Fiscal Responsibility Bill [On President's Desk]

[Vepres]

Charities are good for very small scale operations and depending on in only the short term. For anything substantial or long-term a much larger organization and support is needed that the government, in that situation, can best provide.

Food banks, soup kitchens, and free health clinics are great, but they don't really compare at all to food stamps or a national health care program. Let's be realistic here.

Yes, a charity left us in the dark for a whole week "waiting for a sponsor" Social Services Crisis Funds are instant, they are just in limited amounts.

Charities often lose money in recession especially ones this bad cause they often rely on annuities which lose value with the overall market. So many charities are actually cutting back aid when in fact it is needed the most. The idea that charities are effectice substitute for Gov't aide is proposterous. If you are going to rely on that arguement, Vepres, you might as well just sign off and make it unanimous.

I'm not saying their a substitute, but they arguably do more. Personally, I think if you want to receive government help, you should pay the same proportion of your income as a multi-millionaire. Now, the poorest people shouldn't be taxed, but beyond that...

In any case, I think raising taxes on the rich this much in a recession, when investment is what is needed, is a bad idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Charities are good for very small scale operations and depending on in only the short term. For anything substantial or long-term a much larger organization and support is needed that the government, in that situation, can best provide.

Food banks, soup kitchens, and free health clinics are great, but they don't really compare at all to food stamps or a national health care program. Let's be realistic here.

Yes, a charity left us in the dark for a whole week "waiting for a sponsor" Social Services Crisis Funds are instant, they are just in limited amounts.

Charities often lose money in recession especially ones this bad cause they often rely on annuities which lose value with the overall market. So many charities are actually cutting back aid when in fact it is needed the most. The idea that charities are effectice substitute for Gov't aide is proposterous. If you are going to rely on that arguement, Vepres, you might as well just sign off and make it unanimous.

I'm not saying their a substitute, but they arguably do more. Personally, I think if you want to receive government help, you should pay the same proportion of your income as a multi-millionaire. Now, the poorest people shouldn't be taxed, but beyond that...

In any case, I think raising taxes on the rich this much in a recession, when investment is what is needed, is a bad idea.

But we don't need investment, we need consumption. Adding investment would only increase the amount of consumption needed to make that investment pay off.

[Vepres]

Charities are good for very small scale operations and depending on in only the short term. For anything substantial or long-term a much larger organization and support is needed that the government, in that situation, can best provide.

Food banks, soup kitchens, and free health clinics are great, but they don't really compare at all to food stamps or a national health care program. Let's be realistic here.

Yes, a charity left us in the dark for a whole week "waiting for a sponsor" Social Services Crisis Funds are instant, they are just in limited amounts.

Charities often lose money in recession especially ones this bad cause they often rely on annuities which lose value with the overall market. So many charities are actually cutting back aid when in fact it is needed the most. The idea that charities are effectice substitute for Gov't aide is proposterous. If you are going to rely on that arguement, Vepres, you might as well just sign off and make it unanimous.

I'm not saying their a substitute, but they arguably do more. Personally, I think if you want to receive government help, you should pay the same proportion of your income as a multi-millionaire. Now, the poorest people shouldn't be taxed, but beyond that...

In any case, I think raising taxes on the rich this much in a recession, when investment is what is needed, is a bad idea.

But we don't need investment, we need consumption. Adding investment would only increase the amount of consumption needed to make that investment pay off.

That just makes my argument stronger, as the rich will consume less if taxed more.

If the rich invest in small businesses, that creates jobs, which gives people more money to spend.

[Psychic Octopus]

I will be reviewing this tomorrow.

[Sbane]

Actually it's the middle class that we really need to consume more. If we don't raise taxes and it lessens the value of the dollar due to increasing debt, the middle class has to consume less.

[Vepres]

Actually it's the middle class that we really need to consume more. If we don't raise taxes and it lessens the value of the dollar due to increasing debt, the middle class has to consume less.

Ok, you're right.

In any case, my six main arguments still stand, so I'll stop clogging up this thread and let the Senate do its work

[Marokai Backbeat]

And conveniently much of your arguments are just repeating what you've said in the past without much regard for the responses you got.

Reminds me of the Senate's debate over the national health care program, come to think of it..

[Vepres]

And conveniently much of your arguments are just repeating what you've said in the past without much regard for the responses you got.

Reminds me of the Senate's debate over the national health care program, come to think of it..

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

Anyway, here are my main reasons for believing that 60% at the federal level is too high:
1. The higher the taxes, the more rich people will hide their money, thus potentially decreasing revenue.

2. The rich have less money to reinvest. Much of this investing creates or saves jobs.

3. The rich create jobs because many become venture capitalists or found businesses
themselves.

4. While the world is imperfect and some of the rich don't deserve their fortune, think about a CEO who doubles his company's profits, thus making the stock rise and allowing him to expand the company which creates jobs, and then receives a generous salary for the next year. Surely he, who created the livelihood for hundreds or even thousands of people, deserves to be rich. Now, why should we take this money away from him to fund broken social programs? Frankly, I'd rather some get wealthy when they don't deserve to rather than lessening the reward those who do create jobs or help society in some way.

5. Everybody has a chance to climb the ladder. Many don't through choice or ignorance (which the rich aren't to blame for), but anybody can enter middle management or found a successful small business if they try (provided they don't have VERY bad luck).

6. If they have a tax burden similar to middle-class families, they will be more likely to give to charity and help the less fortunate because they don't have to worry about protecting their fortune. I think most rich people are good people, and if the rhetoric against them was lessened and the taxes fairer, they would donate large sums of money to help others.

Let's see. 1 was responded to. Nobody has made an argument against 2 or 3. 4 is more of an opinion and world view thing, thus neither inherently one way or the other. Nobody has argued against 5 and 6.

So essentially, four of my six arguments are still completely valid, and two are debatable.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

[Vepres]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

Interesting, and yet this hasn't happened in the US for almost 100 years. I've had my history lesson for the day

[Franzl]

I haven't heard any convincing arguments that would prevent me from voting in favor of this legislation.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing the two highest brackets integrated into one 50% bracket, as 60% is quite high, but even if it stays as it is presently, I intend to vote for this.

It's a matter of fiscal responsibility for me, and I believe this tax system, combined with the high individual deduction, is actually very friendly to the lower, middle and even upper middle class.

I'm not concerned about someone making over $2 million a year having to pay half or slightly more of what he makes over $2 million. We are only taxing at that rate from that point on, it's not like he's going to be paying over 50% of his total income!

[Sbane]

I'm not concerned about someone making over $2 million a year having to pay half or slightly more of what he makes over $2 million. We are only taxing at that rate from that point on, it's not like he's going to be paying over 50% of his total income!

Good point. Some people don't understand this is the marginal tax rate.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

Interesting, and yet this hasn't happened in the US for almost 100 years. I've had my history lesson for the day

Glad to hear it.

I'm suspicious of any talk of coddling the rich.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

Interesting, and yet this hasn't happened in the US for almost 100 years. I've had my history lesson for the day

My friend, they don't need business plots or open resistance to left-wing policy anymore. They're already in control.

It's far more insidious in these modern times.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

Interesting, and yet this hasn't happened in the US for almost 100 years. I've had my history lesson for the day

My friend, they don't need business plots or open resistance to left-wing policy anymore. They're already in control.

It's far more insidious in these modern times.

My how conspiratorial our left wingers are here today(reminds me of something you once said about fiscal Conservatives during the Stimulu debate ).


I am opposed to this by the way. Despite my criticism of Vepres and especially since it will easily pass, I have no problem thus voting no.

[Vepres]

This is close to 50%, but as it is under the psychological impact of "taking half of my income" isn't there

So super-rich might have their feelings hurt if their tax rates go above 50%?

Cry me a river.

See, that attitude is what makes the rich resent the government and the poor and hide their wealth instead of using it to help society.

You know, in the interwar period, the two hundred families that ran the Bank of France thrice imposed a right-wing government after legislative elections had returned a majority on the left. This continued no matter how many conciliatory gestures were made. It would have continued indefinitely, but the two hundred families were broken in the war. Only then could the popular will be expressed.

That was a different time and a different country. Plus, that was on 200 families, what about the thousands of other rich French families?

"Two hundred families" is a euphemism. The Bank of France had 200 shareholders, but they represented French monied interests. In 1924 and 1932, Cartels des gauches were formed. Each cartel won the election, but the centrist Radical-Socialist Party switched its allegiance to the right each time when French money made it clear that it lacked confidence in a left-wing government. In 1936, the Front Populaire was elected, and Léon Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to become Prime Minister. Despite taking every measure to appease the powers that were, including suppressing the strikes that spontaneously broke out thoroughout France, French money declared war on the Front Populaire, forcing Blum to resign within the year, and the Front to collapse by 1938. Its replacement was a group of dull centrists and right-wingers who were unable to take the necessary steps to stop the German invasion. The settings may change, but the story remains the same.

Interesting, and yet this hasn't happened in the US for almost 100 years. I've had my history lesson for the day

My friend, they don't need business plots or open resistance to left-wing policy anymore. They're already in control.

It's far more insidious in these modern times.

Yes, they all meet in a dark cave plotting against humanity for the fun of it

Anyway, I'm not advocating for coddling the rich, I'm advocating for not punishing success.

So, an individual making $164,550, which is upper middle class or even rich in some areas, will pay $23,995.72 in taxes, while somebody making $367,700 will pay $96,468.23. The latter's salary is 2.23 times larger than the former, but the latter's taxes are 4 times larger than the former's. You simply cannot claim that that's fair. Shouldn't the poor, who benefit most from social services, pay the same % of their income in taxes as the rich?

My point is, the vast majority of government programs are expensive, inefficient, wasteful, and many of these don't even work. So, you take a large sum of a rich person's money and put it into a government program that doesn't work instead of letting him keep more of it which he can donate to a charity that will help far more people with far less money. You basically are saying: "Oh, you were ambitious, hardworking, and intelligent, so we're going to to reward you by taking a higher proportion of your money in taxes ", it's easy to advocate taxing the rich more when you're poor and pay no income taxes, or lower middle class and only a tiny fraction of your income is payed in taxes. Somebody making $20,000 should pay the same % of that in taxes as somebody making $1,000,000.

BTW, on that New York thing I said, somehow I misplaced a decimal in my head. I was thinking $100,000, but my thoughts started racing with the debate.

Let me ask you, Marokai, why not have a flat % tax rate?

[Хahar 🤔]

So, an individual making $164,550, which is upper middle class or even rich in some areas, will pay $23,995.72 in taxes, while somebody making $367,700 will pay $96,468.23. The latter's salary is 2.23 times larger than the former, but the latter's taxes are 4 times larger than the former's. You simply cannot claim that that's fair. Shouldn't the poor, who benefit most from social services, pay the same % of their income in taxes as the rich?

You seem to forget that money spent on necessities is more or less static between rich and poor. Consequently, the poor spend more on necessities as a proportion of income than do the rich. As a result, a flat tax hurts the poor more than the rich.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Anyway, I'm not advocating for coddling the rich, I'm advocating for not punishing success.

Republican buzzwords.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can and shall. Ultimately, "fair" is entirely subjective, and you lack any real economic point for how it's catastrophic, so you're arguing really on flimsy emotional grounds on what you do or don't find objectionable.

In the end, though, you really made my point about why I believe it to be "fair" for me. $164,000 is upper middle class even in wealthy areas. There is a certain benchmark for what is spent on bare necessities, food, energy, housing, and other essential services, as well as leisure money, but anything beyond that certain mark, which varies depending on where you live, is completely useless free-standing money that contributes little to nothing to the economy or society, and that is why it is taxed at a disproportionately higher rate.

It still allows people to become more than wealthy, and live very comfortable lives. It's simply a tax rate of a philosophy that says large amounts of money contribute absolutely nothing to the lives of Atlasia but fueling the greed of certain individuals. That money, that money that doesn't do anything or isn't put to any essential need, is instead taxed at a higher rate to provide services to the entire country when needed.

And that, come to think of it, is one of my reasons for opposing the flat tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No? Why in the world should they? The poor and working classes should be able to take advantage of the services that they need to rise to a level playing field and be free to rise out of their class as unencumbered as possible. You seem to act like the poor and the rich are equally vulnerable (and productive) and that is simply a false equivalency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the second time you make this ignorant and incredibly broad statement and it's no more supported (meaning, not at all) than it was the last time. Examples please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That correction still doesn't really make sense though in the context of what you said earlier. You don't have to cover your ass on this to hide your embarrassment you know, I do forgive you for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Xahar summed it up in a tl;dr version than what I would give, really. The money the lower classes bring in are much more sensitive and depended on, and the lower income groups spend a disproportionately higher amount of their income on essential needs, like food, clothing, and gas (this has been rising in recent years, so it's even more sensitive to taxation) so a flat income tax, aside from it's general infeasibility in actually paying for all our shit, would burden the lower class.

It's basically a recipe for a caste system of sorts, a kind of almost permanent freezing of the classes and social mobility, and skyrocketing levels of income inequality. I liken it to a set of video game difficulties; when you're less skilled, you play on easy, when you're more skilled, you can handle hard.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[Vepres]

Anyway, I'm not advocating for coddling the rich, I'm advocating for not punishing success.

Republican buzzwords.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can and shall. Ultimately, "fair" is entirely subjective, and you lack any real economic point for how it's catastrophic, so you're arguing really on flimsy emotional grounds on what you do or don't find objectionable.[/quote]

The vast majority of Americans making 1 million or more are self made, hard working, often intelligent people who started out as middle-class and poor. They paid their dues, let them enjoy the wealth. I'm not defending the super rich, which is another issue, but the "lower rich" if you will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to live in a big city, $164 thousand is not as much as it sounds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look at what Bill Gates has done with his money in the Gates Foundation. What if the government took 2/3 of that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No? Why in the world should they? The poor and working classes should be able to take advantage of the services that they need to rise to a level playing field and be free to rise out of their class as unencumbered as possible. You seem to act like the poor and the rich are equally vulnerable (and productive) and that is simply a false equivalency.[/quote]

The rich tend to be more productive, yes. A programmer may make the product, but if it weren't for the CEO running everything and making the tough decisions, the product would not exist (assuming it takes several dozen or even 100s of workers to produce) and its benefits to society and to the company (which is used to pay the workers) are far more productive than one grunt worker (I know I sound harsh, and I recognize some CEOs are incompetent fools).

Why would social programs help the poor rise out of poverty? If anything they give them no incentive to stop leeching off society (see great society programs a few decades in, or much of western Europe). I'm fine with food stamps, even welfare in some cases, but face it, they are liabilities to the government, while the rich are assets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the second time you make this ignorant and incredibly broad statement and it's no more supported (meaning, not at all) than it was the last time. Examples please.[/quote]

Social Security: Insolvent in the next decade

Medicare: $100 billion in fraud and will be insolvent in less than 20 years.

Great Society-style Welfare: Gave women incentives to have many children out of wedlock, thus creating a society in which many poor children grew up without fathers.

The DMV: 'nuff said

Post Office: Embarrassingly inferior to UPS and FedEx.

Public Housing: They filled a warehouse in NYC with homeless, gave each a cot. They ended up spending $30k per person, which was enough to rent an apartment and more.

Remember all the non-existent congressional districts on the stimulus website

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Xahar summed it up in a tl;dr version than what I would give, really. The money the lower classes bring in are much more sensitive and depended on, and the lower income groups spend a disproportionately higher amount of their income on essential needs, like food, clothing, and gas (this has been rising in recent years, so it's even more sensitive to taxation) so a flat income tax, aside from it's general infeasibility in actually paying for all our shit, would burden the lower class.

It's basically a recipe for a caste system of sorts, a kind of almost permanent freezing of the classes and social mobility, and skyrocketing levels of income inequality. I liken it to a set of video game difficulties; when you're less skilled, you play on easy, when you're more skilled, you can handle hard.[/quote]

Perhaps, but then the poor have no incentive to rise out of poverty when they're told by the government they're "entitled" to all these things. Face it, a rich man's company created the first affordable PC using upper middle-class programmers. An upper middle-class surgeon will save the lives of countless people. A multi-millionaire will donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help battle AIDS. So why can't they enjoy a wealthy lifestyle after they spent their earlier years working up the ladder (vast majority of "rich").

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last time I checked the poor had brains, they had (I'm talking about 'normal' poor, not disabled people) an able body, yet they don't contribute to society because they're either ignorant (not their fault), or totally lacking in ambition. Most poor people are poor because they are willfully ignorant, lazy, refuse to get an education, or live in a poor area and choose to stay. Sure, some have bad luck, but most of those people are back in the workplace in a matter of months.

 What the poor need is better education, not to be cradled by a nanny state. That's another issue, but if you could somehow provide decent colleges for free or near free, a lot of these poor would go away.
 
Anyway, time to tie this back in to the bill at hand. I can understand not taxing the very poor (first bracket), but after that, a flat tax is not unreasonable. A lower middle-class individual contributes less to society than a competent CEO (I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way, though I know it sounds like it), so the CEO should be able to keep the same proportion of his income as the lower middle-class person, because the CEO has contributed more to society as a leader and so the least we can do is not punish his success.

What the poor need is better education, not to be cradled by a nanny state. That's another issue and for a different bill, but if you could somehow provide decent colleges for free or near free, a lot of these poor would go away. If you eliminate ignorance, you eliminate much of the poverty in this country.

[Sbane]

Here's the basic thing, Vepres. The rich can afford to pay a little more without it affecting their standard of living. If you raise their taxes their standard of living will not go down, which would actually happen with upper middle class folks (and even there it would be on luxury goods only). When you tax the rich more it just leads to less investment (consumption isn't affected as much as it would be with even upper middle class folks), which actually wouldn't be such a bad thing. Remember this current crisis we are in did not occur due to a dearth of investment, but rather there was so much investment it led to bubbles in many different fields (started with the tech bubble, ended with housing and finance).

[MaxQue]

Vepres made a valid point, education cost is making than it is harder for lower classes to climb the social ladder.

[Vepres]

Here's the basic thing, Vepres. The rich can afford to pay a little more without it affecting their standard of living. If you raise their taxes their standard of living will not go down, which would actually happen with upper middle class folks (and even there it would be on luxury goods only). When you tax the rich more it just leads to less investment (consumption isn't affected as much as it would be with even upper middle class folks), which actually wouldn't be such a bad thing. Remember this current crisis we are in did not occur due to a dearth of investment, but rather there was so much investment it led to bubbles in many different fields (started with the tech bubble, ended with housing and finance).

Ah, but investment would increase consumption if said investment was in a business. Again, I don't necessarily oppose a progressive tax system for practical purposes, but 60% or even 50% is too much (I recognize these are marginal). A wealthy small/medium-sized business owner would have less money to invest in his company. Many of those investments would be gained by consuming. Small businesses drive many local economies, and without wealthy venture capitalists many could not get the initial capital required to get off the ground. It is unfortunate that not all rich people use their wealth to benefit others, but most probably do, which is far more efficient because you eliminate the middle-man (government).

Now, I have a question for the Senate. Would this also tax income that a small business owner receives, even if he fully intends to put it back into the company?

[Purple State]

I'm not concerned about someone making over $2 million a year having to pay half or slightly more of what he makes over $2 million. We are only taxing at that rate from that point on, it's not like he's going to be paying over 50% of his total income!

Good point. Some people don't understand this is the marginal tax rate.

You know, I never understood that concept until just now. Good thing to learn.

[Purple State]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2247252#msg2247252

Now you may all commence telling me how utterly incorrect I am.

[Alexander Hamilton]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2247252#msg2247252

Now you may all commence telling me how utterly incorrect I am.

I didn't know this bill was sponsored by JCP member Franzl. But I guess you still aren't utterly incorrect, are you?