Three very rich guys talk about Trump, taxes, and the 'vilified' 1%

[Machismo]

Of course I'm selfish, I want to live in a better society for myself. The best way to do that is for money to be spread around more. It promotes more spending and the circulation of currency which is good for the economy and will lead to a far better lifestyle for everyone, myself included.

Once again, that's fair for you, but not necessarily fair to those whose money you wish to forcibly take. It's one thing to be selfish. It's another to be selfish, and use a guy with a gun to take what you want.

- - - Updated - - -

its not punishing them, its taking the money needed to maintain society from the people who would feel the impact the least.

That money is not needed, it's wanted. It can easily be considered punishing, because you are singling them out based on a difference, and forcing them to pay more. It's a form of discrimination that you happen to support.

[Daelak]

Honestly, I don't think it matters. Taxing above 50%, to me, is nothing short of slavery.

Thank Christ you will be no where near people, let alone the buildings, that make these decisions.

[Soeroah]

Of course, people want to tax the wealthy, because it means they will personally have to pay less. All you are really saying, is that people are selfish, and have no problem forcing others to pay more, just so they don't have to. That's not "fair" at all.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not fair to you, which shows fairness is a subjective term. Most Americans believe fairness is about forcing others to pay and do more. That's because most Americans are selfish.

- - - Updated - - -



So what? Nobody ever said you had to physically work to get money. Being smart, and investing well is still an example of good decision making. It seems strange to punish people who make better decisions with their money. I save a large percentage of my income, and I live beneath my means. I make sure to invest money, because I don't want to work until I die. Why should I have to pay more than those who do not live within their means?

For someone talking about fairness and selfishness you seem worringly alright with the idea of the poor being forced into homelessness or starvation just to line your own pockets.

"Those who do not live within their means" isn't a fair statement to use for those people who can't save any money because each paycheck instantly gets eaten up by bills. You sound like you're victim shaming. Believe it or not, most poor people don't choose to be poor, but it's phenomenally difficult for people under a certain wealth threshold to be able to get anywhere.

Besides which, your view that it's better to tax spending to encourage saving seems dangerous, even leaving aside the fact it automatically benefits the rich and punishes the poor. Economy works best when money is flowing and moving. It's not finite, it's like a water fountain. You have too much of it locked away, it starts causing businesses to lose profit, which costs jobs, which increases the need for welfare...

If anything spending should be encouraged and saving discouraged, especially when those saving have, combined, a third or more of the country's wealth quickly accruing interest and earning them an ever-increasing proportion of the wealth.

Unfortunately there's no perfect system or way to shift to an improved system because of tradition and people's beliefs.

[Canpinter]

That money is not needed, it's wanted. It can easily be considered punishing, because you are singling them out based on a difference, and forcing them to pay more. It's a form of discrimination that you happen to support.

you really think a society of any major size can function without taxes?

[Machismo]

For someone talking about fairness and selfishness you seem worringly alright with the idea of the poor being forced into homelessness or starvation just to line your own pockets.

"Those who do not live within their means" isn't a fair statement to use for those people who can't save any money because each paycheck instantly gets eaten up by bills. You sound like you're victim shaming. Believe it or not, most poor people don't choose to be poor, but it's phenomenally difficult for people under a certain wealth threshold to be able to get anywhere.

Besides which, your view that it's better to tax spending to encourage saving seems dangerous, even leaving aside the fact it automatically benefits the rich and punishes the poor. Economy works best when money is flowing and moving. It's not finite, it's like a water fountain. You have too much of it locked away, it starts causing businesses to lose profit, which costs jobs, which increases the need for welfare...

If anything spending should be encouraged and saving discouraged, especially when those saving have, combined, a third or more of the country's wealth quickly accruing interest and earning them an ever-increasing proportion of the wealth.

Unfortunately there's no perfect system or way to shift to an improved system because of tradition and people's beliefs.

I think people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. I have no intention of taking from others, nor do I support the idea of others taking from me. I like the idea of taxing consumption, because it promotes better decision making. Prudence is rewarded. I see no reason to promote spending, as it leads to careless decision making, which is the main cause of poverty and homelessness. The vast majority of people are poor and homeless due to the decisions they (or their parents) have made.

[Daelak]

Of course I'm selfish, I want to live in a better society for myself. The best way to do that is for money to be spread around more. It promotes more spending and the circulation of currency which is good for the economy and will lead to a far better lifestyle for everyone, myself included.

Exactly, the biggest winners of a more redistributive model are the wealthy from higher GDP growth due to consumption and investment.

[Machismo]

you really think a society of any major size can function without taxes?

I think a society could exist without taxation, but I think most people are too damn scared and selfish to let it happen. They have too strong a desire to use the government to tell others how to live.

[Jinpachi]

Wow what a meaningless threat. Where are the wealthy going to go? Better yet why the fuck haven't the wealthy left the communist havens of the US and Europe for the small government paradises of Somalia and Eritrea? Pakistan and Afghanistan?

I'm calling your stupid bluff.

they havent left because they run the show

- - - Updated - - -

Where the fuck are they going to go, we are the most wealthy country in the world with the most opportunity for those with money.

I guess if we want to push the issue, we can all find out. We weren't always the wealthiest country, and as history tends to remind us if we bother to look, we probably wont stay the wealthiest if we keep going down this "tax the shit out of the rich" road.

[Canpinter]

I think a society could exist without taxation, but I think most people are too damn scared and selfish to let it happen. They have too strong a desire to use the government to tell others how to live.

yes all it would take for your system to work is a fundamental change in human nature, sure sounds like a great idea....... however in the mean time we need to be able to pay for all the things government provides, and that means taxes.

[Jotaux]

Honestly, I don't think it matters. Taxing above 50%, to me, is nothing short of slavery.

Well at no bracket are they being forced to work, let alone a bracket that would carry a 50% tax.

[Daelak]

they havent left because they run the show

- - - Updated - - -



I guess if we want to push the issue, we can all find out. We weren't always the wealthiest country, and as history tends to remind us if we bother to look, we probably wont stay the wealthiest if we keep going down this "tax the shit out of the rich" road.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation and the economy. Higher taxation of the wealthiest can only bring higher GDP growth and consumption/investment. The multiplicative effect of redistributing funds back into the economy will make the wealthiest portfolios grow at a much higher rate.

[Machismo]

yes all it would take for your system to work is a fundamental change in human nature, sure sounds like a great idea....... however in the mean time we need to be able to pay for all the things government provides, and that means taxes.

or, you could develop some personal responsibility, and do it yourself. I understand the paradigm of government and taxation, the main thing we disagree with, is the fairness of the tax structure.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation and the economy. Higher taxation of the wealthiest can only bring higher GDP growth and consumption/investment. The multiplicative effect of redistributing funds back into the economy will make the wealthiest portfolios grow at a much higher rate.

You want to tax people into wealth... got it.

[Soeroah]

you really think a society of any major size can function without taxes?

That, but I'm also bemused at the proposal that taxation based on ability is "discrimination based on a difference". The same logic could be used to say excessive pay checks and dividends are discriminatory in favour of those who are "different" in the right way.

It's not discrimination, it's a social system meant to help society function. "The difference" is earnings, not race or sex or religion. Society gives you an opportunity to make bank, and you are expected to give back to society - yet you'll always be better off the more you earn, even if the rate diminishes to a point. The idea of a flat tax rate is very much a "fuck you" to people who can't afford it, and an increasingly beneficial arrangement to the people rich enough that they won't notice being taxed for more money than many workers make in a whole year. Either the rate is set too low so the poor can survive, in which case the government gets less money and the economy crashes, or it's set too high in an effort to balance the budget which effectively kills the poor's ability to survive without handouts, which increases welfare, which increases the need for tax, which increases the amount that needs to be taxed...

[Machismo]

That, but I'm also bemused at the proposal that taxation based on ability is "discrimination based on a difference". The same logic could be used to say excessive pay checks and dividends are discriminatory in favour of those who are "different" in the right way.

It's not discrimination, it's a social system meant to help society function. "The difference" is earnings, not race or sex or religion. Society gives you an opportunity to make bank, and you are expected to give back to society - yet you'll always be better off the more you earn, even if the rate diminishes to a point. The idea of a flat tax rate is very much a "fuck you" to people who can't afford it, and an increasingly beneficial arrangement to the people rich enough that they won't notice being taxed for more money than many workers make in a whole year. Either the rate is set too low so the poor can survive, in which case the government gets less money and the economy crashes, or it's set too high in an effort to balance the budget which effectively kills the poor's ability to survive without handouts, which increases welfare, which increases the need for tax, which increases the amount that needs to be taxed...

it is discrimination, by the very definition of the word. It just happens to be a form of discrimination you support. At some point, people need to be responsible for their own choices in life. The more government you have, the less personal responsibility the citizens have, as government has taken up that role.

[Soeroah]

I think people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. I have no intention of taking from others, nor do I support the idea of others taking from me. I like the idea of taxing consumption, because it promotes better decision making. Prudence is rewarded. I see no reason to promote spending, as it leads to careless decision making, which is the main cause of poverty and homelessness. The vast majority of people are poor and homeless due to the decisions they (or their parents) have made.

I agree insofar as careful budgeting and lack of frivolous spending is necessary, but the fact of the matter is a tax on spending discriminately targets the lower class and benefits the higher class. As I said, plenty of poor people already struggle, and many don't want to be poor but can't help themselves because 90% of their paycheck is already going to rent and food.

Poor people have to spend more of their income on the basics to live than the rich do, that's simple fact. That means they don't get an opportunity to save, and a flat tax only kills any hope they'd have of improving their circumstances - which contributes to alcoholism, abuse of drugs and other poor spending choices.

Meanwhile, the dude getting $800,000 a year looks at a $24,000 car and the ~$3000 worth of tax he has to spend on it is barely an issue. That $3000 might go into welfare to help some poor person out for a few months, but since a fifth or a quarter or whatever of that is eaten up by paying for bills or living expenses they can't really use it to improve their skills or job prospects.

[Crissi]

it is discrimination, by the very definition of the word. It just happens to be a form of discrimination you support. At some point, people need to be responsible for their own choices in life. The more government you have, the less personal responsibility the citizens have, as government has taken up that role.

Unless you plan on breaking the US up into much smaller states, thats not really possible anymore without letting a bunch of people suffer. We are simply too large, and have too many people at the bottom end, to just ignore them cause "taxes are evil and anti freedom!"

[Machismo]

I agree insofar as careful budgeting and lack of frivolous spending is necessary, but the fact of the matter is a tax on spending discriminately targets the lower class and benefits the higher class. As I said, plenty of poor people already struggle, and many don't want to be poor but can't help themselves because 90% of their paycheck is already going to rent and food.

Poor people have to spend more of their income on the basics to live than the rich do, that's simple fact. That means they don't get an opportunity to save, and a flat tax only kills any hope they'd have of improving their circumstances - which contributes to alcoholism, abuse of drugs and other poor spending choices.

Meanwhile, the dude getting $800,000 a year looks at a $24,000 car and the ~$3000 worth of tax he has to spend on it is barely an issue. That $3000 might go into welfare to help some poor person out for a few months, but since a fifth or a quarter or whatever of that is eaten up by paying for bills or living expenses they can't really use it to improve their skills or job prospects.

I never said it was easy to go from poor to being rich. People make thousands of choices in their lifetimes, many of those choices have an impact on their financial security int he future. They should be responsible for those choices, and as it stands currently, they are not being held responsible. Consumption-based taxes promote better decision making. Since poor people largely make bad financial decisions, it would be a great start to putting them on a better path.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you plan on breaking the US up into much smaller states, thats not really possible anymore without letting a bunch of people suffer. We are simply too large, and have too many people at the bottom end, to just ignore them cause "taxes are evil and anti freedom!"

I have no problem if someone suffers as a direct result of the decisions he has made. Why should we feel obligated to take away his personal responsibility, and assume the risk/fallout for him?

[Daelak]

You want to tax people into wealth... got it.

Redistribution via infrastructure, tax credits, bring higher GDP growth rates, which help the wealthy equity and bond portfolios.

[Tabrotar]

I never said it was easy to go from poor to being rich. People make thousands of choices in their lifetimes, many of those choices have an impact on their financial security int he future. They should be responsible for those choices, and as it stands currently, they are not being held responsible. Consumption-based taxes promote better decision making. Since poor people largely make bad financial decisions, it would be a great start to putting them on a better path.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no problem if someone suffers as a direct result of the decisions he has made. Why should we feel obligated to take away his personal responsibility, and assume the risk/fallout for him?

Maybe but really just maybe that is what makes our society going on? I mean yeah shure we just can do what you insist but then don´t complain if nobody will work anymore only care about themselfs and so on aka end of the living togehter as we know it.

[Machismo]

Redistribution via infrastructure, tax credits, bring higher GDP growth rates, which help the wealthy equity and bond portfolios.

No, it can help the populace as a whole (sometimes). It still takes far more from specific people than they are likely to recover. Of course, if what you said were true, then the wealthy would be more than happy to voluntarily give up their money, as they will make far more. But, since that really isn't the case, then you are trying to play with numbers to get a result. The wealthy do not care about GDP, they care about their money. The same goes for poor people.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe but really just maybe that is what makes our society going on? I mean yeah shure we just can do what you insist but then don´t complain if nobody will work anymore only care about themselfs and so on aka end of the living togehter as we know it.

People work, because they care about themselves. They don't go to work to help others, they go to make money and provide for themselves.