the spending question will never be addressed until the tax question is exhausted. Taxes have a finite rate of 100%. No one knows what the spending limit is. Are you sure we are not trying to legislate morality? Sounds to me like we are trying to pass laws which force people to be compassionate. We could just as easily pass a law reducing the penalty for stealing jewelry and limousines from a felony to a misdemeanor. They do this all the time in the NFL to make the game more enjoyable for everyone, especially fans of the underdogs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the optimum tax rate on the wealthy?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
I think there is a more straightforward way to accomplish a very similar end. No one starts out with the right to vote -- not at 18, 21 or 35. It is paying into the common weal that earns it. Since most (probably 80%+) of legislative decisions revolve around how tax dollars are spent as blackjack says ya gotta have skin in the game.
You earn the initial right to vote by paying some minimal amount of income tax say $2,000 -- not SS, medicare etc. INCOME TAX! As long as you have paid that minimal amount in taxes for two of the past three years you keep voting. If you fall off the voting rolls because you haven't met the two out of three requirement you get back on when you again meet it.
Put the skin in and get your say. You just can't be in the pot if you don't ante up. It may seem radical but we need radical NOW!
You earn the initial right to vote by paying some minimal amount of income tax say $2,000 -- not SS, medicare etc. INCOME TAX! As long as you have paid that minimal amount in taxes for two of the past three years you keep voting. If you fall off the voting rolls because you haven't met the two out of three requirement you get back on when you again meet it.
Put the skin in and get your say. You just can't be in the pot if you don't ante up. It may seem radical but we need radical NOW!
Quote from blackjack007:
the solution is simple..
have a progressive tax structure like now, perhaps with a 50% top rate, but the more income taxes you pay, the more votes you get. everyone gets 1 vote minimum; there would be a 500-vote cap maximum.
this makes it fair; if you pay more into the system, you should have a greater say in how your money is spent. it makes no sense that a person with no skin the game has a right to dictate how other people's taxes are being spent.
yeah, I think they already tried that. That's why my family said the hell with you. We moved. Sounds like you are still imprisoned in England. How's that poll tax working out for you? I try to think of myself as opened minded. I don't know, maybe I was just brainwashed very well. We don't always know what we want, but all it takes is one sentence to remind me of England and I go ballistic. We sure as hell know what we don't want and what we will never go back to.Quote from Swan Noir:
I think there is a more straightforward way to accomplish a very similar end. No one starts out with the right to vote -- not at 18, 21 or 35. It is paying into the common weal that earns it. Since most (probably 80%+) of legislative decisions revolve around how tax dollars are spent as blackjack says ya gotta have skin in the game.
You earn the initial right to vote by paying some minimal amount of income tax say $2,000 -- not SS, medicare etc. INCOME TAX! As long as you have paid that minimal amount in taxes for two of the past three years you keep voting. If you fall off the voting rolls because you haven't met the two out of three requirement you get back on when you again meet it.
Put the skin in and get your say. You just can't be in the pot if you don't ante up. It may seem radical but we need radical NOW!
I'm not conversant with UK voting procedures but the term poll tax in the US has an entirely different meaning than what you are referring to. It was a tax (frequently accompanied by a literacy test) at the poll before you voted. The literacy test for white people in certain Southern Counties was essentially what does 2+2 equal and for blacks it was about the theory of relativity. It disappeared in 70's when courts began to rule against it.
Quote from oldtime:
yeah, I think they already tried that. That's why my family said the hell with you. We moved. Sounds like you are still imprisoned in England. How's that poll tax working out for you? I try to think of myself as opened minded. I don't know, maybe I was just brainwashed very well. We don't always know what we want, but all it takes is one sentence to remind me of England and I go ballistic. We sure as hell know what we don't want and what we will never go back to.
hey dumbass, why stop at 2k? Why not make it two million? I mean it man, you really got me pissed off. What right do you commoners have to tell those of us with the dough how to run a country? It's like the inmates running the asylumn. Just shut up and when you have as much money as I do then you can open your mouth. Is there anybody on this site that has an opinion with the money to back it up? Or is it just a bunch of paupers with all ideas and no cash?Quote from Swan Noir:
I think there is a more straightforward way to accomplish a very similar end. No one starts out with the right to vote -- not at 18, 21 or 35. It is paying into the common weal that earns it. Since most (probably 80%+) of legislative decisions revolve around how tax dollars are spent as blackjack says ya gotta have skin in the game.
You earn the initial right to vote by paying some minimal amount of income tax say $2,000 -- not SS, medicare etc. INCOME TAX! As long as you have paid that minimal amount in taxes for two of the past three years you keep voting. If you fall off the voting rolls because you haven't met the two out of three requirement you get back on when you again meet it.
Put the skin in and get your say. You just can't be in the pot if you don't ante up. It may seem radical but we need radical NOW!
This is classic. You think because I suggest a number (2K) that puts at least some skin in the game that I paid some low number in taxes last year and that I believe that the range I pay in should dictate the number.
How about we make it 100 million and that way we shut you out of the game? Unless of course you are in that league.
How about we make it 100 million and that way we shut you out of the game? Unless of course you are in that league.
Quote from oldtime:
hey dumbass, why stop at 2k? Why not make it two million? I mean it man, you really got me pissed off. What right do you commoners have to tell those of us with the dough how to run a country? It's like the inmates running the asylumn. Just shut up and when you have as much money as I do then you can open your mouth. Is there anybody on this site that has an opinion with the money to back it up? Or is it just a bunch of paupers with all ideas and no cash?
it means everyone has to pay a minimum tax to maintain their eligiblity to vote. Margaret Thatcher briefly flirted with it and was soundly shouted down with a hatred that I must have inherited from my lucky ancestors who escaped that horrible land of oppression.Quote from Swan Noir:
I'm not conversant with UK voting procedures but the term poll tax in the US has an entirely different meaning than what you are referring to. It was a tax (frequently accompanied by a literacy test) at the poll before you voted. The literacy test for white people in certain Southern Counties was essentially what does 2+2 equal and for blacks it was about the theory of relativity. It disappeared in 70's when courts began to rule against it.
actually Magaret Thatcher's had nothing to do with voting, it was just a tax that everyone must pay, and the memories of the poll tax carried the opposition.Quote from oldtime:
it means everyone has to pay a minimum tax to maintain their eligiblity to vote. Margaret Thatcher briefly flirted with it and was soundly shouted down with a hatred that I must have inherited from my lucky ancestors who escaped that horrible land of oppression.
If you want to play who's the biggest man at the table, mine goes all the way to Saint Louie!Quote from Swan Noir:
This is classic. You think because I suggest a number (2K) that puts at least some skin in the game that I paid some low number in taxes last year and that I believe that the range I pay in should dictate the number.
How about we make it 100 million and that way we shut you out of the game? Unless of course you are in that league.
in this report citygroup describes how america is on the way to being a plutonomy. the only thing the 1% really fear is one man one vote. i am sure they would be grateful for anything we can do to take away the vote from the lower classes. it makes it so much easier to accomplish their goals that way.
âWe [Citigroup]⦠posit that:
The world is dividing into two blocs â the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.
We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequalityâ¦â (Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1)
The second part ot the report goes on to detail threats to the growing world plutonomy:
"Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was â one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization â either anti-immigration, or protectionism. We donât see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments." (Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2)
In other words, the plutocrats view one-person, one-vote democracy as its greatest threat. Yes, you saw that correctly -- DEMOCRACY is the biggest threat to the new world order of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich!
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2010/08/fighting-plutonomy-one-vote-time
http://www.scribd.com/word/removal/6674234
âWe [Citigroup]⦠posit that:
The world is dividing into two blocs â the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.
We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequalityâ¦â (Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1)
The second part ot the report goes on to detail threats to the growing world plutonomy:
"Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was â one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization â either anti-immigration, or protectionism. We donât see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments." (Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2)
In other words, the plutocrats view one-person, one-vote democracy as its greatest threat. Yes, you saw that correctly -- DEMOCRACY is the biggest threat to the new world order of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich!
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/natural-lefty/blog/2010/08/fighting-plutonomy-one-vote-time
http://www.scribd.com/word/removal/6674234