So I was thinking:

could you provide some sources?

if you think this "graph" image you have on your post here is something that is even worth thinking about - what with its complete lack of labels, definitions, and quantification of anything - i think you should stop thinking completely. because basing any kind of "point" off of it is nonsensical. it means nothing.

i recommend reading a real book and formulating some ideas off of that after you learn about actual economic data and the state of the world. Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty is a great book with both historical, modern, and social contexts.

you're welcome for not shit posting on this. go learn something.

ok. but in that case, we're not discussing the technical subject of the whole economic incentive and tax collection.

we're discussing now public relations, political manipulation strategies.

considering that most western countries are democracies, the main objective is to convince at least 50% of the population to agree with you. most people don't think deeply about political nonsense, most think about their daily lives. that makes an emotional argument imperative to convince them, and in that case the lefties have the upper hand. showing a picture of an immigrant child crying will convince many more people than droning on about the advantages or disadvantages of immigration policy, for example.

sure gimme a sec

>The market is not zero-sum game.
what does that have to do with income proportions?

>Also, it would seem to me, that only fair tax would be the one, where every man pays the exact same amount
this is a good point, but it wouldnt feel fair for the poor

did you even get the point, dumbass?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-loopholes-mainly-benefit-rich-1.aspx

literally just googled it, can't vouch 100% for the reliability of these sources

what point? your post makes literally no sense. you're making assumptions about shit that you don't understand based on your bullshit made up image attached to the original post. go read a book and generate actual ideas.

Better idea all around: Remove societal leeches and people with disabilities

Who gives a shit. Next.

Saying that makes people think you already have a disability. You don’t understand that do you?

Nigger how?

>So what do you think? Should we tax the rich and let the government waste the money or should we all just get equal tax? Wouldnt the latter be the only fair option anyways?

That is one hell of a false dichotomy you have there, you dumb nigger. How about the actual intelligent option of "tax the rich because even if we took 90% of their total wealth they'd still have more money than you could spend in ten lifetimes, then use that money to make the world a better place for all people instead of the 0.1%" since that's actually functional, unlike your breitbart-fucked brain?

Haha haha hahaha you wanna be nazi fags are slow as all shit. Is that you’re broke with no job? You couldn’t handle living in the ghetto I bet. You’d instantly cry to authorities out of fear. Wannabe Nazis like you are useless to American society.

>conversation devolved to calling people nazis

abandon thread

Someone’s triggered. Rofl. Nerd.

Lol yeah, you. Type us up another paragraph of impotent rage. I'm not even him

>but in that case, we're not discussing the technical subject of the whole economic incentive and tax collection.
I wasnt trying to do that in the frist place, i was just adressing the issue of taxing the rich to give to poor (which is commonly propagated by the left) as it leads to the government getting more money overall by making rich people richer, which in turn takes its motivation to help the poor.

Since we cant check what the money is really spent on they might as well just use it for egoistic means (and we all know that they are doing that already), so we should at least make the government less motivated to support the rich getting richer by getting equal taxes for everyone.

but i get the point... the government does what it wants regardless of what they are supposed to do so no change can be made to the laws that would actually accomplish anything as long as the government has the power it has right now

Thank you, didnt expect to actually learn something when creating this thread

Are you really that dumb? 1000 rich people arent going to outvote 1 million poor people. Hell if it werent for gerrymandering, republicans wouldnt control anything nationally.

why not just sterilize people with disabilities and a below 100 iq?

We should have a flat tax where everyone pays an equal percentage and we should close the loopholes which allow the super rich to dodge taxes.

Ill just ignore the rude nature of your response and thank you for your participation in this discussion

but they can pay the politicians to tinker with the elections

thanks doc

shouldnt we use a force like the government to force those rich fucker to pay their workers better rather than taking away all their (the workers) money at the top and giving it to people who simply waste it on luxuries or use it to get away from having to work?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
also this proofs that your robbin hood strategy just wouldnt work out in practice

learn to read before you call people nigger

Poor people spend money and reinvest back into the economy resulting in exponential growth. Rich people save and the economy stagnates.

So we should force the rich to spend their money?

the rich already are taxed more
every year property taxes (homes and cars) are taxed in relation to how much they're worth
anything over ~400K a year is taxed at ~37% that doesn't include any state and local taxes lol. it costs a shit load to just maintain expensive homes and cars taxes aside

>the rich already are taxed more
but is that the right way to go?

>every year property taxes (homes and cars) are taxed in relation to how much they're worth
wait, let me get this straight:
So if you live in america you have to pay the gorvernment for the right of owning a car? This is just straigh up theft, what the fuck?
And I though europe is a shithole...

That sounds fair on paper but in reality it’s extremely unfair that a man working 2 jobs that can barely afford his own place should pay the same taxes as the owner of a billion dollar company.

wait man wait, so you cant live in a house on a property that belong to you without paying the government?
And you poor fucks call your country a country of freedom...

damn, i just realized what they meant by telling me we are free-range-slaves... noone can live a life for himself without paying for something, even if you have your own land and dont make use of any outside help from the system you still have to pay for it.

Now i get your point, dear anarchists... :(

>that would mean that the government should have no interest in the well being of the majority because all the big profits come from rich people
You're ignoring several vital factor. When the government takes money in taxes they can spend it however they want, when they don't the rich people can spend it however they want and they spend it on influencing politicians. Insane amounts of cash go into lobbying and just a handful of people like the Koch's or sorros can influence races and policy all over the country. Without such money influence the government would be entirely beholden to the majority.

Your conclusions also seems to be based on the premise that such rich people are generating free wealth out of nowhere instead of simply taking a disproportionate cut of the money produced by the labor of the majority. A dollar is the same for the government whether it's from a rich or poor person and the idea is that by using the extra tax from the rich who have most benefited from the system try can fund programs that will help raise up lower classes who will then contribute more. Spending tax money to make rich people richer won't generate extra wealth from thin air to recollect. In fact we know that money for poor people tends to stimulate the economy, and thus increased tax revenue, more than money for rich people. Poor people immediately spend money on bills and food and needed expenses they've held off on while rich people use money in complex schemes to hide their money away from being taxed.

>it would seem to me, that only fair tax would be the one, where every man pays the exact same amount
That seems fair in a certain specific point of view but only under the assumption that people benefit equally from bellonging to the system and therefore owe an equal amount. The counter argument is that rich people benefit the most from the system and should therefore take on greater responsibility to help fund the system and further such fund should be used to help elevate those who have not benefited as much for various reasons.

Whynotboth.jpg
We should close the loopholes regardless but you can still make an argument for the rich paying a larger share.

Not just politicians.
We all like to believe we're impartial logical islands above all influence but rich people don't put mountains of cash behind ad campaigns for nothing.

>Your conclusions also seems to be based on the premise that such rich people are generating free wealth out of nowhere
No im just saying that taxing the rich motivates the government to have more rich people

>by using the extra tax from the rich who have most benefited from the system try can fund programs that will help raise up lower classes
In which fairytale-wonderland will this work out? As if anything would change when we we would do that. At best it would make the government waste a lot more than before

See

>the rich already are taxed more
And yet their percentage of the overall wealth keeps growing while the rest of the us have our share shrinking. Average people are working longer hours and are more efficient in their work while compensation has stagnated or even reduced adjusted for inflation and vacation time has likewise withered yet the rich give themselves bigger and bigger bonuses.
>it costs a shit load to just maintain expensive homes and cars taxes aside
Oh poooor rich people can't be burdened with more taxes to pay for schools and infrastructure because they need that money for their antique car collections and multiple vacation homes in areas facing housing crisises.

this

why notr force them to pay workers a fair amount insted of stealing from everybody but disguising it as taking from the rich?

agreed

why are lefts so keen on stealing from the people but never think of maybe putting laws in place that force company owners to pay their workers fair(er) wages? Wouldnt that make way more sense than giving the money the workers made to someone compeletly not related to the business

You can't just say
>ISSUE
>GUYS ISSUE
>NO GUYS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
>YOU CAN'T BECAUSE ISSUE
while we're saying we want to fix that

>You can't just say
yes i can, try stopping me

so, one thought that I have been kicking around is this - assume that the government is a self-interested, rational actor that wants to maximize its profits, meaning tax money

if poor people are a net drain, and rich people provide a lot of taxes, then the government will be incentivized to create wealthy people and get rid of poor people. the effect is that the government tries really fucking hard to actually lift people out of poverty - not just to seem moral to voters, but to line their own pockets, which means they will expend a truly honest effort to lift people out of the lower classes

that will apply to upper classes as well. they want wealthy people, so they make it easier to get educated, live in safe neighborhoods, be healthy, go to good schools, start your own business, etc. these things will end up shaping a better society, even though the government will be acting 100% selfishly

Thanks, doc.

would be cool if the government was a being on its own but its a cooperation which is made of people and people dont have to act beyond their own lives which means that goals that would strenghen society long term wouldnt be profitable for the individual that dies before the benifits hit its cooperation.

>if poor people are a net drain
but they arent, they are neutral as long as they keep to themselves and are actually beneficial for the rich, my point is that if the poor work for the rich and you take from the rich there is nothing left to give to the poor

that is indeed a problem with 4-year terms, and the swinging pendulum. if one side makes progress, the other side undoes that progress, and it's not clear who makes the positive progress because everything is on a lag and these short intervals

my point is if they were truly a net drain, if they were all given basic income with no expectation of ever getting a job, and that money was straight from taxes, they wouldn't benefit the rich or the government at all, so everyone would be incentivized to lift them out of poverty, even the middle class

>Should we tax the rich and let the government waste the money or should we all just get equal tax?
Loaded question, but I'll bite. Equal tax sounds good on paper, but you can't possibly get the money you want out of the poor. 90% of the people control 10% of the wealth. Taxing that 10% for a single percent is not going to turn out as well as you might imagine.

how wouzld giving away free money solve anything? If you dont work you get nothing the point is to help those who do work, how is it helping workers if we give their hard earned money to leaches?

>but you can't possibly get the money you want out of the poor
But then there would be a motive to raise average income, wouldnt it? Also you would get equal taxes regardless of money distribution instead of most of the money from a few so the gov would have to work for everyone that pays taxes at once, not just the rich

I... didn't understand any of that

Not amerifat but you're forgetting cars use roads and houses use running water and electricity.

but those are taxed too arent they

if is tax equal for everybody than there would be no motive to make the rich richer, at least from a taxation point of view

Why am I concerned with the rich being richer?

the problem is the getting, if the rich get richer than someone needs to get the other end

inb4 economic growth: Being rich is alway relative, if we compare ourselfs to the mid ages we would all be considered rich

https:\\discordapp.com\invite\8qeq9Xn

-to0

Attached: file 5.jpg (707x1000, 143K)

not necessarily, this is a HUGE fallacy

the rich are getting richer FASTER than the poor are getting richer

"the poor are getting poorer" means that poor people afford LESS, eat less, go to worse schools, have less clothes, have less electronics, buy less things, slower internet, etc.

that is false, EVERYONE is getting richer, it's that the richer are getting richer faster, so the gap is widening. but the poorer are only getting poorer in relative terms - whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable, but it is objectively true that the poor are also getting richer

Flat tax rate of 15% across the board. No exceptions no breaks no questions. No more need for an IRS. No more need to give the government an interest free loan. No more loopholes for rich fags to exploit.

Abolish taxes.

Attached: 448f9ad41e04965616432d6a502691f6347f9afa6fe7ecf754e6364cfd461bbc.jpg (392x392, 47K)

>im just saying that taxing the rich motivates the government to have more rich people
And I'm saying that's wrong. More rich people doesn't create extra wealth out of thin air but progressive taxation works towards that anyway by using taxes from the rich to fund programs to elevate the lower classes so they can pay more too.
Most of the policies that would favor the rich revolve around taxes anyway so you're trying to argue that taxing the rich will make the government favor the rich so they won't tax them as much, it makes no sense.

>In which fairytale-wonderland will this work out?
We already have programs that help lower classes, we just obviously need more.
>See
Well I do think we should enforce more regulation regarding wages especially considering stuff like how we basically subsidize Walmart wages because of how many o them are on welfare. Of course there's significant push back on that from people on libertarian grounds, because they think it's too big of a burden and will lead to downsizing, or because they're right owners who want to pay less. That last category being the ones who also put the most money behind lobbying.

They resist such measures and have the most money to buy lobbying and political support.
Not saying we shouldn't do it but it's no easy thing.
I'm not gonna engage the "Le taxation is theft" but as long as we do have modern tax systems I see no reason why those that have biggest share of wealth shouldn't contribute more.

>never think of maybe putting laws in place that force company owners to pay their workers fair(er) wages
Except that's a complete lie, they do push for higher wages all the time.
A national 15 dollar minimum and higher minimums generally is a huge talking point on the left.
It's the right that generally opposes and blocks such measures.

Like seriously wyf are you talking about? It's like you're completely out of touch with reality.

There's a marginal value of money.

$1000 to a poor person may be a life-changing amount of money. $1000 to a rich person is just something they leave in their account.

Also, if there is the "strong social safety net" of government programs, you can make a nice pie graph about "equal taxes" but once you factor in the effects of government assistance programs you end up in a situation that doesn't look much different from "higher tax on rich" anyway. You've just introduced the inefficiencies of government as a middleman.

Because everyone else is getting poorer too.
The rich are taking up a bigger and bigger percentage of the wealth, leaving less for the rest of us. They use this wealth to influence law to their whim including reducing regulation on themselves and how they treat and compensate workers.
They can use their wealth to get around crumbling infrastructure that the rest of us rely on and push to cut such funding to reduce their tax burden even further.

You wouldn't make up enough in loophole elimination to make up the difference and while it's easy to say "eliminate loopholes" rich people will always spend more to hire smarter people to find or make new loopholes.

People need to work, they don't need cigarettes.