The only way people of these means will keep their $ "home" is if the U.S. becomes a tax haven. If the rate is 10%, they will find a place where it is 5%. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/p...posing-tax-havens-of-the-mega-rich-2017-11-05 The argument that "but, they will move their money out of the U.S." is weak. They already have been.
That’s horse shit. A healthy population? How would you define that? I’m guessing that you think universal healthcare is the first step, and maybe if we jack up tax rates we can have it. There are unquestionably evil things that happen in our healthcare system and that can be a separate conversation. But universal healthcare won’t make the US have a healthy population. The thought is beyond absurd honestly. I’m not fundamentally against raising taxes. I’m against raising taxes for things that people living in reality can plainly see will not work.
I don’t know if a 70% tax rate is wise or not, and I’m not smart enough to foresee all that it could cause to occur. I am increasingly concerned with the growing inequality of wealth in this country, and particularly as it correlates to the stagnation / shrinking of the middle class. But then, I also think that it’s become far too easy to make a case against the super rich - and that it’s become just a more acceptable form of class warfare, and hence, is wrong. I think our better efforts might be spent in revamping the tax code, so as to prevent companies like Apple from moving billions of dollars off-shore, and refusing to bring it back and pay taxes on it, until the corporate tax rate is more to their liking. I can’t do that, personally, and don’t see why Apple should be allowed to do it, either. And, here’s where everyone will think I’m crazy - which is fine, because I’m largely talking out of my ass - but I’d like to get back to and better understand the feasibility of using import tariffs as the primary driver of government revenue, and not personal income taxes, instead. And, of course, until we get our spending under control, nothing else really matters. The unwillingness / inability / inattention / lack of action in curbing our spending is perhaps my single biggest disappointment with Trump. I had hoped that he’d have slashed the shit out of that budget, and damned sure not add to it.
full disclosure: I am not married to 70%. I just think major changes top to bottom should absolutely be on the table. I also think everyone should have some skin in the game, income tax wise. if that's what we are doing.
I fully agree that our system is broken and major changes are needed. What terrifies me is that my generation might be the one that votes into place people and policies that kill our future. And it’s not an irrational fear.
I'm opposed to higher taxes at this point for the same reason I am opposed to giving a broke alcoholic I know $100 dollars to buy groceries. When we can elect a government that shows some restraint in spending, perhaps a serious discussion on increased taxation is warranted.
You just talking climate change? If so, that’s another conversation. If not, I think that’s an odd thing to say given where we are right now.
not just that. debt, deficit, endless war to fuel the military industrial complex, ever widening wealth gap, rise of global "soft" threats such as antibiotic resistance, diminished food security, etc... nothing unsurmountable and yet we are frozen in the headlights, because things are fine for some of us in this very moment... there is an attitude problem concerning living only in the present and not thinking about the people none of us will live to meet.
Ok goodness let’s solve the world’s problems one at a time. As far as the votes we’re casting now and those that have been casted in the past twenty five years, I think it would be pretty dishonest to say that any options were out there who were willing or even capable of addressing these issues, some of which either didn’t exist or nobody realized they exist until recently.
Ross Perot ran his entire 1992 campaign on debt and our love affair with deficit spending. It isn't new. I voted for the crazy bastard, and am glad he didn't win. He would have been Trump 25 years earlier for the most part, imho. But the military industrial complex was warned against by Eisenhower very famously. The antibiotic stuff is relatively new, at least to me. Food scarcity has been a thing since we first moved into cities and people talk about it all the time. And I argue that the votes made 20-30 years ago exacerbated a lot of this. The Democrats like to tax and spend, the Republicans like to borrow and spend. And the massive push to privatize things and roll back regulations has, imho, really hurt us. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but none of this is new.
None of these issues were not known 50 years ago. folks just don't care if they aren't immediately effected. but these are scale, long term issues.
I could have worded better but things like the global soft threats are a much bigger deal and we’re more aware of them now than we were 25 years ago in a less connected world and one where we did not have the same technology to assess things that we do now. And the wealth gap, while not a new issue per se, is new in the sense that we talk about it today, though that isn’t to say the seeds for today’s issues weren’t planted 50 years ago.
I want to say that increasing special interest influence has a role in this, but whether it's a cause , effect, or to what degree both is up for debate.
Are you just disagreeing for fun? Perhaps we aren’t on the same page about what constitutes a soft threat. But I know you understand the changes in the economy and why the wealth gap is an entirely different issue than it was 15, 25, 35 or 45 years ago. If you can’t acknowledge that then you’re not being serious.
