Fox News anchors baffled as polls show people want to tax the rich more

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

6 minutes ago, Delusional Aura said:

Yes it's insane. AND even though taxes were higher back then, we have a way better standard of living now than back then, depending how you look at it. Back then, rich people didn't have other countries to run to. Try that sh!t now by raising taxes that high and majority of the rich people will go to other countries especially china who consumer market is way bigger than the US, so they will make more money there and pay less taxes. What worked in the pass won't work now because of globalization.

. Also remember our big problem in the US is the mismanagement of revenue. We spend way to much money on the military when we could be investing in infrastructure healthcare and education.

What I'm trying to get at is that Full capitalism isn't gonna work but its still better than socialism. We need to have a capitalist economy with socialist undertones with respect to infrastructure, healthcare and education.

 

So basically what many countries in Europe have, where they tax the rich significantly more than the US. 

I agree with you on the mismanagement aspect. I think we need to start there and then look at the tax system. 

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

16 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

So basically what many countries in Europe have, where they tax the rich significantly more than the US. 

I agree with you on the mismanagement aspect. I think we need to start there and then look at the tax system. 

Yup, the problem is that we have to make sure the money is being used for those social aspects and not only making the military budget fatter, 'cause then what is the sense of raising taxes that high in the first place. At the end of the day, I tell people that us as individuals need to break away from expecting the government to help us and do for ourselves 'cause corruption is always gonna be there and there's not much we can do about it which is sad. For example, I spent the remainder of my tuition money and started learning how to stock trade. It was frightening at first and you do loose money in the beginning. But now, I'm in a position where regardless of what happens to the economy I'm still gonna be making money to support myself. So we have to make our lives for ourselves and just forget about the politics sometimes to focus on us and us alone. It's okay to be selfish once in a while.

[Emvee 8,832]

35 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

No No No, we don’t need anybody/reminders of the god awful 2016 election!  Bad enough we still have to deal with Trump!  We need new blood in this party, not been around forever decaying blood!  Smh 

 

Ridiculous identity politics. How about people focus on policies for a change instead of platitudes. 

[Ferrara 122]

9 minutes ago, Postboy said:

Ridiculous identity politics. How about people focus on policies for a change instead of platitudes. 

As if new blood means anything lol.

[Ferrara 122]

1 hour ago, Gov Hooka said:

This is good. A part of me feels like maybe Bernie should run again. If Bernie runs and stokes this idea even further among the Republican base, he’ll win. He’s not regarded as a Democrat, in the traditional Hillary sense, and he’s gained some credibility from some of the repugnant Republican base for speaking out against Hillary during the 2016 primary. He’s also a white man. Even if he believes in racial justice and frequently espouses those views in his campaign, he still visually wont be able to scare away the poor semi-racists in the Republican Party from voting for him. Idk I feel like the cards are lining up for him to win this thing. Maybe he should pick Kamala or a minority female progressive who’s old enough like Ayanna Presley as his running mate. Idk 

I often see democrats point out that Bernie is not a real democrat. And what they don’t realize is that because of that very reason, he could win the election in 2020. People are awared of Bernie’s rightfully criticism of the Democratic Party today. He’s the most popular senator for a reason. I don’t understand why these people wouldn’t be pushing for the guy with the best approval ratings in the country. 

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, misunderstood said:

Idk since most people go on and on about equality I think it'd be perfect to have a reasonable tax be applied to everyone equally.

That’s because you haven’t thought about it for more than five seconds.

A flat tax rate of say, 50% would make a 60,000 dollar wage poverty levels, while someone who makes $10 million would take home $5 million. This is the simplest form of taxation and also one of the most stupid.

[LordEnigma 11,313]

1 hour ago, misunderstood said:

Idk since most people go on and on about equality I think it'd be perfect to have a reasonable tax be applied to everyone equally.

There are many other factors we have to consider than just a tax rate. I mean if minimum income meant a more livable wage, then I’d be more leaning towards a standard tax rate. But 30% tax to someone that has a lower income is much more affected than the rich. 

[misunderstood 8,736]

13 minutes ago, uo111 said:

That’s because you haven’t thought about it for more than five seconds.

A flat tax rate of say, 50% would make a 60,000 dollar wage poverty levels, while someone who makes $10 million would take home $5 million. This is the simplest form of taxation and also one of the most stupid.

I've had this opinion for over a year tyvm, sorry you disagree no need to say that lol

I've just always thought it made the most sense imo lol too bad other factors make that impossible

 

[PartySick 172,545]

2 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

70% after $10M is insane? 

Taxes were even higher in the 1940’s-1970’s. There were many exemptions but the rich still paid more than they are now. 

Tbh how can we do that? It's theft!

You think these people can survive on a mere $27,000 a day? Think of the children!

[uo111 5,282]

2 minutes ago, misunderstood said:

I've had this opinion for over a year tyvm, sorry you disagree no need to say that lol

I've just always thought it made the most sense imo lol too bad other factors make that impossible

 

I used to think the same thing when I was uninformed on the topic. Flat taxes sound great until you think about them critically. It's not a bad thing to realize when things we think are misinformed. I would say one of the best ways we can grow as human beings is when we change what we think when presented with new (and accurate) information or experiences.

[misunderstood 8,736]

Just now, uo111 said:

I used to think the same thing when I was uninformed on the topic. Flat taxes sound great until you think about them critically. It's not a bad thing to realize when things we think are misinformed. I would say one of the best ways we can grow as human beings is when we change what we think when presented with new (and accurate) information or experiences.

Yeah I agree I know that Flat taxes are a great idea but they are impossible to achieve.

[Economy 52,861]

17 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

70% after $10M is insane? 

Taxes were even higher in the 1940’s-1970’s. There were many exemptions but the rich still paid more than they are now. 

I agree that in principal being able to distribute more from extremely wealthy isn't a bad thing and as you pointed out taxes on the rich were much higher in the past...

 

My concern now tho is that in the modern globalized economy it's much easier to move assets and operations around and if a Nation taxes the hell out of the rich now in the 21st century investment would be lost much more easily

 

Last century economies were more domestic. It was harder to run way as international business was a much smaller share of the economy... 

 

A 70% tax on wealthy now would be much more damaging than it was in the past and I agree with @Delusional Aura

 

However if your going to do it at least I agree with charging the individuals themselves over large corporations...

 

Average people own shares in corporations too and retirement funds depend on companies doing well to find their growth not to mention higher taxes on big companies would lead to immediate higher costs passed on to consumers so the taxes would be on the middle class as well

 

I don't support a tax as high as 70% but if they do it at least do it on individuals not the large companies

 

Also money needs to be better managed. Higher taxes means more of the nation's wealth is being transferred away from private sector/individuals and put in the hands of the government to decide how to spend the nation's wealth

 

If a country can't invest tax dollars properly, then you are draining capital out of the private sector for nothing and that only drains the economy of capital resources. Venezuela is a prime example of socialism gone wrong. Greece was total mismanagement too.

 

If a Nation invests taxes well, then at least benefits like education and good infrastructure may offset the downsides of higher taxation and the economy remains competitive like Scandinavian Countries that tax a lot but still have done well

 

The US does not come even close to investing as well as Scandinavian Countries. A tone of money is blown on military for example...

 

If the US can't be more efficient with how it spends the money. Higher tax revenue will simply drain resources out if private sector without much economic benefits to offset that cost

[whore 11,447]

17 hours ago, misunderstood said:

I think all people should be taxed the exact same regardless of what income.

Not trying to start a debate, but I don’t think multibillionaires should get taxed the same as a single mother with three minimum-wage jobs. It’s not realistic. What’s pocket change to one person is an entire paycheck to another. 

[Economy 52,861]

10 minutes ago, Possibly Maybe said:

Not trying to start a debate, but I don’t think multibillionaires should get taxed the same as a single mother with three minimum-wage jobs. It’s not realistic. What’s pocket change to one person is an entire paycheck to another. 

I agree. Taxes should be low for low Income

 

I do think a 70% tax rate is insane tho. I can't support a tax rate that high because of the negative potential effects on investment and entrepreneurship

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

35 minutes ago, Economy said:

I agree that in principal being able to distribute more from extremely wealthy isn't a bad thing and as you pointed out taxes on the rich were much higher in the past...

 

My concern now tho is that in the modern globalized economy it's much easier to move assets and operations around and if a Nation taxes the hell out of the rich now in the 21st century investment would be lost much more easily

 

Last century economies were more domestic. It was harder to run way as international business was a much smaller share of the economy... 

 

A 70% tax on wealthy now would be much more damaging than it was in the past and I agree with @Delusional Aura

 

However if your going to do it at least I agree with charging the individuals themselves over large corporations...

 

Average people own shares in corporations too and retirement funds depend on companies doing well to find their growth not to mention higher taxes on big companies would lead to immediate higher costs passed on to consumers so the taxes would be on the middle class as well

 

I don't support a tax as high as 70% but if they do it at least do it on individuals not the large companies

 

Also money needs to be better managed. Higher taxes means more of the nation's wealth is being transferred away from private sector/individuals and put in the hands of the government to decide how to spend the nation's wealth

 

If a country can't invest tax dollars properly, then you are draining capital out of the private sector for nothing and that only drains the economy of capital resources. Venezuela is a prime example of socialism gone wrong. Greece was total mismanagement too.

 

If a Nation invests taxes well, then at least benefits like education and good infrastructure may offset the downsides of higher taxation and the economy remains competitive like Scandinavian Countries that tax a lot but still have done well

 

The US does not come even close to investing as well as Scandinavian Countries. A tone of money is blown on military for example...

 

If the US can't be more efficient with how it spends the money. Higher tax revenue will simply drain resources out if private sector without much economic benefits to offset that cost

I agree! All interesting points you made! I think all these things need to be considered before anything like this is applied to the US. The way this country funds the military is ridiculous but not surprising considering how many military operations the US has around the world. It needs to change.