Are you fine with you paying 90% of your income as taxes?
The Wealth Detective Who Finds the Hidden Money of the Super Rich
- Thread starter dealmaker
- Start date
No but if I had 100m+ I would be OK with a few percent of wealth tax, higher property taxes, a closure of all taxation loopholes. Why? Because I can still fill the cunts of my 20 lovers in my weekly orgies with beluga caviar and slurp it out of them after which I have the best lobster served on their delicious angel bodies for me to enjoy.
Privatization of things like roads has been a failure for the most part. It's simple, there cannot be actual competition, you cannot have 20 roads leading to one place. In reality there is only one road and without government oversight, they will and have hiked the prices. In the end you need to get to your destination, what are you going to do about it?
Try to earn 100m+ first. We'll talk about what would be ok for you once you get there.
For now what's wrong with your income being taxed at 90%?
Last edited:
No, but I think there is some basic stuff that makes sense to pool like insurance. The current system is not that.
Not sure what you mean but I don't mind if the govt used people's taxes as a seed capital to build its own wealth from there. So every year it required less taxes to collect. The taxation trend should be down.
In Japan most all roads are in public hands. In fact local governments have securitized future revenues from toll roads and sold those tranches in the open market. The issue in Japan are road repairs that are often awarded to private companies to prop up local blue collar sectors. To my knowledge most airports in Japan are in semi public hands. So is a majority of the train infrastructure in public hands. This is the country with the most efficient infrastructure in the world by far given the size of the country, weather conditions, earth quakes and other natural disasters. In my view one of the success stories of keeping most utilities in public hands.
%%
Sounds like he means, in no way is the IRS like insurance companies.The tax trend should be down. Its best that way. Like the Mad magazine noted with an apology to Edgar Allen Poe/ The Raven . HOW, taxes galore-a news reporter asked?? Quoth the Reagan ; less is more.
, . Private sector roads work fine on private property.On a casual look, the income in US over $600K is Fed taxed at 37%. No harm creating another bracket at $1M and more to be taxed at say 42%. 70% is too much of "disincentive" to work more for more money, what good would that be if it goes away in taxes.
Other alternative can be to spend more funds and efforts in catching the funds that went overseas without paying any taxes. This might work better. Government knows the loop holes already in place that are used by tax cheats parking funds overseas. First step should be to close these "freebees" and stop the money from fleeing.
Other alternative can be to spend more funds and efforts in catching the funds that went overseas without paying any taxes. This might work better. Government knows the loop holes already in place that are used by tax cheats parking funds overseas. First step should be to close these "freebees" and stop the money from fleeing.
Ah, typical constipation of free wheeling capitalists. First get there then you have a right to talk about it. No, I talk about it anyway, you don't need to respond to my post if you can't come up with any sensible thoughts.
90% would disincentivize people to work given they earn pretax sub 5mil or so. 50% would not. Nobody stops working because they pay 50% taxes (in quite a number industrialized, highly developed, democratic countries 50% is a daily reality for many). Where is the hurdle rate? I guess it's gonna be in the upper 50s. But I don't know. I am talking about ordinary income between 500k to 5 mil per year or so. 70-80% above 50 or 100 mil. 90% above 100mil. The idea is to prevent someone from earning zero income the entire life (only equity) and profiting from what everyone else pays into the "social pot" and then cashing out in one large chunk and fucking off. I can name another dozen reasons why it is harmful to society at large to let individuals earn 100mil without paying almost a penny in taxes but let's start with this one.
90% would disincentivize people to work given they earn pretax sub 5mil or so. 50% would not. Nobody stops working because they pay 50% taxes (in quite a number industrialized, highly developed, democratic countries 50% is a daily reality for many). Where is the hurdle rate? I guess it's gonna be in the upper 50s. But I don't know. I am talking about ordinary income between 500k to 5 mil per year or so. 70-80% above 50 or 100 mil. 90% above 100mil. The idea is to prevent someone from earning zero income the entire life (only equity) and profiting from what everyone else pays into the "social pot" and then cashing out in one large chunk and fucking off. I can name another dozen reasons why it is harmful to society at large to let individuals earn 100mil without paying almost a penny in taxes but let's start with this one.