If we can only destroy the manufacturing capacity of every other industrialized country in the world, this would work!!! That's exactly the situation that existed after WWII. Basic economics?
This makes absolutely no economic sense at all. Business investment creates jobs. So the guy who invests an extra 25 million creates hundreds of jobs.
I edited this post because I somehow managed to quote the wrong one of your statements and threw the whole conversation into stupidville. My apologies. Revised it and now it's probably going to make it even harder to follow.Tax them at 70% and you destroy their ability to scale and create more jobs, thus knocking them out of the top. If people want more money, do what the top do - execute. .
What's this have to do with people executing and not living by excuses? If anything, it supports the statement I made.Your assertion above is incorrect.
If you took half the net worth of the richest 40 people on earth via tax in 5 years those same 40 people would likely have just as much again as they do now and still be the richest 40 people on earth.
When you are worth 10s or 100s of billions, losing half is not going to change your life. You will still have enough with the skill and assets you had before to regrow the loss.
This is a fair point. Credit cards and other loans are amazing. They allow you to spend money that may not exist and dupe an entire populous.Too much is focused on what is fair in taxation. What is critical is figuring out how to stimulate a much larger share of wealth to circulate through the economy. Use tax policy to directly incentivize economic stimulation, job creation, and wage growth or send out the heavy tax bill. Arguing that billionaires earned it and it's all their's is like arguing, from the back seat, that it's Dad's car and if he wants to drive it off the cliff, that is his right. Ours is the illusion of a strong consumer economy that is increasingly propped up by personal debt. It's economic suicide to not come up with a more sustainable longterm track than what we are on.
Speaking of irrelevant arguments.Of course there's a difference. This is not rocket science. That difference, however, is irrelevant to my argument.
Who paid the trillions of cost you referenced?
Is there a plan now? If not, what does it matter where we put the top bracket? The ultra-rich will just skate away like they are now. Of course, if they can't skate on all of it, just a certain percentage, well that's a horse of another color, innit?What's your plan to stop the personal income being gamed?
No I don't. That's a highly convoluted game as the tax codes were written for the rich with a lot of provisions and components to game the provisions.I might also ask you the same thing. Do you have a plan to keep the billionaire class from gaming their personal income so they don't pay the taxes they should?
Tax them at 70% and you destroy their ability to scale and create more jobs, thus knocking them out of the top. If people want more money, do what the top do - execute.
You wouldn't necessarily destroy anything. The only group that could possibly be effect would be outside investors. Since, anyone who is running their own business/company, would be using company dollars to fuel growth, not their personal dollars.Irrelevant. Taxing ridiculously high rates at >= $10 million or whatever # the classroom academics feel is 'fair' still impacts the rate of scale and innovation. Textbook example of the Cobra effect.
When that stops, you don't just stay where you are in business...you shrink and get squeezed out thus not being in the top anymore. Current value trends downards. It's a simple model.
Depends.So you're telling me that the key to economic growth is less capital investment?