3 ms·

> Is it with new taxation on XYZ Bring back the 70% corporate tax rate that was considered normal when Reagan was elected. That should give us a solid start. A

> Is it with new taxation on XYZ Bring back the 70% corporate tax rate that was considered normal when Reagan was elected. That should give us a solid start. After that take all the money from every billionaire. You can have up to $999,999,999.99 in your bank + assets, and everything after that goes to healthcare and UBI. If you get to a billion, we'll name a dog park after you and you get a little trophy that says you won capitalism. More importantly though, why is it that the funding of vast government expenditure is only a problem when it stands to benefit the working class? We always have heaps of money for tax cuts for the wealthy, blowing shit up overseas, and buying this year's crop of tanks to replace the ones we're about to shove into a field to rust. How many millions in PPI loans were forgiven, when most people got maybe $2,400 total over COVID when the economy damn near imploded?

FredPret 3y ago
70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan. It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products. This is bad for the middle-class consumer because they'll have less to buy, and fewer places to work at. Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers. [1] https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > 70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan. What do you mean? We still have Reagans, they never went away. > It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products. Right America wasn’t even remotely an economic power until the 80’s. How could I forget? > Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers. It’s not confiscating, it’s tax. Tax everything above one billion at 100%. It’s not one time, it’s every year. And it’s not like we wouldn’t still have incredibly rich people, we just wouldn’t be permitting them to lock up entire GDPs worth of money in nothing. Like if you think there are tons of people out there who will refuse to create businesses because we cap wealth at a mere, paltry one billion dollars, I think that’s a those people problem not an argument against that idea.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason. America's economy went from nowhere to #1 under a regime of almost no tax and regulation at all during the 1800's until 1914. Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. A high tax rate like that just favors the large incumbents and makes it hard for small businesses with no tax lawyers to get off the ground. Also, oh my god, if you tax the wealth of all the billionaires at 100%: a) it's confiscation b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income. c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock. Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      > They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason. Again you are speaking as though this isn't status quo. A huge slice of our political landscape is people who still think trickle down economics works, tons of politicians are elected running on platforms for tax cuts. Reagan's politics live on and are largely responsible for how shit the world has become over the last 4 decades or so. > Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. Then close them. > a) it's confiscation I don't care. > b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income. Yes, and I am suggesting the tax be based on net worth, not income. > c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock. It's not going to the workers, which is why we need UBI. People asked "How do we pay for it" and I have answered that. I don't care about lending to businesses, I definitely don't care about the debt traps set for the global south's nations, and frankly, I don't really give a shit about the economy either. We hear all about how great the economy is doing year over year, and me and my friends get more and more broke as it does. If the economy's doing great, it's not doing great for me or anyone I care about, and insofar as that's the case, why the fuck should I care if it continues to do great? What goods an economy that doesn't serve the workers? If the economy is doing so great, why am I paying through the nose for every fucking service and resource I need? If the economy is so great, why are so many people living check to check and barely making ends meet? If the economy is so great, why is every fucking thing getting more expensive? If the economy is so great, why does a house cost 8 years of salary? Great for WHO? It ain't doin' shit for me personally. > Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried. I didn't say income, you did. I said "bank + assets" but if you want the fancy words, yes, net worth, held stock, bank accounts. Etc.

FredPret 3y ago

70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan. It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products. This is bad for the middle-class consumer because they'll have less to buy, and fewer places to work at. Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers. [1] https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> 70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan. What do you mean? We still have Reagans, they never went away. > It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products. Right America wasn’t even remotely an economic power until the 80’s. How could I forget? > Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers. It’s not confiscating, it’s tax. Tax everything above one billion at 100%. It’s not one time, it’s every year. And it’s not like we wouldn’t still have incredibly rich people, we just wouldn’t be permitting them to lock up entire GDPs worth of money in nothing. Like if you think there are tons of people out there who will refuse to create businesses because we cap wealth at a mere, paltry one billion dollars, I think that’s a those people problem not an argument against that idea.
- FredPret 3y ago
  They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason. America's economy went from nowhere to #1 under a regime of almost no tax and regulation at all during the 1800's until 1914. Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. A high tax rate like that just favors the large incumbents and makes it hard for small businesses with no tax lawyers to get off the ground. Also, oh my god, if you tax the wealth of all the billionaires at 100%: a) it's confiscation b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income. c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock. Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason. Again you are speaking as though this isn't status quo. A huge slice of our political landscape is people who still think trickle down economics works, tons of politicians are elected running on platforms for tax cuts. Reagan's politics live on and are largely responsible for how shit the world has become over the last 4 decades or so. > Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. Then close them. > a) it's confiscation I don't care. > b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income. Yes, and I am suggesting the tax be based on net worth, not income. > c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock. It's not going to the workers, which is why we need UBI. People asked "How do we pay for it" and I have answered that. I don't care about lending to businesses, I definitely don't care about the debt traps set for the global south's nations, and frankly, I don't really give a shit about the economy either. We hear all about how great the economy is doing year over year, and me and my friends get more and more broke as it does. If the economy's doing great, it's not doing great for me or anyone I care about, and insofar as that's the case, why the fuck should I care if it continues to do great? What goods an economy that doesn't serve the workers? If the economy is doing so great, why am I paying through the nose for every fucking service and resource I need? If the economy is so great, why are so many people living check to check and barely making ends meet? If the economy is so great, why is every fucking thing getting more expensive? If the economy is so great, why does a house cost 8 years of salary? Great for WHO? It ain't doin' shit for me personally. > Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried. I didn't say income, you did. I said "bank + assets" but if you want the fancy words, yes, net worth, held stock, bank accounts. Etc.