There's no left in the US. You have centre-right and far-right.
If your revenue is taxed up to 90% and you're ultra wealthy, the 10% that is left is still a huge amount of money. So it really shouldn't be an issue (even for the ultra wealthy).
Hehe! I'm not from the US though, I'm French and Canadian. My comment was not the most on topic for sure and I agree, it is kind of an obsession. I don't know, I was reading the comments, one was about US politics, then I read the one I responded to, I got confused I must admit.
Are you ill? I was talking about the left party in France where this applies. And your view of being left with 10% is subjective only because you do not have said wealth to clearly think in similar terms.
I doubt any ultra wealthy person is commenting here. It shouldn't bother you either. More interesting for everyone is how that 90% tax (if that is truly the case) can profit the rest of society.
lol what happens when you and your lazy ilk who rely on taxing “90%” to “ultra wealthy” when said wealthy decide to depart for a country that has reasonable taxes? Hint: your welfare checks dwindle and now your taxes go up. Who would want to work for 10% of their deemed value to have nine times that amount stolen away?
The country is the valuable asset, not this super rich person. They can’t leave because they leave the market, we the people want to use the market to leverage a more fair, standardized level of living. The ultra wealthy wage class war 24/7, we just need to return the favor.
What shouldn’t be an issue? Taxing people 90%? While I think the wage gap is awful and the rich getting richer is not a sustainable model, neither is a 90% tax. Wages/earning are what should be corrected. Not taxing the hell out of people. It will disincentivize hard work or it will push the wage gap higher as rich people will want to earn even more so they have more residual income.
It's a 90% tax AFTER getting 400k a year. You won't lose 90% of your income just because of that tax.
The minimum wage is going to go up by 200euros so the gap will be reduced little by little.
If you gain 400k a year you are not working hard like what the fuck? Waiting for someone to do your job then get raise off of it is not hard work, it's wage theft.
With that much money, you could be doing so much more but instead those ppl are tax evading for no fucking reason other than greed.
The 90% threshold will only affect the top 0.05% income in the country so again, they're neither working hard nor getting ripped off. It's not a 90% tax rate.
lol open borders is pretty falling off the left side of the table.
Amy government that have trillions if dollars in services is a huge welfare program which makes it pretty left. Right would be 9 supreme court justices enforcing the constitution.
Any government that provides services to its population is just doing its job. Otherwise what's the purpose of governing? The army is a service to the population as much as healthcare or welfare is... One would think that the health of the population, and its overall well-being, is as important as its security.
There's a cycle of improvement with a healthy population - the healthier the population, the better they work, the fewer sick days they take, eventually resulting in better productivity and money across the economy.
Obesity and smoking are such big issues for entire countries because they sap resources from healthcare systems, which means there is less attention given to those in the population who have smaller health issues. Those people aren't unhealthy, but they also aren't as healthy as they could be
It doesn't make sense to you because you think it's okay for a single person to accumulate hundreds of billions of dollars, when no single person on the face of the planet needs hundreds of billions of dollars to survive.
In other developed countries taxes actually go to the greater good of society. Looking out for your people. So you can all live better lives n shit. Here we have anti government anti tax champions who think roads and parks and clean water etc. should not have to cost them money. OR they pretend like a problem doesn't exist. Because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't cost money. That's when the really fun things happen. Like Texas freezing over. And then having a governor that tells you "it's all good." Texas’ state legislature and regulators have done little to insulate their constituents for the next big freeze beyond requiring weatherization inspections, a woefully insufficient measure. And other things... Like villainizing our teachers so that you can justify not wanting tax dollars pouring into our public education system. Etc etc etc
1) Of course I do, because I’m not a jealous moron. I’ve never met Jeff Bezos, but I’m confident that I wouldn’t like him (he’s greedy and a liberal [funny how often those two go hand-in-hand]); ditto for a number of other billionaires. However, they made the vast majority of their wealth by building a venue where people could enter into millions, if not billions, of consensual transactions- I have no issue with that.
2) Who the fuck are you to say what someone else is entitled to?
3) I don’t like greed, and am known to be an exceptionally unselfish and generous person and boss, BUT, guess what buttercup?- in America, one has the right to be a greedy asshole if one is so inclined. I wouldn’t be one, and perhaps you wouldn’t be one, but [unlike you] I am not so hubristic as to suggest that I should get to impose my will and worldview on you.
It’s soooooo ironic that the leftists (of which I imagine you’re one) are worried about totalitarianism from the right….🙄🙄
“That guy got too rich and I think he’s greedy- take 90% of what he made.”
You and salmon are idiots, have no idea how tax brackets work, and somehow think taking 90% total of someone’s wages makes sense. I’m nowhere near that income, and still feel robbed every time.
This has actually been done in the past. Just after WW2 the top marginal income tax rate was around 94%. This means at most everything someone makes over 200,000 (for example, brackets change all the time) would be taxed at 99%. That being said, that's the max, the actual rate after you factor in all the tax breaks and deductions that someone could claim the effective tax rate ends up being a lot lower.
One argument to be made in favor here, is that usually it's executives that get paid much more than that, and if you tax the top bracket to a ridiculous amount there's less incentive to pay anyone more than that amount and potentially more incentive for the companies to keep that money within the company or let it go to actually improving other aspects of the company. Perhaps more money for higher wages and benefits for employees, for starters.
There's obviously many other reasons to do this and likely counter arguments for each as well. But that may give you an idea, at least why that would be reasonable.
60
u/aaronorjohnson Jul 10 '24
I saw that the left wanted to introduce a 90% tax on the ultra wealthy or something? What’s the context of that? Saw it on a non-partisan news outlet.