/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13337165
long term
>tax rich more
>stifle innovation, why should they work extra hard if their extra income is taxed at 70-80%
>society innovates less ( quality of life reduced)
>less people start companies, as they dont want to become rich and have their wealth stolen
>less companies = less jobs
>society slowly decays

>>13337165
Based 16 year old socialist

>>13337165
who?

>>13337165
Go live in sub-saharan Africa, where that attitude makes sense. In order to maintain order, first world civilizations require property ethics more complex than just free for all "give me give me give me!"

But ONE day you MIGHT be rich so you NEED to PROTECT the rich RIGHT NOW

>>13337193
Retard that's not how it works

>>13337193
This

Essentially, when you raise taxes that high, you're saying that society is good enough and we don't need anything new.

This is why Europe is jealous of American tech companies and why they're trying so hard to regulate them.

Something like google or Tesla could never start in the EU today. Hence, the EU will have a lot of big, old, conservative companies that 1) gradually improve already-existing things by a fraction of a percent every year. And 2) are protected from anyone building something new and revolutionary by the EU's insistence that monopoly laws protect *companies'* ability to continue existing in the face of superior competitors rather than the ability of consumers to benefit from superior tech.

You won't see a difference OP. You will just continue to exist the way you do today, thinking things are already great and don't need to be improved. And you'll never know what you're missing. Maybe we could all have our own private factories that shit out sex robot harems that are indistinguishable from the real thing but some people decided they are happy with what we have right now and chose to slow progress down for everyone else

>>13337215
Subsaharan africa is shit due to wealth inequality amongst the nignogs. The warlord owns everything.

>>13337236
Lol yeah sure and we'll just make rape legal if you're doing it to the top 5% of attractive people> you'll never be hot or date a hot person so why do you care right

>>13337268
Inequality or theft?

You can't save for the future because a warlord will steal your savings.

You certainly won't invest in the future if you think you won't real the benefits.

Same for first world countries with high taxes. Why the fuck would you invest in something new if it's just gonna be taking because of the votes of some little shit who never did anything but smoke weed and go $30k into debt for an art degree?

>>13337165
>government stealing your money
>hurr durr they should steal even more so that they can give some back to me
maybe you can figure it out for yourself OP

>>13337268
Economic inequality is a feature of a functional economy. A naturally manifest quality resulting from disparaties between individuals. What is staggering about shitty african communities is just how equal they are. Almost all of them live on pennies a day, in sordid and perpetual squalor, and even the ruling warlords are just barely removed from these conditions, the only exceptions being those with real political power who just embezzle everything they have from the gibs of superior western countries. Closing the wealth equality gap brings everyone down toward the lowest common denominator, seldom ever elevating anyone in any significant way.

>>13337200
Elizabeth Ostrander
I cracked the code

>>13337165
s-sauce..? s-sir?

>>13337193

>He thinks the rich are the ones doing the work or innovating.

Kek. Keep shilling that Jew propaganda. If hard work made you rich, the hardest workers would be the richest. You make money with your head, family connections, and balls, not your work. I give you “self made billionaire” Kendall Jenner as exhibit A of how getting/being super rich actually works.

>>13337354
People who genuinely believe this shit typically produce nothing for themselves, so to be fair, it is a winning proposition for those who are parasitic.

>>13337373
>Elizabeth Ostrander
hero

>>13337193
Tax rich more and funnel all money into R&D grants. Don't care about companies giving jobs to the untermensch.

All women are whores

>>13337165
>tfw we're living in a time when a post this retarded may well be totally forthright

>>13337251

That's exactly how it works and not only does it apply to the rich, this crap has a very tangible effect from the ground level up.
I'm a Finn and our retarded tax system means that it makes no sense for you to earn 3000-4000€ a month, because with the rapidly increasing percentages you'll only have marginally more money than when making 2500€.
Why work so much harder when you get the same amount of money by doing 50-100h less work a month? This means that unless you work a job where you can make well over 4k a month which is rare over here, then you're better off just working less hours because there's no reward for your work.
Also when you tax the rich they're simply going to fuck off or they go around the system.

>>13337193
>implying the rich work extra hard

Sure some of them work 120 hours a week or whatever. And some of them are brilliant visionaries or whatever. I have a hard time understanding how any of that means you're entitled to 100x the income of a normal human putting in decent effort at a 40hr/wk job. Maybe 10x, if you're awesome. But 100-1000x? It's just sort of ridiculous at that point.

The tax the rich argument usually fails because it fails to make the distinction between the wealthy (doctors making $500k/yr) and the crazy wealthy (brokers or ceos pulling $10M/yr or similar). We should be focusing our redistributive efforts on the latter group, and make the fact explicit. It's a favorite diversionary tactic of shills for the elite to draw in doctors and etc into the discussion and go "do you really want to punish hard working pediatricians?"

>>13337359
that's literally just not true. The warlords are sitting on mountains of dope, guns and hard cash. In other words, they are africa's .01% hoarding however much % of the continent's total wealth. It boils down, again, to a matter of inequality and the erosion of social fabric and order that inevitably occurs when there is such an imbalance in wealth distribution.

Leftypol still so mad they spam the buisness forum dailey like a bunch of little kids

You losers make me sick. Its called Natural selection. You simply dont deserve to live

>>13337165
Fucking college commie. If the rich are taxed they’ll just pass on the cost the customers....hence inflation. You really think “the rich” will just cut into their profits to support leeches ? Or they’ll just have an incentive to go where taxes are lowest, as anyone would. Then you’re right back where you started because you have less buying power. Back to ECO 101 with you.

>>13337477
As well as which sectors those crazy wealthy work within and how they are affecting the world with the current policies

>>13337193
>stifle innovation, why should they work extra hard if their extra income is taxed at 70-80%
We had innovations back when we taxed them even higher than that. In fact that was when America was doing its best.

>>13337193
>implying the best innovations weren't made by poor as shit tinkerers doing things because it made them giggle.

>>13337547
Why not just have wealth caps? As soon as someone gets to a certain limit everything beyond that is redistributed. So what if the rich can only afford 1 mansion instead of 10?

>>13337533
flipping skull bags is the next big thing goys
>unironically buying 100k worth of skulls

>>13337576
Because so long as you don't tax them faster than they gain money they'll keep doing it.

And it'll help stop Bezos from buying an entire generation of politicians. Or at least it would have.

>>13337542
>they’ll just pass on the cost the customers
Just outlaw that lol.

>ITT commie brainlets arguing about how much money people should be allowed to make
>on a business & finance forum
I hope you faggots unironically go neck yourselfes. cut down taxataion to, say, a 10% flat tax to finance muh infrastructure and police/military and watch the economy go through the roof. you could make a comfy living working a part time job. but no instead you faggots want even more taxes and a cap on wealth holy shit please be trolling. why dont you faggots move to europe if you're dying to give away more of your hard earned shkels to big daddy government.

>>13337477
It's not necessarily that they "work extra hard", although many of the wealthy do, but that they provide extra value. You may disagree that the value some provide is valuable corollary with their wealth, and that is a reasonable debate to be had. So rather than attack the very mechanism by which wealth is distributed and resources allocated, it may be more reasonable to ask WHY western society finds certain positions to be so grossly disproportionately valued over others. Western civilization is terminally ill, but extreme wealth disparity is a symptom, not a cause.

>>13337627
>just outlaw allocating resources
wew

>>13337568

This lol. Seems people have literally 0 understanding of psychology lol. You can't turn a lazy fuck into a startup tryhard or vice versa no matter what you do with taxes. Personality traits are mostly stable throughout your life.

>>13337652
Not an argument

>>13337193
>if the rich people have more money they make more jobs

>>13337477
>I have a hard time understanding how any of that means you're entitled to 100x the income of a normal human
It's because you don't understand one of the fundamental truths of life: no one is entitled to anything. The market is the way it is because certain things net a higher income and so certain positions pay more; some a LOT more. Some people essentially game the system because they've put in the hours, thought and effort to figure out how to do so in an effective way. Are they entitled to it? No. But going back to your line of logic what then exactly makes you feel you're entitled to it?

The only people who don't want to tax Jeff Bezos in order to get two hours shaved off the workday with better pay are boomers.

>>13337576
Because it isn't fair. The Lefty thinks it is because he confuses fair with morally just. Fair is that everyone pays the same percentage, and the rich already pay more as it is.

>>13337477
>I have a hard time understanding how any of that means you're entitled to 100x the income of a normal human
because youre a useless sack of shit who has never contributed anything of value to society. if you started making some real money you would change your tune real fast fuckboi

>tax rich
>rich gtfo
>country goes to shit
>invaded by terrorists

>>13337165
This is exactly why everybody who's income is above $75k won't care when poor people are being culled openly in a couple of years.

Ask the average San Fran resident if they would really care if the homeless was culled.

>>13337773
Cringe

>>13337259
>Essentially, when you raise taxes that high, you're saying that society is good enough and we don't need anything new.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>yo Bill, computers are a crazy cool thing, should we play with them more?
>nah Steve, u didn't hear about Bernie? we don't need computers, we got gibs.
>lmao bill ur so rite, we gonna get taxed to shit anyway, why even computer ya know??
>pass the blunt

>>13337443
sounds like you retards made your taxes too progressive at the low end. that doesn't disprove all taxes

>>13337631
>Western civilization is terminally ill
yah bro your ideology is a symptom

>>13337773
>taxing rich people will lead to terrorists invading
Are Americans actually this retarded?

>>13337165
yep i agree, i think only rich dont want rich to be taxed

>>13337165
>bite the hand that feeds
>wonder why you don't eat anymore

>>13337667
the assertion doesn't warrant an argument. it was a patently retarded statement.

>>13337814
and massive idiots susceptible to propaganda by the rich

>>13337831
Not an argument

What is the point of wealth distribution? Do you think you're making people better off? Do you think you're uplifting niggers by handing them money every month? What exactly do you hope to achieve?

>>13337797

>yo Bill, computers are a crazy cool thing, should we play with them more?
>nah Steve, u didn't hear about Bernie? we don't need computers, we got gibs.
>lmao bill ur so rite, we gonna get taxed to shit anyway, why even computer ya know??
>pass the blunt

/thread

>>13337825
>Implying the rich are the ones that feed you

>>13337630
>hurr Yurop is socialist durr

>>13337259

>>13337881
yeah really, it's the 99% that are feeding the 1% and they don't even know it lol fucking suckers

I don't really care about the rich I just want a high-paying part-time job. I want to make $30K a year working 20 hours a week.

>>13337797
My economic ideology is eugenic. Yours is dysgenic.

>>13337891
>hurr social democracy is not just a epuhemism for socialism durr

>>13337627
>just outlaw that
You want to outlaw inflation ? Fucking kek. I’ll humor you. How would you even enforce that ? Inflation has been around as long as prices have. The cost of doing business goes up over time. And if you create price controls you just cause shortages, like with apartments and the gas shortage way back in the 70s. Seriously, I hope you studied hard for that ECO exam.

>>13337812

>be eupoor
>tax rich
>ahmeds everywhere

>>13337912
The 99% are the ones who actually do all the fucking work you retard. Do you really think that Warren Buffet has anything to do with producing the hamburgers you stuff into your fat face every night?
>>13337958
>Yurop has a billion mooslims XDDDD
Shut the fuck up MAGAfag

>>13337958
it's unfettered capitalism that's pushing for open borders. my god people here got it twisted how can you all be so clueless

>>13337983
exactly, the 99% do all the work. that's what i said you retard

>>13337925
I was "economically eugenic" when I was a teenager, too. it's a good spec for the angsty-know-it-all skill tree

>>13338011
Oh shit I thought you were a pro-rich fag being sarcastic. My bad bro, I apologize

>>13337373
I was expecting some Lucie Wilde-tier titty, but she just has regular big milkers that look huge when she's clothed due to the clothes she wears

I'm kinda disappointed now desu

>>13338060
Good point, "economically fair, nice, happy, fluffy, and rainbow colored" is obviously the grown up position to take here.

>>13337907
Was Linux so innovative? Operating systems already existed.

If your counterpoint is that someone ONCE did something innovative (except it already existed, so this is still just gradual progress, nothing truly new) in the past several decades then you're proving my point.

>>13338430

>Was Linux so innovative? Operating systems already existed.

>If your counterpoint is that someone ONCE did something innovative (except it already existed, so this is still just gradual progress, nothing truly new) in the past several decades then you're proving my point.

>>13338380
"The grown up position" is to become increasingly bitter at life? that's a symptom of being a failure.

>>13337165
You shouldn't give a fuck. It's not theft. Richies are just greedy and will do anything to keep their high scores

>>13337259
Theyre trying to regulate them because they're unethical cancer trying to work their way into monopolies

This thread is cute. Apparently taxing the mega wealthy is a bad thing.

A lot of brainlets in here who don't understand economics or are just corporate shills trying to hoard their sheckles.

>>13338524
Not sure why you are invoking this axiom here, as it is a non-sequitur to my remark, but it is also very true. Case in point, socialists and commies are some of the most bitter, resentful people on the planet, which is why they embrace and proselytize Marxism, the failure dogma.

>>13337193
Why was there so much innovation in the United States in the middle of the 20th century when the top income tax rate for the richest people was 91%? It never dropped below 70% in the 60s and 70s. It only dropped to near its current level in the 80s.

I like the implication that companies are really innovating right now.
Nothing has really changed since the iPhone because now even the marginal spec upgrades are stalling. Most companies are making money by cutting costs and racing to the bottom and repackaging shit that already exists to idiot consumers.
Meanwhile the workday and workweek hasn't been shortened since it was shortened to 5 days a week so long ago.
Sorry if I don't really give a shit about the quality of life of rich assholes who make money in my to use it to lobby my rights away.

>>13337165
Raising taxes on wages gives an advantage to those with existing capital. Taxes on high salary earners need to stay low so that new families can accumulate wealth. The rich advocate for higher taxes for the rich because they know it will prevent new rich from forming and challenging them

>>13338654
You know what brother, I love you and wish you the best on your journeys. As far as individual political ideologies, who gives a fuck what other people believe. Just try to help out some of brothers that you see fallen along the way. I'll take care of a few gross niggers and shit who definitely don't 'deserve it' by your standardized survival test standards, and you take care of a few of the whites. Deal?

>>13338662
You’re a mental midget repeating talking points. Effective tax rates were never that high. Those were the nominal rates not including deductions. There were huge deductions at that time that made the effective tax rate less than half the nominal rate. Do literally 5 minutes of research

no one talks about how a higher tax rate on the super rich doesn't even matter because of how few of them exist. that's simply not where the tax revenue in the us is coming from. tax them 100% it's still a drop in the bucket.

>>13338611
Why do you hate corporations? McDonald's brings in more money from overseas into the United States (in one single day) more than all the value your entire lineage has ever contributed since the dawn of time

>>13338754
But why would you draw a correlation between innovation and tax rates? What data is there to contribute to that argument besides a gut feeling? Something like the Internet, one of the most groundbreaking inventions in human history, was a government-funded project (ARPANET), not some project that only took off because America attracted entrepreneurs with its low taxes.

>>13338816
This. Taxing the rich never makes a significant impact. The 99% of us pay most of the taxes in the aggregate and most available evidence points to tax revenues increasing when taxes are lowered on the middle class

>>13338744
Very good. I hope that those you try to help do not turn on you. Be wise about who you lend a hand, and be well.

>>13338840

This lol. Imagine thinking there was no innovation before low tax murica

>>13337193
Move where?
EU?
They tax them higher.
China?
They are hostile to them and probably tax them higher.
Russia?
They have to submit to the will of Putin or die.
Latin America?
They tax them higher...
Africa...?

>>13337193
Innovation stifling won't necessarily mean quality of life is reduced. Maybe the rate at which quality of life is reducing will diminish. But what would indicate that us being unable to innovate leads to quality of life decreasing?

>>13337165
the rich are
- gonna go somewhere else with their money
- gonna go bankrupt and with them their company making their workers (you) jobless
- gonna donate to a party that doesn't want to tax the rich
- gonna fund campaigns against your party
- gonna find loopholes and still not pay more

and best of all:
in comparison to all taxes taken, taxing the rich with even higher rates than they already are would not make a big difference

>>13338942

Aren't there places in Africa that are basically ancap? Move there I guess lol.

Tbh the rich already stole all our jobs and gave them to robots/pajeets so they should pay up. I mean at some point they will have to start paying their fair share of taxes if they want people to keep paying for their products otherwise people will have no money to spend

>>13337165
>As long as it goes to me
It will never go to you. It will go to browns and side projects for the rich in the government.

>as long as it goes to me
there's the problem
taxing the "rich" results in millionaires getting shafted, while billionaires find loopholes
billionaires use the resulting lack of competition to increase the gap
once a monopoly is attained, product quality stagnates or lowers, and working conditions for the 99% get worse
see amazon infamous business practices for a GLIMPSE of that

Most big corporations have a net profit of 5% or less, even with the CEOs generally being paid the equivalent of a few dollars per employee. The remainder-their gross profit-represents money paid to employees, goods and services purchased from other companies, taxes paid and so on.

The effective tax rate in the 50s was closer to 40% than it was 90% (which you'll note is little higher than what our taxes were in recent days), and that "90% tax rate" didn't stop the country from accruing, at that time, historic levels of debt. It was only tolerated because, though the U.S. was comparably "diverse" with different kinds of Europeans, much of the civilized world in the far east was closed for business (globalism as we know it hadn't really happened yet in part because China didn't realize how fucking gay Maoism was).

The U.S. people have been victims of the U.S. nations' success in some ways. Because we unified much of the civilized world we are the ones that largely have to pay the consequence of maintaining it. US spends 3% of its gdp on military while the EU sits back and barely makes half of its 2% obligation to NATO. US firms are responsible for the development of over 60% of new pharmaceutical drugs while the EU both refuses to pay anything above wholesale price for these drugs and also charges the US 5 to 10 times more for long known, lifesaving compounds like insulin for which they have a disproportionate influence on the market.

In short, if you think that "taxing the rich" is going to solve the very specific problems in the U.S., you are an astronomically retarded faggot who should kys yourself immediately

>>13337165
Define "the rich" before

>>13337403
>Punish employers and funnel all money into R&D grants

>>13337193
>stifle innovation, why should they work extra hard if their extra income is taxed at 70-80%
society doesn't require rich people to innovate, rich people are not innovating, you can have motives for R and D besides profit. maybe you forgot about the moon landing or internet? oh and private ISP's did not invent the internet nor innovate, the HTML your using right now doesn't cost anything and was created without profit incentive.
>society innovates less ( quality of life reduced)
quality of life doesn't rely on peoples capital, your not going to lose air conditioning or a soft bed because rich people get taxed. once again innovation does not rely on the rich.
>less people start companies, as they dont want to become rich and have their wealth stolen
cool, and? people will just start their own communally owned factories and businesses
>less companies = less jobs
the factories and services will still be needed and or taken over by the state.
>society slowly decays
alright cope harder, maybe your boss will give you $0.10 a raise after he reads this on his yacht lmao

Let's move to a different program. Zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero structure. Free for all where the best will win. Either that or we find another planet, and half of us can use our method, and the other half can use theirs.

>>13339616
You're a fucking moron... one dude with $10 billion can do more for the economy than 10,000 dudes with $1 million each.

>>13339917
>Let's move to a different program. Zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero structure. Free for all where the best will win. Either that or we find another planet, and half of us can use our method, and the other half can use theirs.


Isn't that basically most of Africa though lol?

>>13340048
You're not wrong. Outside of a little bit of interference run by neighboring countries. I just want to paint a picture for people that even if you change the rules, the best players still end up on top.

>>13339478
>fucking gay Maoism was
MAO ISN'T GAY. MAO IS BEST LEADING WHOLE WORLD. TAKE THAT BACK AMERICAN SCUM.

>>13337165
honestly the biggest problem with taking to the rich and giving to the poor is the giving to the poor part. If you subsidize being a useless sack of shit, people are going to be useless sacks of shit rather than get jobs, and being productive members of society. *looks at nignogs*

>>13337193
>work extra hard
stopped there

>>13338942
You are a retard. Lot's of first world countries will give expat rich people near 0% tax. It's only if you make the money in a country you are living in, you get taxed a lot. But as soon as you sell your company, you are pretty much home free.