So, that leaves taxing the unsuccessful. What an extraordinary idea! And there’s so many of them!
Which would be forgivable, if you had a more coherent argument to bring than “No thank you.” I’m tilting at windmills and I know it precious well – I’m an American socialist, for Og’s sake! Might as well be a Libertarian in North Korea or a Christian evangelist in Iran! (Apart from the personal safety factor, of course.)
Taxing the successful, at some point, becomes a disincentive for them to earn more. It’s a very bad policy. In fact, it’s upside down if the goal is to maximize taxes.
I’ve never heard you make a coherent argument FOR socialism. If you have one, let’s hear it.
And if you use the word “proletariat”, you lose. 
However, “at some point” is much higher than any level ever assesssed in the U.S. I would agree that the highest tax rates the U.S. saw were unfair and I had no problerm with them being reduced, somewhat, but even at their highest levels no one seriously stopped trying to earn more. The higher tax rates became bragging rights for those in the top brackets who tended tobe more interested in the game than in the profits and where income was simply the way they kept score.
Ever assessed in the U.S.? 91% high enough for you? At that rate, only a fool would show up for work, or maybe a good socialist. Perhaps those groups overlap.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Will you write a check to the federal government for 91% of your income? Would BG, the American socialist, do it? I doubt it.
Well 91% is clearly a ridiculous amount. Now that we have it down to a very low level, how would you feel about removing almost every tax loophole and ensure everyone pays their share?
You might be wrong about **BG ** though, as he feels about Debs the way he does, he might be very happy living in a country where everyone paid exceptionally high tax rates.
Jim
I’m sure he would be very happy with high taxes rates. But is he willing to pay those same taxes himself, or do they only apply to other people? That is my question.
As far as your earlier question, what would you consider a “paying your share?”
I am pretty comfortable paying my 35-40 percent or so counting Fed, State & SS. I would prefer if loopholes went away.
I won’t speak for **BG ** except to say his answer might surprise you.
Jim
Actually, property isn’t so much theft as it is prostitution.
Que? What do you mean?
I like the poetry of the slogan, but it kinda misses the point. Its not so much that property deprives the worthy of participation, as in theft, as it is misuse and abuse, as in prostitution.
We already recognize that property has limitations, laws abound for all those limitations, from larger matters like ultimate domain down to the trivial vexations of zoning. We don’t permit someone to abuse their property rights to our detriment.
Of course some consideration of private property is only humane, only sensible. We progressive types just happen to think it is properly adjusted a bit closer to eleven. There probably is no perfect tax rate, entirely just for all concerned, but we are convinced that we can do one hell of a lot better than we have.
I find little to worry about in disincentivizing the ambitious or the gifted, talent will out, people like to show off like peacocks strut feathers. And the aggressive and assertive will compete for free, simply given the opportunity. Hell, they’ll pay you for the privilege!
I already stated that the highest rate was unfair and applauded its lowering.
Your idiotioc claim–that you have now repeated–was that it actually caused people to stop trying to work for wealth. That certainly explains why no one in the U.S. ever attempted to found Apple or Microsoft or control General Electric or General Motors during that period.
Yours is a silly claim based on a desire to raise a straw man argument against all taxation founded on a false claim that applies an example of a hypothetical situation about an extreme situation as though it was relevant to less extreme situations despite the fact that your hypothetical has already been demonstrated to be a lie based on actual historic events.
That is one hell of a sentence, Tom. That last sentence could kill Chuck Norris.
And here I thought that weed was illegal in the great state of Minnesota. If you had the manners of a whore, you’d at least share. 
Nah. Property is rainbow, nuclear power is prostitution.
WTF are you talking about? Have you bogarted elucidator’s weed? There isn’t even a proper sentence in your little screed.
Note to ndebb, tommy needs to go to bed before he hurts himself.
Actually, tom’s sentence was a gem of correct construction and clear elucidation of a straightforward point. (Well, I’d have preferred a synonym in place of that first “situation”, maybe “case”, but that’s a nit I’m picking.) Your incomprehension is no fault of the writer you castigate with your puerile nattering.
Yikes! I think it should be much less than that. Historically, it’s been higher at times, true, but I don’t see it being any lower any time soon. 
Fucko off, Camilla.