Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Please see Manram's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
To be clear: can we compare things in America to Europe now or only when it proves your point? Because I have quite a few examples of successful European policies the US should enact I want to bring up, but something tells me what happens in Europe doesn't matter to you if you disagree with the point.
Counterpoint: the fact that people feel that people are entitled to billions of dollars while most of this country couldn't cover the cost of a basic health procedure is the definition of unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
There are only billionaires because we let there be. These aren't fundamental rights. We've just let them exploit the working class and pile up their wealth because every politician has been bought by them. But we don't have to. No one needs a billion dollars. It's an insane amount of money that no individual ever needs. And defending their (fake) right to hoard unimaginable amounts of wealth above the basic rights of the poor and working class is disgusting. You're a sheep for the rich and nothing else. Always standing up for the people that least need your help. Truly brave :flag:
The nordic countries don't actually have an "eat the rich" tax system. Sweden actually has a corporate tax that's in line with Donald Trump's tax cuts for evil businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
These were prosperous nations prior to "socialism" and it works when large numbers of people don't rely on the government's welfare state. But of course, all that is changing.
Now we're talking about corporate tax rates? What are Sweden's personal tax rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandi...ment-spending/
Sweden's tax rate is 56.4% for all income over roughly $60,000.
Is this a case where Sweden is awesome only with things you agree with but is doing badly because of things you disagree with or?
Yea, it ain't 70, lol. And it's something like 39 in Norway... A lot closer to current US tax policy than what is being proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
So you're fine with a tax rate or 56.4% for the top income earners? What is the point of saying "it's not 70" if you also don't like the fact that it's 56% :laugh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
the number I listed was a joke, but cmon, are we really caring about the extreme? If that is the case, maybe we should be more concerned about the bottom 10%, because there are exponentially more of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
No I pointed it out to show the myth that you guys were selling. You guys brought up the nordic countries. Even they don't have a top marginal bracket like the one Cortez is pushing. France did... briefly....Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
How much of US fiscal policy are we willing to cut out if we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it? We're at the end of the Laffer Curve (which I don't dispute) that when you increase tax rates, you get more money.
I have zero issue with someone becoming insanely wealthy. But we can't have such a high percentage of people broke as ****, and the majority of the country living paycheck to paycheck, and in a place where a serious medical condition will cripple them financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
There needs to be a happy medium. If someone views that medium as a "welfare state", so be it.
But again, you're against the Nordic models too, so your complaint isn't with her number it's with the concept of high taxes on top earners at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
Or put another way, if she were for 55% for top earners, you'd hate it and you'd hate her. And you'd be spewing the same "it can't work" diatribe you are now. Except in the Nordic countries it is working. Or maybe it isn't. As I understand your point, Nordic countries are good places when talking about their corporate tax rates but they are not good places when talking about their private rates.
The nordic system is more of an everyone pays type system. Not "eat the rich".
Nordic countries aren't a good comparison for the U.S. at all. The demographics, population number, and contribution levels aren't even comparable.
Canada would make more sense.
It's funny when people talk about the wealthy and how they pay workers like crap because that's the only way to make money. As if paying Wal-Mart workers slightly less would be the difference between the Walton's being the richest family on earth with a combined $160 Billion or Wal-Mart literally going bankrupt. I think there's a middle ground where the Walton's could still be worth billions and their workers get paid a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15
The problem there is everyone who makes over the median pays a high rate in taxes. As much as Fingerbang is against an "eat the rich" type tax system, something tells me he's even more against a "everybody pays 50%" type system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15