A modest proposal 90% tax rate

[midcan5]

A Basic Income for All

"If you really care about freedom, give people an unconditional income.

Entering the new millennium, I submit for discussion a proposal for the improvement of the human condition: namely, that everyone should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient for subsistence.

In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations."

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

================================================

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There would be another revolution against the treasonous politicians in DC and I'd probably be more than willing to lead the charge. I believe were taxed enough right now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Take the producers money away and there is no reason for them to produce anymore. What do you think will happen when NO ONE works?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Take the producers money away and there is no reason for them to produce anymore. What do you think will happen when NO ONE works?

And if your going to suggest we force them, umm you going to pay the goons more so THEY work?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I believe William Bradford experimented with this and it did not work.

 

[Alpha1]

A billion hours ago our ancestors were

living in the Stone Age.


> Tax his land,
> Tax his wage,
> Tax his bed in which he lays.
> Tax his tractor,
> Tax his mule,
> Teach him taxes is the rule.
> Tax his cow,
> Tax his goat,
> Tax his pants,
> Tax his coat.
> Tax his ties,
> Tax his shirts,
> Tax his work,
> Tax his dirt.
> Tax his tobacco,
> Tax his drink,
> Tax him if he tries to think.
> Tax his booze,
> Tax his beers,
> If he cries,
> Tax his tears.
> Tax his bills,
> Tax his gas,
> Tax his notes,
> Tax his cash.
> Tax him good and let him know
> That after taxes, he has no dough.
> If he hollers,
> Tax him more,
> Tax hi m until he's good and sore.
> Tax his coffin,
> Tax his grave,
> Tax the sod in which he lays.
> Put these words upon his tomb,
> 'Taxes drove me to my doom!'
> And when he's gone,
> We won't relax,
> We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> CDL License Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel Perm it Tax
> Gasoline Tax
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax
> Inventory Tax
> IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
> Liquor Tax,
> Luxury Tax,
> Marriage License Tax,
> Medicare Tax,
> Property Tax,
> Real Estate Tax,
> Service charge taxes,
> Social Security Tax,
> Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
> Sales Taxes,
> Recreational Vehicle Tax,
> School Tax,
> State Income Tax,
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
> Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
> Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
> Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
> Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
> Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
> Telephone State and Local Tax,
> Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
> Utility Tax,
> Vehicle License Registration Tax,
> Vehicle Sales Tax,
> Watercraft Registration Tax,
> Well Permit Tax,
> Workers Compensation Tax.
>
> Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
> and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
> We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in
> the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
> What happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'
> And I still have to 'press
> 1' for English.

 

[Toro]

A Basic Income for All

"If you really care about freedom, give people an unconditional income.

Entering the new millennium, I submit for discussion a proposal for the improvement of the human condition: namely, that everyone should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient for subsistence.

In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations."

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

================================================

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

First, if you taxed everyone at a 90% or even 70% of wealth, you'd soon find that there isn't that much wealth left to tax. After all, communism failed for a reason.

Second, its true that in American history, there is no correlation between the rate of economic growth and the marginal rate of tax. However, very few actually paid that level of tax. Instead, great expense was undertaken to avoid such punitive tax levels, and the actual rates of taxes paid was much, much lower. Thus, the historical analogy is incorrect.

Oh, finally, the per capita rate of economic growth from 1975-2004 was higher than from 1945 to 1974. It was something like 2.0% for the former and 1.7% for the latter.

 

[LOki]

Entering the new millennium, I submit for discussion a proposal for the improvement of the human condition: namely, that everyone should be paid a universal basic income (UBI), at a level sufficient for subsistence.

This promises to be a weepy petition to give to the incompetent at life some subisidy because they "deserve" it, based on the farcical notion that "need" equates to "deserve." I predict this will go on to promote some political power ponzi scheme, where somebody points a gun at somebody else to make sure that the incompetent at life get this subsidy, rather than what they really deserve.

In a world in which a child under five dies of malnutrition every two seconds, and close to a third of the planet’s population lives in a state of "extreme poverty" that often proves fatal, the global enactment of such a basic income proposal may seem wildly utopian. Readers may suspect it to be impossible even in the wealthiest of OECD nations.

I suspect the proposal to be bullshit. I suspect it to be a means by which sanctimonious fuckasses like Philippe Van Parijs pretend to hold moral high-ground in order to hold a gun to the head of another person while telling them what to do with their life. It doesn't change a thing that he uses the intermediary of government to accomplish his goal--not a single thing.

Yet, in those nations, productivity, wealth, and national incomes have advanced sufficiently far to support an adequate UBI. And if enacted, a basic income would serve as a powerful instrument of social justice: it would promote real freedom for all by providing the material resources that people need to pursue their aims. At the same time, it would help to solve the policy dilemmas of poverty and unemployment, and serve ideals associated with both the feminist and green movements. So I will argue.

I will argue "fuck 'em."

Fuck 'em in their stupid asses if they cannot find an appropropriate manner in which to peacefully exchange value with their fellow human beings. Fuck 'em if that means they starve to fucking death. Fuck 'em if that means they cannot afford health care. Fuck 'em if that means they can't own a house. Fuck 'em if that means they can't get cable. Fuck 'em if that means they can't have a BMW. Fuck 'em if that means their kicks are not Nike. Fuck 'em and their progeny--and when I say "progeny" I know I am saying "innocent children." Fuck 'em. Human beings ARE NOT an endagered species; we should stop treating ourselves like one.

I'm not about to stop anyone who wants to help these losers out. I will go so far as to protect those who wish to help those losers out from those who wish to stop them. But those who wish to help those losers out cannot claim "social justice" if they take from others by force, the means by which they help those losers. There is no justice, "social" or otherwise, in theft.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This promises to be a weepy petition to give to the incompetent at life some subisidy because they "deserve" it, based on the farcical notion that "need" equates to "deserve." I predict this will go on to promote some political power ponzi scheme, where somebody points a gun at somebody else to make sure that the incompetent at life get this subsidy, rather than what they really deserve.


I suspect the proposal to be bullshit. I suspect it to be a means by which sanctimonious fuckasses like Philippe Van Parijs pretend to hold moral high-ground in order to hold a gun to the head of another person while telling them what to do with their life. It doesn't change a thing that he uses the intermediary of government to accomplish his goal--not a single thing.

I will argue "fuck 'em."

Fuck 'em in their stupid asses if they cannot find an appropropriate manner in which to peacefully exchange value with their fellow human beings. Fuck 'em if that means they starve to fucking death. Fuck 'em if that means they cannot afford health care. Fuck 'em if that means they can't own a house. Fuck 'em if that means they can't get cable. Fuck 'em if that means they can't have a BMW. Fuck 'em if that means their kicks are not Nike. Fuck 'em and their progeny--and when I say "progeny" I know I am saying "innocent children." Fuck 'em. Human beings ARE NOT an endagered species; we should stop treating ourselves like one.

I'm not about to stop anyone who wants to help these losers out. I will go so far as to protect those who wish to help those losers out from those who wish to stop them. But those who wish to help those losers out cannot claim "social justice" if they take from others by force, the means by which they help those losers. There is no justice, "social" or otherwise, in theft.

And as I pointed out, if you tax all the income away from those that WILL work, they will soon see no need TO work. If everyone gets the same pay whether the work or not, what happens when everyone stops working? You can not hire guards and police to force them to work, because they TOO get screwed by the UNIVERSAL tax. Unless your going to propose THEY get more to force the rest of us to work.

 

[LOki]

And as I pointed out, if you tax all the income away from those that WILL work, they will soon see no need TO work. If everyone gets the same pay whether the work or not, what happens when everyone stops working? You can not hire guards and police to force them to work, because they TOO get screwed by the UNIVERSAL tax. Unless your going to propose THEY get more to force the rest of us to work.

It's clear that this Philippe Van Parijs got his notions of "social justice" from feudal europe, early 19th century American plantations, or Nazi concentration camps perhaps.

 

[midcan5]

Take the producers money away and there is no reason for them to produce anymore. What do you think will happen when NO ONE works?

Did you miss the final quotation?

LordBrownTrout, why not start now?

Alpha1, if you had a point it disappeared somewhere in your list.

Tora, I agree a little - but isn't China communist? and if so, they defeat that old argument.

Loki, 'weepy?' and a lot of vulgarity, and you went to school where? Do your parents think the same? Curious.

 

[trobinett]

One sentence midcan, count me OUT of your utopia.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have no problem with that, midcan. I need supporters, lots of money, constitutional attorneys, but no violence. I know my views may seem somewhat radical but almost all up on capitol hill have their own self serving interests without us in mind.

 

[midcan5]

I have no problem with that, midcan. I need supporters, lots of money, constitutional attorneys, but no violence. I know my views may seem somewhat radical but almost all up on capitol hill have their own self serving interests without us in mind.

Interesting reply as usually free market libertarians or economic conservatives brag about how they have done it all on their own. There is more truth in your statement than you realize.

Trobinett, only the good guys are allowed into my world.

 

[LOki]

Loki, 'weepy?'...

Yep. Weepy. Add hand-wringing.

...and a lot of vulgarity,...

Poetic license.

...and you went to school where?

Relevency?

Do your parents think the same?

Sure.

Curious.

No one asked, please don't tell.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The question is, how many loopholes were there? This applies when comparing other countries as well. Only a tax professional knows for sure, but you can cut through all this quite easily, by simply looking at what percentage of GDP the government consumes.

Maybe it got it through high taxes. Or borrowing, or inflating, or a flat tax, or cigarette taxes. At the end of the day, the result is the same: government is consuming (X) amount of resources--steel, oil, rubber, concrete, manpower, food, etc. And it's allocating those resources less efficiently than free individuals would be, on average.

Now if you want to say that there are some things that government does which the private sector can't/won't do, and the burden is worth it, well maybe you have a point. I might even agree, except my list of things the private sector can't do effectively is exceptionally short.

 

[midcan5]

The question is, how many loopholes were there? This applies when comparing other countries as well. Only a tax professional knows for sure, but you can cut through all this quite easily, by simply looking at what percentage of GDP the government consumes.

And that has changed? 90% and still somehow the world didn't collapse.

Loki, that link about freedom and property reminds me of something Chairman Mao would put out. Simplistic nonsense.

 

[LOki]

Loki, that link about freedom and property reminds me of something Chairman Mao would put out. Simplistic nonsense.

That's pretty funny considering Mao's complete disregard for the principle of self ownership.

 

[midcan5]

That's pretty funny considering Mao's complete disregard for the principle of self ownership.

Simplistic like Mao.


"The wealth of society is created by the workers, peasants and working intellectuals. If they take their destiny into their own hands, follow a Marxist-Leninist line and take an active attitude in solving problems instead of evading them, there will be no difficulty in the world which they cannot overcome." Mao

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

And that has changed? 90% and still somehow the world didn't collapse.

Exactly, the percentage of GDP consumed by government hasn't changed radically, although it has crept upwards somewhat. The maximum tax rate has changed quite a bit, but the total amount of wealth confiscated by government hasn't.

I assume that your proposed 90% for high incomes would not come with loopholes, correct? If that's the case, feel free to advocate that, but just be aware that the 90% tax rate of decades past absolutely does not prove your point.