Please note, I said specifically that this is NOT about taxing anyone. You are going again for the idea of taxes to manipulate everything. I am opposed to that.
You aren’t thinking things through, AND you aren’t aware of the mechanics of pricing labor, especially.
And again, I KNOW that that isn’t how it works. I am saying we need to CHANGE how it works. The way it is set up now, is actually ARTIFICIAL, but most people don’t realize that it’s artificial, because it has been done that way for a long time.
Why, and on what grounds?
Well sure you do. 
So, the US seems to have about $84 trillion in wealth (that you could tax from individuals)…the top .1% have something like 35-40% of that. Were you planning to take it all at once? If not, how much are you thinking you could swipe each year and for how long? The federal budget is currently between $3-4 trillion…you are going to have to make up most of that from your other scheme of taking all income from the top .1%. Also, you are talking about taking the seed corn at this point if you are going to make up the shortfall in your other schemes. Unless you have the impression that the top .1% gain more each year than the federal budget is annually, do you see where this is going?
I have concluded that your conclusion is worthless as it seems you have serious problems doing simple math. The numbers do not work the way you apparently think they do.
Slee
I have no idea what you are getting at with those random cites about things that don’t pertain to what we were discussing. But I’m happy to drop the subject since you now admit that you were guessing. I’m not much interested in debating with a guess.
You’re saying you can’t get blood from a turnip.
I want to say fuck the turnip and go get blood from a cow instead. The businesses and giant corporations are the real problem, but we surely can tax the rich individuals more so we can lessen the taxes on the poor. Just adjust the whole tax setup to even out the tax cuts on the poor with tax increases on the rich.
I don’t feel that it’s right the poor are the ones always picking up the slack. That’s not right on so many levels. If poor people got more money they will spend more which makes the rich people more money. The obvious answer is to tilt the tax system towards the poor instead of the rich so the rich pay more to make up ffor what we give the poor relief from.
I think you were asking how many people paid the maximum tax rate (not just how many people are in that bracket but actually paid as much as was possible under the tax code).
My guess was no one. You seemed to think I was wrong.
Best I could do, since I cannot find data on individuals, is to say that, on average, the maximum rate was not paid in the 60’s or today. That said perhaps there are some who pay the absolute maximum (as I said I think lottery winners have to pay the full amount).
Of the two of us I am the only one who has even tried to provide data. You made an assertion with nothing backing it up then are running from the debate still without a jot of evidence to support whatever it is you are on about.
Of the two I am the one not much interested in debating someone who has provided nothing of substance to the argument.
When did the Great Debates forum become a place for guesses, speculation, and feelings?
Aren’t there other forums on this board for that?
I was asked a question.
I answered the question as best I could as is appropriate in GD.
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
You’re saying you can’t get blood from a turnip.
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that, broadly (and understand I’ve been less than precise with these numbers), the math doesn’t work. And it’s silly, anyway, for a number of reasons, the first being it wouldn’t work.
Sure…you could do that. Depends on where you make the cut off to who is ‘rich’ and who is ‘poor’ and who in-between gets taxed anyway. From a federal income tax perspective this is sort of what we do already. The devil is in the details.
The poor aren’t picking up the slack, though. It’s the middle class that is taking up the slack. Other kinds of taxes are regressive on the poor, income tax is, by design, meant to fall most heavily on the ‘rich’ (well, ‘rich’ who actually make substantial income annually), and the middle class pays at both ends (i.e. sales, state and local and of course federal income). There is no sooper dooper slick way to get around the fact you need the top 30% to all pay a large share of the total tax. Even if you could put the sorts of ridiculous taxes you seem to want on the top .1% or some other arbitrary percentage they are still going to have to pay.
I’m unsure what the end goal is here in any case except to punitively punish the ‘rich’ and ‘save the poor’, whatever that means. The actual effect of anything you’ve proposed so far, however, would be to punish the ‘rich’, hurt the middle class (who would still end up having to pay, and now without as many jobs) for some ephemeral fleeting benefit to the ‘poor’…maybe. And starve the federal government with the short falls. Until the ‘rich’ basically pull up stakes and bolt, which they can always do.
Think this won’t happen? Look up some time what the rich in China have done for the last decade…then think about the fact that we are talking about freaking CHINA, with the CCP perfectly willing to take draconian measures, yet the flight of really rich people from China continues anyway. Ironically, many come here…today. Under your tender care I’m thinking they will go to Canada instead (well, more of them…a lot already go to Canada).
Seriously, instead of these schemes why not, instead, keep it real? All you really have to do is simply get rid of some of the existing tax loopholes and clean things up a bit to flow more tax income into the system (in theory…you need the economy to be doing well too)…and doing a tweak is unlikely to kill or drive off the goose. Why not do that instead?
Who’s the cow in this situation? Businesses? They’re not going to stick around to be raped by you any more than the turnips were going to. They’ll all just move to greener pastures. See Venezuela if you can’t figure out how this works on your own.
Your worldview is so far removed from reality you probably can’t see it with a telescope.
The cow is an analogy for big business. You can’t get blood from a turnip, the blood is money the turnip is individuals. But you can get blood from a cow which is a business/corperation that has a ton of money.
With that being said, quit trolling. Also my world view is removed from the general perspective of reality. What makes me see the world the way i do is the result of people like you.
@ Barack Obama:
As another Doper once pointed out, a lot of these plans of the sort that you are proposing are based off of a fallacy: * “We can change the rules/regulations, and people’s behavior will still remain unchanged.” *
People will alter their behavior based off of what the new rules are. Abolish the offsides rule in soccer? Then team strategy will change. Change baseball from three-strikes-you’re-out, to one-strike-you’re-out? You can bet pitching and batting strategy will change. Double taxes on the wealthy? Then the wealthy will do things differently.
Whatever the case may be, it is most certainly not as simple as, “Increase taxes on the wealthy by 73% and Uncle Sam will therefore get 73% more tax revenue from those individuals than before.” Their behavior will change. The result of doing that may be only a mere, say, 20% increase in tax revenue, or even perhaps a *loss *of 20% in tax revenue.
This is a warning for accusing another poster of trolling. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Well, that’s nice.
It has some wealth tax already. Property tax on vehicles and real estate are some.
I bet that if you work pretty hard and start accumulating some wealth your stance will change though.
Yes I am and yes I have. What should a painter be paid? Can you come up with a dollar value?
I believe you’ve just said something that we all can agree on 
Bolding mine
I’m interested in the implications of this idea, since it costs significantly less than $100,000 to look after a child for a year, rich people could snap up any kids waiting for adoption in order to make more money.
May need to put in provisions to stop billionaires from battery farming children though.
I don’t think you will find many who disagree.
What you want to say is ‘let’s kill the goose and get all the golden eggs now!’
Regards,
Shodan