5 ms·

Anderson Cooper has a higher networth than Kim Kardashian are you ok with taxing him until he quits as well?

by dogma1138 8y ago

lisper 8y ago
Absolutely. I'm OK with getting rid of anyone who is doing what they are doing solely for the money.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Getting rid off... straight to the concentration camp? P.S. I also do what I do only for money, please let me know to which camp I should report too.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Oh, give me a break. I obviously meant I was OK with those people quitting their jobs.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      Nearly everyone would quit their job if it would be more beneficial to take an easier job that pays just as much, i think you grossly overestimate the amount of people that are that driven by their career that it would take precedence over their actual life. And ok say you weren't planning to go the final solution route just yet, why should I be fired for just wanting to exchange my time for money based on the maximum (in my pocket) market value I can extract from it? Is it more morally superior to be so devoted to my job that I would do it even for free or for nothing more than minimum wage? that's some really fantastic way of life you got there....
      - lisper 8y ago
        > why should I be fired I didn't say you should be fired. I said I would be OK with you quitting voluntarily. Also, we have had much higher incremental tax rates in the past (notably in the 40 years between the end of WWII and Reagan, and the U.S. economy did just fine, so I see no reason that should be any different now.
        dogma1138 8y ago
        I'm not in the US but last time I've checked the top federal tax rate today is higher than it was in the Reagan era. The federal income from taxation (as % of GDP) remained fairly since WWII stable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State... But sure i'll hear you out what tax brackets do you think we should implement? where do you put the cap?
        lisper 8y ago
        Scroll down to the bottom of that page to the "Income tax rates in history" section. Observe that the top marginal rate was as high as 91%, and did not drop below 80% in the entire period between 1936 and 1981.
        dogma1138 8y ago
        I know what it was but that wasn’t ever in reality actually the case almost no one paid the exesses taxes during, heck forget almost no one paid that marginal rate. So you want 91% tax from what amount?
        lisper 8y ago
        > almost no one paid that marginal rate. That's true, because almost no one made enough money to pay it. That's one of the reasons that it wasn't harmful. > So you want 91% tax from what amount? I dunno, $5-10M or so. I also think that you should be able to defer the recognition of income so that you don't get dinged too heavily for one-time windfalls. But I think anyone regularly making $5-10M/yr should be paying a lot more than they currently do.
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't do this here.

Anderson Cooper has a higher networth than Kim Kardashian are you ok with taxing him until he quits as well?

lisper 8y ago

Absolutely. I'm OK with getting rid of anyone who is doing what they are doing solely for the money.

dogma1138 8y ago
Getting rid off... straight to the concentration camp? P.S. I also do what I do only for money, please let me know to which camp I should report too.
- lisper 8y ago
  Oh, give me a break. I obviously meant I was OK with those people quitting their jobs.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Nearly everyone would quit their job if it would be more beneficial to take an easier job that pays just as much, i think you grossly overestimate the amount of people that are that driven by their career that it would take precedence over their actual life. And ok say you weren't planning to go the final solution route just yet, why should I be fired for just wanting to exchange my time for money based on the maximum (in my pocket) market value I can extract from it? Is it more morally superior to be so devoted to my job that I would do it even for free or for nothing more than minimum wage? that's some really fantastic way of life you got there....
    - lisper 8y ago
      > why should I be fired I didn't say you should be fired. I said I would be OK with you quitting voluntarily. Also, we have had much higher incremental tax rates in the past (notably in the 40 years between the end of WWII and Reagan, and the U.S. economy did just fine, so I see no reason that should be any different now.
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        I'm not in the US but last time I've checked the top federal tax rate today is higher than it was in the Reagan era. The federal income from taxation (as % of GDP) remained fairly since WWII stable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State... But sure i'll hear you out what tax brackets do you think we should implement? where do you put the cap?
        lisper 8y ago
        Scroll down to the bottom of that page to the "Income tax rates in history" section. Observe that the top marginal rate was as high as 91%, and did not drop below 80% in the entire period between 1936 and 1981.
        dogma1138 8y ago
        I know what it was but that wasn’t ever in reality actually the case almost no one paid the exesses taxes during, heck forget almost no one paid that marginal rate. So you want 91% tax from what amount?
        lisper 8y ago
        > almost no one paid that marginal rate. That's true, because almost no one made enough money to pay it. That's one of the reasons that it wasn't harmful. > So you want 91% tax from what amount? I dunno, $5-10M or so. I also think that you should be able to defer the recognition of income so that you don't get dinged too heavily for one-time windfalls. But I think anyone regularly making $5-10M/yr should be paying a lot more than they currently do.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't do this here.