> 70% corporate tax rate will get you another Reagan.
What do you mean? We still have Reagans, they never went away.
> It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products.
Right America wasn’t even remotely an economic power until the 80’s. How could I forget?
> Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers.
It’s not confiscating, it’s tax. Tax everything above one billion at 100%. It’s not one time, it’s every year. And it’s not like we wouldn’t still have incredibly rich people, we just wouldn’t be permitting them to lock up entire GDPs worth of money in nothing.
Like if you think there are tons of people out there who will refuse to create businesses because we cap wealth at a mere, paltry one billion dollars, I think that’s a those people problem not an argument against that idea.
They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason.
America's economy went from nowhere to #1 under a regime of almost no tax and regulation at all during the 1800's until 1914.
Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions. A high tax rate like that just favors the large incumbents and makes it hard for small businesses with no tax lawyers to get off the ground.
Also, oh my god, if you tax the wealth of all the billionaires at 100%:
a) it's confiscation
b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income.
c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock.
Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried.
> They'll get elected in 49-state blowouts like he did, and for the same reason.
Again you are speaking as though this isn't status quo. A huge slice of our political landscape is people who still think trickle down economics works, tons of politicians are elected running on platforms for tax cuts. Reagan's politics live on and are largely responsible for how shit the world has become over the last 4 decades or so.
> Even then, corpo's aren't actually paying 70%; there's a ton of loopholes and deductions.
Then close them.
> a) it's confiscation
I don't care.
> b) they won't magically keep churning out 12T in assets every time you confiscate it. Its wealth, not income.
Yes, and I am suggesting the tax be based on net worth, not income.
> c) the money isn't locked up in anything; how can you possibly believe this. It's invested in the economy. It's lent out to businesses and governments in the form of bonds. It's deployed capital in the form of stock.
It's not going to the workers, which is why we need UBI. People asked "How do we pay for it" and I have answered that. I don't care about lending to businesses, I definitely don't care about the debt traps set for the global south's nations, and frankly, I don't really give a shit about the economy either. We hear all about how great the economy is doing year over year, and me and my friends get more and more broke as it does. If the economy's doing great, it's not doing great for me or anyone I care about, and insofar as that's the case, why the fuck should I care if it continues to do great?
What goods an economy that doesn't serve the workers? If the economy is doing so great, why am I paying through the nose for every fucking service and resource I need? If the economy is so great, why are so many people living check to check and barely making ends meet? If the economy is so great, why is every fucking thing getting more expensive? If the economy is so great, why does a house cost 8 years of salary?
Great for WHO? It ain't doin' shit for me personally.
> Economic literacy is in an absolute shambles. We need to urgently improve the teaching of economics to kids. Between this, the common misconceptions about inflation, supply and demand, and people not knowing the difference between net worth and income, I'm getting more and more worried.
I didn't say income, you did. I said "bank + assets" but if you want the fancy words, yes, net worth, held stock, bank accounts. Etc.
> A huge slice of our political landscape is people who still think trickle down economics works, tons of politicians are elected running on platforms for tax cuts. Reagan's politics live on and are largely responsible for how shit the world has become over the last 4 decades or so.
The problem here is the need to distinguish between two things that are complicated to distinguish.
There are a lot of regulations on the books with a decent cost/benefit ratio, and a lot with a poor cost/benefit ratio. Everyone benefits from removing the latter, but there are thousands of individual rules and you need someone who understands them to distinguish one type from the other. But these are often the exact people (lawyers, compliance bureaucrats) who benefit from the status quo and don't want wasteful inefficiencies to be removed because it pays their salary.
Meanwhile voters don't have the bandwidth to dive into the details, so in politics the candidates who want to do the right thing just say "we need fewer regulations" -- okay great, let's vote for that guy? But there is another class of candidate who is captured by corporations and says the same words but the regulations they want to get rid of are the ones with a high cost/benefit ratio, only the cost is on the corporation and the benefit is to the public.
You have to find a way to distinguish between them or you're screwed. Just saying "leave the inefficient rules in place and keep accumulating more of them forever" is still you're screwed, you have to actually solve that problem.
> Then close them.
That's what they did at the same time as they lowered the rate. Government revenues aren't any lower now than they were then -- they're higher.
> I don't care.
You don't care that it won't actually generate any long-term revenue? Then what is its purpose, just pure animosity?
> Yes, and I am suggesting the tax be based on net worth, not income.
Which is completely asinine because it creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
Major corporations would end up being controlled by foreign nationals instead of domestic ones because domestic owners would have to sell their shares to pay the tax. Anyone subject to the tax would have the incentive to take insanely wasteful high risk bets because high rates of return would be the only way to cover the tax without losing money year over year and losing everything to the tax over ten years isn't much worse than losing everything in a casino right away. Some assets would be harder to value than others and then trillions of dollars would shift into those assets away from others, which would be several different kinds of disastrous.
There are reasons we don't do it that way.
> frankly, I don't really give a shit about the economy either. We hear all about how great the economy is doing year over year, and me and my friends get more and more broke as it does. If the economy's doing great, it's not doing great for me or anyone I care about, and insofar as that's the case, why the fuck should I care if it continues to do great?
People say it's doing great because they have the incentive to find numbers that allow them to make themselves look good. They'll always say that when they're in charge. In fact there are some problems right now, but don't think for a second that adopting poorly considered policies couldn't make it a lot worse.
What do you mean? We still have Reagans, they never went away.
> It's a fast track to destroying entrepreneurship, reducing competition to introduce new, better products or lower prices of existing products.
Right America wasn’t even remotely an economic power until the 80’s. How could I forget?
> Furthermore, even if you went full Stalin and confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires, that's only $12T [1]. Sounds like a lot? It's a whopping $1500 per person in the world. You'll completely obliterate the economy for the ability to give everyone a check for $1500. One month later, 95% of that money will be spent and back in the hands of innovators and value providers.
It’s not confiscating, it’s tax. Tax everything above one billion at 100%. It’s not one time, it’s every year. And it’s not like we wouldn’t still have incredibly rich people, we just wouldn’t be permitting them to lock up entire GDPs worth of money in nothing.
Like if you think there are tons of people out there who will refuse to create businesses because we cap wealth at a mere, paltry one billion dollars, I think that’s a those people problem not an argument against that idea.