of their income?"

You do realize that the 94% doesn't apply to the entire income, right? Like, if the 94% only applies to incomes over $200,000 and you're making $205,000, only the $5000 is taxed at 94%. The rest is in a lower bracket and taxed accordingly.

10/3/2018 10:54:12 PM

Yes.

10/3/2018 11:06:07 PM

When you take water from a well, once the bucket is full, any water you try to add spills over the side (100% marginal tax rate).

If you were in a village, and everyone every day came to fill up their buckets to take back home, what would you do if someone had a bucket that was 200x bigger than every else's? Is it fair for them to just fill their bucket up in the community well like nothing's wrong?

Would you expect people with regular buckets to argue that it's not fair to cap how much they fill their ginormous bucket up, since they put the work in to build that bucket and haul it all the way to the well?

Especially when they're taking so much water from the well, people with regular buckets might not be able to fill theirs all the way?

10/3/2018 11:25:46 PM

I hate metaphors, so much that I stop reading when I spot the metaphorical windup.

Let your arguments stand on their own.

[Edited on October 3, 2018 at 11:58 PM. Reason : They're a tool of the lazy, at best.]

10/3/2018 11:53:58 PM

Quote :

"I thought we were all being satirical/hyperbolic since it's TWW and this a thread about Donald Trump"

Naw man.

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 12:02 AM. Reason : I'm obviously no rjrumple cheerleader but that was way over the line.]

10/3/2018 11:59:30 PM

^^Holy shit you are a condescending prick. FOH with that

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 7:15 AM. Reason : No]

10/4/2018 7:14:40 AM

I’m for higher marginal rates on the wealthy but it’s not reasonable to consider 94%, or even 75%. I’d say topping out at mid-40s is appropriate because an individual still gets more than half.

The former is unreasonable because to a degree I have very little control over my income. I work hard, yes, with long hours and stress, and my company decides how much I make. I believe I’ll be rewarded for my efforts so I put in effort and a smile, even when I don’t want to. If marginal rates hit the 90s there would be little advantage or excitement when my company promoted me to director or VP because I’m not getting much more out of it. Definitely not on an hourly basis and not compensated for the extra stress. This doesn’t seem fair to the individual who is willing to donate their time for additional wealth and better family security. In the event I turned down those promotions or extra cash, the company isn’t going to start handing it to the masses. It’ll stay with the company as retained earnings, maybe go to shareholders as dividends, but definitely not back to the working class.

I’m not sure what some of you think but one person making less doesn’t mean that others make more. There are lots of contributing factors to money supply and regardless if people like it or not the wealthy are often responsible for us all having more based on their monetary drive. Thy push for innovation and advancements and operational efficiencies that change economies and help them grow. Placing heavily punitive measures for wealth consumption adversely impacts the motivation to develop these things and sets us all back.

No one benefits from absurdly high tax rates and no class will see higher wages because another class makes less. It’s just not how any of this works.

10/4/2018 7:42:17 AM

Quote :

"Thy push for innovation and advancements and operational efficiencies that change economies and help them grow. Placing heavily punitive measures for wealth consumption adversely impacts the motivation to develop these things and sets us all back. "

We had 70+% marginal tax rates throughout the entire middle of the 20th century. Our economy was as dynamic, innovative, and strong as its ever been through that period.

The evidence suggests there are far more important factors driving economic innovation than low tax rates.

10/4/2018 8:01:45 AM

The economy grew at the rate it did during those period because the United States was a sole engine of growth. In a global economy, heavily invested areas slow as investments move to areas of higher rents, meaning US economic growth on par or below with previous periods is a net gain in real terms due to the gradually diminishing return toward global equilibrium. The factors in play for growth in the modern age are largely total factor productivity. This comes from changes in the capital structure to make labor more productive. Realistically, this means innovative technologies and optimizing use of idle resources. The ability to profit from innovating such items is what delivers them to market. Tax rates beyond a certain threshold serve to reduce that motivation, diminish innovation, and thus reduce the TFP that keeps modern growth in relative parity with the US history.

10/4/2018 8:59:09 AM

Quote :

"If marginal rates hit the 90s there would be little advantage or excitement when my company promoted me to director or VP because I’m not getting much more out of it."

You're expecting to make $2.5 million annually?

10/4/2018 9:35:32 AM

I want to work where a director makes millions of dollars.

10/4/2018 9:41:02 AM

Quote :

"This is a very important time in our country. Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!"

Haha, imagine being Donald Trump and tweeting this. And then imagine someone believing he means it.

This country is dumb.

10/4/2018 9:56:45 AM

^^ and ^3

My expectation of my own earnings has no bearing on how I view economic policy. My views are based on sound principles of how people are motivated and how lives benefit from innovation.

Reference to my own experiences are in response to Cabbage and his preference for those tax rates to be applied at $200k.

I’m a pretty liberal person, haven’t voted for a republican since Bush 43rd’s first term, but I in no way believe it makes either economic sense nor is reasonably justified to take >49% of an individuals income at any rate of earnings.

10/4/2018 11:28:26 AM

fuck that, eat the rich

10/4/2018 11:30:19 AM

Quote :

"Reference to my own experiences are in response to Cabbage and his preference for those tax rates to be applied at $200k. "

FYI this is in reference to tax levels in the early-mid 1900s where the current equivalent would be $2.5 million. Why should certain people be allowed to hoard this much wealth per year when others are starving?

As far as the innovation question: capitalists do not innovate. Workers do. Scientists, engineers, etc. Capitalists only provide the means to do so. And in fact, there are many, many scientists and engineers who would love to innovate, but due to the various limitations of capitalism, are unable to do so.

Please watch this, it's 5 minutes long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uylnpj6zLWw

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2018 11:48:13 AM

Jeff Bezos has $150 billion dollars whole treating/paying his workers like shit and strong arming towns to evade taxes. Dude is so rich he is funding space travel bc he literally can think of anything else to do with his money.

Tax the fuck out of these guys

10/4/2018 11:56:59 AM

^^If you innovate for IBM, and happen to patent something, IBM owns that patent. I'm sure it is that way with many research facilities across the country.

10/4/2018 11:59:57 AM

^^While I agree, he basically just forced everyone else to raise the minimum wage to $15, so he’s not a complete POS



[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 12:02 PM. Reason : Alexa, raise the minimum wage to $15 plz]

10/4/2018 12:01:06 PM

Quote :

"The economy grew at the rate it did during those period because the United States was a sole engine of growth. "

You could almost say . . . .

Quote :

"there are far more important factors driving economic innovation/growth than low tax rates."

The same is true today. So far as I know, Tax rates have NEVER been shown to correlate to GDP or GDP growth.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2017/10/17/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-is-there-really-a-correlation/#ecb21707c3ea

https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/

Quote :

"The factors in play for growth in the modern age are largely total factor productivity."

I'd argue total factor productivity is a significant factor in determining corporate profit, not economic growth. This is Supply-side voodoo. DEMAND is the most significant factor in determining economic growth. Look at the evidence - corporate profits as a % of GDP are pretty close to all time highs over the past 5 years, yet our economy is growing at a pretty middling rate. Your model predicts that our economy should be sky-rocketing (as the GOP claimed when they cut the corporate tax rate).



In short, there are FAR more important factors than tax rates that determine economic growth, like DEMAND. How can we increase demand in the economy? By redistributing taxes from areas of the economy with a low propensity to consume to areas where there is pent-up demand and a high propensity to consume.

10/4/2018 12:02:11 PM

Quote :

"I’m a pretty liberal person, haven’t voted for a republican since Bush 43rd’s first term, but I in no way believe it makes either economic sense nor is reasonably justified to take >49% of an individuals income at any rate of earnings."

So you're concerned about money you've actually worked for, fair point.

What about capital gains or other ways that rich people tend to stay or become even more rich, when they're not actually doing any work to earn that income? I'm not up to speed on capital gains tax and the like, so I'm not voicing an opinion here.

10/4/2018 12:02:20 PM

Quote :

"^^While I agree, he basically just forced everyone else to raise the minimum wage to $15, so he’s not a complete POS"

Nah still a POS, he did it by eliminating bonuses and stock options.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/03/amazon-offsetting-pay-rise-by-removing-bonuses-union-says

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2018 12:03:07 PM

^ ah, didn’t know that. Urite.

10/4/2018 12:18:11 PM

But how many people in the US are at the Bezos level of wealth? Not many. Bezos, Tim Cook, Buffett, who else?

What about the argument that higher taxes will mostly hurt small business owners, where they might make a lot on paper but most of that money goes back into the company? I realize that's a GOP talking point. I guess it is up to the owner to only include profits when filing taxes? I've never been a small business owner so I have no idea how that works.

10/4/2018 12:22:08 PM

Quote :

"I in no way believe it makes either economic sense nor is reasonably justified to take >49% of an individuals income at any rate of earnings."

Do you believe it makes sense for executive compensation to be 100-200-300x more than average worker pay?

10/4/2018 12:31:12 PM

^^
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-billionaires-world-billionaires-2017-10

560+ billionaires in the US. Wonder how many are in the hundreds of millions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/20/does-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-hurt-small-businesses/?utm_term=.51f1bd4e84e0

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2018 12:32:19 PM

Quote :

", he basically just forced everyone else to raise the minimum wage to $15, "

In addition to aduoltswims point, caving to political pressure is better than not, in this case, but I wouldn't say it changes my opinion of him and his ilk too much. He'll still overwork his employees and sacrifice their health, used contractors to avoid paying benefits, and evade taxes at every turn.

10/4/2018 12:59:32 PM

I’m on my phone, so it’s time prohibitive for me to quote and carrot, so I’ll do my best to address each retort and apologize if I forget some.

Yes, adult swim I do believe people should be allowed to have that much cash. If you have earned the cash, or if someone else before you’ve sacrificed to unset cash, there is no reason why we should put limits on the amount of money that people can earn or process. People should be allowed to do with their money what do you wish and that includes pass it along to family members or donate to charities. This should be an individual choice based on their moral conscience and should not be legislated. Also, I am not clear on your comment that capitalists do not innovate. Capitalism does draw innovation by pursuit of wealth. The scientist and engineers you mention, some of them are leaders of the top companies such as Facebook or Google. Are you saying that Zuckerberg is not a capitalist or did he stop being an engineer and become a capitalist instantly once the company became valued?

Turd, quoting your comment regarding our other factors is not relevant here. I was pointing out that there was a single primary factor during the time period you mentioned and that is a factor which cannot be replicated at this time nor in the foreseeable future. It was a single factor of a distinct period not something that could be extrapolated to today in order to suggest that there are several factors that contribute. Regarding your demand comment, it is easy to break that one down. Demand is not the primary driver as you rreference, because it is impossible to demand things that do not exist. While I agree that demand does increase economic growth through spending, the demand of goods originates with the innovation of tthose goods or services. It is the capitalism that we have discussed that drives that innovation. Demand is a scion of capitalism. While I agree that TFT does drive corporate profits, those profits go into new projects for new products and innovation, they also go to dividends, and they go to providing jobs for individuals based on the demand for this new innovation that we have discussed.

Regarding the questions around capital gains and excepted pay, yes I believe that capital gains are OK because in many ways they are rewards for people who invest wisely. For example, I am invest in many stocks and I myself will have capital gains but I could just as easily spend all of my money. Attacking capital gains is a disincentive for people to save and manage your money wisely. There is no need to have punitive measures for individual fiscal responsibility.

I have no thoughts one way or the other around executive pay other than the fact that it should be limited at the discretion of the organization, it’s board, and it shareholders, rather than legislating it. Once you get into legislating how much income an individual can make you begin limiting how much of the American dream they can pursue. If the dream is that you can achieve anything, I don’t believe in putting a limit on that dream. And someone mentioned something about Individuals going hungry while others make a lot. There are several ways to address that, but taxation add aggressive rates in the 90th percentile is not one that I support. I mentioned earlier I am for work progressive tax rates but not at some that exceed half of an individual’s earnings.

10/4/2018 1:14:26 PM

Well for one, Zuckerberg stole Facebook, so that's a terrible example. And he wouldn't be a billionaire if it weren't for all of the engineers working (and further innovating) for him. Additionally, most capitalists are not scientists or engineers. Tech is a unique situation, but still exploitative.

This article lays it all out nicely

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/tax-the-rich-capitalism-marx-socialism/

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2018 1:31:35 PM

LOL, Geppetto has time to type out long bullshitty posts on his phone, and he thinks he works hard and contributes.

Double LOL at mentioning Mark Zuckerberg as some sort of innovator.


To be clear, if a 94% tax rate discourages someone like Geppetto from "innovating" to make VP or director, then I reckon a 94% tax rate is morally imperative.

Also, 100% estate tax. They're always threatening to give up and drop out completely. Let's just do it.


^Engineers who are likely imported from India in order to suppress wages. And, in some cases, imported from India and practically enslaved.

10/4/2018 2:15:12 PM

^ + ^^ I mentioned google as well as Facebook bu I see that was excluded for some strawman.

^fwiw I’m at the doctor’s all day on PTO for a sleep study, so voice to text on my phone is my only tool. Even on PTO, I’ve been answering emails and doing what I can remotely. I stand by my hard work statement. But even so, there are instances when I have downtime at the office and that doesn’t mean I don’t work hard. Same goes for others as well. Front line workers chat with each other on shifts, truck drivers break at rest areas with friends and chat over CBs, and even people in sweatshops have some means of communication with each other. Absence of continuous activity is not dispositive of hard work.

TIL BridgetSPK believes slaves must not have worked hard since they had all that time to sing spirituals, and plot escape paths northward. Not my perspective, but interesting that she holds it.

10/4/2018 2:43:59 PM

^^A 100% estate tax? I realize you're being satirical here, but come on, you call me an idiot and you call for 100% estate tax?

If you're serious, I assume you have a minimum, right? Otherwise such an estate tax could negatively impact impoverished people who stand to inherit useful things like cars, etc.

[Edited on October 4, 2018 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ^]

10/4/2018 2:49:39 PM

Geppetto is a kulak

10/4/2018 3:14:25 PM

^^^You're on PTO for an adorable sleep study, but you somehow managed to make a post in which you're eventually compared to a sweatshop worker? And you found a way to mention the lived experiences of people who were historically enslaved in this country?

Go fuck yourself.

10/4/2018 3:30:28 PM

I’m not sure what my sleep study has to do with anything other than my unusual amount of posting in between my 20 minutes of scheduled sleeping.

But I can see you’ve moved beyond discourse, ignoring thoughtful response to either myself or rjrumfel, either because you lack an educated response or you have interest in provocation rather than in ponderance.

10/4/2018 3:37:56 PM

That slave stuff was pretty stupid though. Implying they did that on leisure time.

10/4/2018 3:45:28 PM

Quote :

"But I can see you’ve moved beyond discourse, ignoring thoughtful response to either myself or rjrumfel, either because you lack an educated response or you have interest in provocation rather than in ponderance."

No, it's because people like you are a waste of time. No one owes you an argument.

10/4/2018 3:49:50 PM

^^^There's nothing "thoughtful" about either of you or your posts.

Maybe y'all are secret billionaires posting on TWW for some odd reason. Maybe you stand to inherit a few million, and your wife is, like, really fucking counting on that money.


But, until you fess up to your circumstances, you both just look like bitches who have bought into some serious bullshit. And you shouldn't necessarily be blamed...obviously the bullshit benefits you somewhat, so no surprise here that your limited ass wants to maintain the status quo.


But we all know you're not gonna turn down the promotion to VP or director cause of taxes. (I mean, you might turn it down...cause fuck all that extra shit.) But it won't be due to taxes. So you just look silly...really fucking silly...when you say things like that and when you "threaten" us with that.

"Oh, boo hoo, I won't take a promotion if you tax me too much..."

L

O

L

Everybody knows a person like you will take the promotion regardless, and you'd probably suck a dick or two on the way.

Basically, you're a dick sucker. But not the fun kind who enjoys it.

10/4/2018 3:53:20 PM

Quote :

"I have no thoughts one way or the other around executive pay other than the fact that it should be limited at the discretion of the organization, it’s board, and it shareholders, rather than legislating it. Once you get into legislating how much income an individual can make you begin limiting how much of the American dream they can pursue. If the dream is that you can achieve anything, I don’t believe in putting a limit on that dream."

This is completely backwards. By not having a limit, you’re allowing unscrupulous individuals to deny Americans that dream, for no purpose. For the hundreds of tenants in Trump’s building that saw their rents increase just to help the trump family line their pockets while dodging taxes— how many of those people had their ability to pursue the American dream curtailed?

Income and money aren’t trophy’s you win, it’s a tool meant to help allocate resources.

You’re entitled by our government to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to hoard society’s resources for your own purposes.

10/4/2018 3:57:00 PM

Over the past day this thread has moved from complaints about working people receiving child care assistance to complaints about marginal tax rates on million dollar incomes, the later made by a guy literally being paid to sleep.

10/4/2018 4:13:36 PM

A FUCKING SLEEP STUDY

THIS HAS GOT TO BE SOME SHIT TO FUCK WITH ME

SERIOUSLY

10/4/2018 5:09:23 PM

I don’t even have kids, nor do I need a sleep study, but I want free childcare and free expensive medical procedures

10/4/2018 6:08:18 PM

I want free sleep studies for sure!

We can all be doped up on uppers/downers for our various "idiopathic" conditions. Worker productivity through the roof!

10/4/2018 6:22:41 PM

Okay, so Bridget has moved even further past discourse and is not labeling whose opinions matter and deserve response. It seems odd that the lone qualification is if the post shares the same point of view as her. If this is the response she shared with other liberals, I can’t imagine any form of understanding or broken bread with conservatives. What I cannot understand is why she believes that someone must belong to the same group to justifiably hold an opinion favorable toward that group. By that logic only black people should care about the struggles of black people and only impoverished people should reflect and care on poverty. Personally I tried to look at the merits of the argument rather than segregate and typecast.

Rjrumfel I did not mean to imply they did it on leisure time. My point was simply that just because someone does something lighthearted or for their own benefit doesn’t mean they aren’t working really hard.

Moron, I disagree. I do so because I do not necessarily believe less money in my pocket or a billionaire’s pocket puts that same amount in another orcseveral other’s pockets.

10/4/2018 6:43:04 PM

Quote :

" Demand is a scion of capitalism.."

We might have to agree to disagree.

10/4/2018 6:47:44 PM

^^I'm actually just a 12 year-old who needs to get pregnant ASAP.

I've been promised freedom if I can get 16 kids out before I die.

(You know, the easy breezy slavery thing you texted about before your idiot sleep study.)

10/4/2018 6:52:44 PM