Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Patooka]

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?

You really think incentives would die if people could only spend 100 million a year on themselves? Personally, I think income tax should be 80% after 10 million, which incidently is less than the income tax rate of most western nations in the 50s and 60s. And that lead to the greatest capitalist boom in economic history.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Which can easily be done by simply putting perfectly reasonable caps on compensation differentials. I noted this on another forum, but if Jeff Bezos gave every single one of Amazon's 750,000-odd employees a $10,000 monthly raise, he would STILL earn something like $500,000,000 every month.

I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money off of their intelligence, strategy, genius, hard work; whatever you want to call it--and I have reservations about how to best value someone else's contribution to that overrall effort, such as an assistant or junior analyst, etc--but reasonableness should be something we can all agree on and it seems to me that $500M per month is way beyond merely reasonable, so what could his objection possibly be?

It goes beyond good citizenship--a deliberately forgotten/obscured concept (primarily by Republicans) so that only the first two acts of Wall Street are emulated, never the third--and into (arguably) criminally unethical behavior.

But, how to regulate it, as always, becomes the issue since greedy cocksuckers like Bezos evidently won't do it voluntarily.

I tend to think the simplest and easiest way is a more progressive income tax. It's already been done so there's no constitutional barriers to negotiate. But yeah, it's ludicrous to rely on the good will of a charitible heart. I don't go that far in trusting any economic class, let alone the titans of business. Fortunately that's what we have governments for. Doing what's good for the country despite the basic instinct to look out for number one.

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

Nobody actually receives a billion dollars a year in income. Nobody.

Billionaires are asset rich.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Nobody actually receives a billion dollars a year in income. Nobody.

Billionaires are asset rich.

 

[angelo]

Nobody actually receives a billion dollars a year in income. Nobody.

Billionaires are asset rich.

View attachment 25631

So he should be executed because of his very successful enterprise?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Nobody actually receives a billion dollars a year in income. Nobody.

Billionaires are asset rich.

So he should be executed because of his very successful enterprise?

Your fish is a cow on Mars.

 

[Elixir]

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?

The top marginal tax rate was 93% in the 1950s - the most prosperous time in American history.
So what if a couple hundred bazillionaires lose some incentive? Hundreds of millions of others were incentivized by opportunity.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Agree with Elixir above -- and while the top rate was 93%, the effectual rate was something like 40 % points lower, wasn't it -- after the work done by tax lawyers for the top earners? In the 50s, we were actually paying the cost of fighting WWII, unlike today's world, where we fought two wars simultaneously starting in '02 and put both on the national credit ledger.
There is no such thing as a low-tax super power, IMHO, and our way of governance and life are not sustainable at the rate we're piling on debt. (What a pity that the Mike Pences in our society don't believe the teaching of Romans 13:6-7.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are two things you can be sure of in life: taxation and death.

But if you listen to angelo, there's only one thing...because those two things are exactly the same.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are two things you can be sure of in life: taxation and death.

But if you listen to angelo, there's only one thing...because those two things are exactly the same.

Who is angelo?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are two things you can be sure of in life: taxation and death.

But if you listen to angelo, there's only one thing...because those two things are exactly the same.

Who is angelo?

A guy people keep on responding too, making "ignore" a bit frustrating.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?

The top marginal tax rate was 93% in the 1950s - the most prosperous time in American history.
So what if a couple hundred bazillionaires lose some incentive? Hundreds of millions of others were incentivized by opportunity.

If you're inclined to chase money, you're inclined to chase money. I don't think being a zillionaire instead of a gazillionaire is going to disincentivize anyone.

 

[Treedbear]

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?

You mean they might have less incentive to figure out ways to profit off our personal information? That would be a shame.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agree with Elixir above -- and while the top rate was 93%, the effectual rate was something like 40 % points lower, wasn't it -- after the work done by tax lawyers for the top earners? In the 50s, we were actually paying the cost of fighting WWII, unlike today's world, where we fought two wars simultaneously starting in '02 and put both on the national credit ledger.
There is no such thing as a low-tax super power, IMHO, and our way of governance and life are not sustainable at the rate we're piling on debt. (What a pity that the Mike Pences in our society don't believe the teaching of Romans 13:6-7.)

You're missing the point--since people didn't pay that 91% rate it means nothing as to how the economy will fare if you actually had such a rate.

 

[Gun Nut]

So he should be executed because of his very successful enterprise?

Your fish is a cow on Mars.

Yes, his colors do smell like music. (I'm starting to get you now)

 

[Gun Nut]

I agree.. "earning" a billion dollars a year in income should be taxed at like 90%.. and earning less than 50k should be pretty close to 0.

Wouldn't that reduce incentive to zero?

You mean they might have less incentive to figure out ways to profit off our personal information? That would be a shame.

Let's see.. Angelo, If I ask you to carry a 50 lb box from one side of my factory to the other for me, I will pay you $1 and not take ANY fees. OR, for the same work, I will pay you 1 BILLION DOLLARS, but take a fee of 900 MILLION DOLLARS.
Which pay structure gives you more incentive to perform; the one with NO FEES or the one with (font=scary and red)900 MILLION in FEES(/font).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why are we now talking about tax policy in a thread about impeachment?

 

[Elixir]

Why are we now talking about tax policy in a thread about impeachment?

Because Teh Donald doesn't like talking about 'mpeachment, so neither do his admirers.

Speaking of Pelosi and her talking about impeachment, she's one vicious mo fo. She knows how it makes the beans in Trump's head jump when she points out that impeachment is no longer a process, it's a fact. So she keeps repeating it a la Trump. Sounds like "He is impeached. He will always have been impeached. There's no turning back on that, he'll remain impeached forever and history will record him as an impeached president ..."
Sounds so much like Trump himself that I almost expect her next line to be "Trump is the most impeached president of all time. Nobody has ever been so completely and so terribly impeached. Far more impeached than anyone else. It's a skidmark on the presidency how impeached he is!"

 

[Toni]

Why are we now talking about tax policy in a thread about impeachment?

Because Teh Donald doesn't like talking about 'mpeachment, so neither do his admirers.

Speaking of Pelosi and her talking about impeachment, she's one vicious mo fo. She knows how it makes the beans in Trump's head jump when she points out that impeachment is no longer a process, it's a fact. So she keeps repeating it a la Trump. Sounds like "He is impeached. He will always have been impeached. There's no turning back on that, he'll remain impeached forever and history will record him as an impeached president ..."
Sounds so much like Trump himself that I almost expect her next line to be "Trump is the most impeached president of all time. Nobody has ever been so completely and so terribly impeached. Far more impeached than anyone else. It's a skidmark on the presidency how impeached he is!"

Gotta love Nancy who does indeed know how to be a vicious mo fo and still look like a lady--and to still use polite words, too.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

 

[Elixir]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

You shouldn't get all worked up about stuff you're not informed on. The phone call was the least of it. But you are accurately parroting the Rethuglican Party Line on it...