4 ms·

Are you daft? You make 20k, you pay no taxes. You make 200k, you pay 90k in taxes. At one point in the past if you made millions you paid 90% of your income in

Are you daft? You make 20k, you pay no taxes. You make 200k, you pay 90k in taxes. At one point in the past if you made millions you paid 90% of your income in taxes. So yes how much you can make - 90%... make as much as you want. Soviet propaganda is as relevant as Capitalist mythology which is as tired as Soviet propaganda. > interesting to see an example of when and where there were a society that did a forceful redistribution of wealth of this degree and managed to produce "things that they need" and made "society as a whole" better Okay, when 90% taxes were in play the economy was doing great. All of these are extremely short time periods. In the past no one has ever had these levels of wealth. Therefore, trying to see examples of the past which would validate current politics is a fool's errand.

Fins 7y ago
And that 90% was effective, not marginal rate? Talk about being daft...
- devoply 7y ago
  Obviously it's marginal, and so is this whole argument, tax massive amounts of wealth (at that time it was anything over 200k (2 million in today's dollars at 90%), not your average Joe. Keep grasping at straws. And yeah make as much as you want... * make 2 million = get 1 million (50%) * make 3 million = get 1.1 million (63%) * 10 million = get 1.8 million (82%) * 100 million = get 11 million (89.1%) * 1 billion = get 101 million (89.9%) Make as much as you want.
  - Fins 7y ago
    It is grasping at the straws indeed, to try to come up with any kind of justification for a scheme like this. Esp. when it would be pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to check, that people with that kind of "money" do not have it as cash they got as a salary, but rather as assets (stock). Do you propose taxing unrealized gains? Or simply confiscating assets when they appreciate "too much"? The only positive I can see here is that this will kill SV for good. Unfortunately it will also kill most real innovation as well.
    - devoply 7y ago
      It does not make sense to take control away from people who are running companies and have all their assets tied up in them like Zuckerberg, Bezos, et. al. This is a disasterous recipe for sure. But once they are not longer doing that or especially when they die it's easy enough to tax it then. And yes it would wipe up some venture capital, but that's already going gangbusters. It went from 25 billion to 90 billion in 10 years, 4x growth. So yes it would reduce some of that. https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Shot-2018-10-09-at-9.52.23-AM.png?resize=768,694 https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Sho...
      - Fins 7y ago
        But isn't this what the original proposal in this thread was? Setting an upper limit for how much an individual can hold? Apart from technical difficulties in determining if someone is still running the company, or just pretending to, what would the upside be from implementing something like that, apart form making those who like counting money in other peoples' pockets happy?

Fins 7y ago

And that 90% was effective, not marginal rate? Talk about being daft...

devoply 7y ago
Obviously it's marginal, and so is this whole argument, tax massive amounts of wealth (at that time it was anything over 200k (2 million in today's dollars at 90%), not your average Joe. Keep grasping at straws. And yeah make as much as you want... * make 2 million = get 1 million (50%) * make 3 million = get 1.1 million (63%) * 10 million = get 1.8 million (82%) * 100 million = get 11 million (89.1%) * 1 billion = get 101 million (89.9%) Make as much as you want.
- Fins 7y ago
  It is grasping at the straws indeed, to try to come up with any kind of justification for a scheme like this. Esp. when it would be pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to check, that people with that kind of "money" do not have it as cash they got as a salary, but rather as assets (stock). Do you propose taxing unrealized gains? Or simply confiscating assets when they appreciate "too much"? The only positive I can see here is that this will kill SV for good. Unfortunately it will also kill most real innovation as well.
  - devoply 7y ago
    It does not make sense to take control away from people who are running companies and have all their assets tied up in them like Zuckerberg, Bezos, et. al. This is a disasterous recipe for sure. But once they are not longer doing that or especially when they die it's easy enough to tax it then. And yes it would wipe up some venture capital, but that's already going gangbusters. It went from 25 billion to 90 billion in 10 years, 4x growth. So yes it would reduce some of that. https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Shot-2018-10-09-at-9.52.23-AM.png?resize=768,694 https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Sho...
    - Fins 7y ago
      But isn't this what the original proposal in this thread was? Setting an upper limit for how much an individual can hold? Apart from technical difficulties in determining if someone is still running the company, or just pretending to, what would the upside be from implementing something like that, apart form making those who like counting money in other peoples' pockets happy?