Exactly it's that philosophy of you have $10 I'm going to take it I'm going to give you back $2 give $3 to lazy people and pocket the other $5.
So socialism is only possible because of capitalism?
Yes. Socialism needs that which it hates. It is a parasite. It cannot survive without that which it is trying to destroy.
So you're saying socialism is a good idea?
Not at all. It's a terrible idea on those grounds alone. It's also a system of complacency, anxiety, economic destruction, and theft. It operates on a flawed understanding of human nature and government (the US system of government in particular).
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You're right capitalism for the select elite, socialism for everyone else. Socialism in any for is never a good thing. He's pro retardedly high tax rates of up 90%. I work harder than I should for what I make. And I'll be damned if they expect me to give basically all of it all to them to give to a lazy sack of dog shit because they want free shit like healthcare and college. You'd be a Goddamn fool to think I'm gonna pay for that for them.
You do realize that USA used to have 90% taxes back in its golden age right? It was part of why the country was prospering so much.
Free for your enjoyment if you want. https://taxfoundation. org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
Exactly. People who earned more than 3425766 dollars paid 91% tax. They obviously do not pay 91% tax on their entire income so the "effective" taxrate is an accumulation of how much they paid in each income bracket with only the last bit being taxed at 91%. Considering rich people in USA is significantly richer today and pay "Only slightly lower" means the taxes are much lower today since a lot more of their income would classify in the 91% tax bracket if it still existed and significantly increase the effective tax rate.
Apparently you just read the one part of the entire article. That is basically one person in the entire US that payed 91%. Someone who made 250,000k in the golden era would equate 2,000,000 by today's standards due to inflation. So therefore make the national gross tax on everything from income to estate tax is covered. And the national average during that time period for basically 99% of the US population was 43% on everything. So before you pick and choose what you want out of an article read the whole thing. Otherwise you'll just sound retarded.
Then is then, now is now. Do you want to have the same policies as back then or not? Saying that the 91% tax bracket hardly applied back then does not mean it would not apply far more today and its also important to realize it existed for a very good reason back then as it should today.
You're apparently a retard and obviously didn't read any of the article. Because over 99% of people only paid 43% ON ALL TAXES!!! Let me put it into layman's terms for you. If we did your 91% tax rate by the parameters of the 1950s taxes, Jeff bezos would be the only person to pay that percent. Everyone else would only pay 43%. Plus they're is plenty of way for the Rich to legally avoid paying that high of a tax rate, real estate being the number one or putting money in a trust account for you children. Both of which are completely legal way to dramatically reduce your overall taxes owed to the IRS. There's a reason the one percent get richer and that right there is it.
*sigh* Considering people are far more wealthy today than they were 70 years ago what makes you think that less people would pay the 91% tax now?
Actually it's basically the same, the average income in the 50s was $3,300 or 33,000 in 2020. But by no means does that make us wealthier today than 70 years ago. In reality the cost of living back then was cheaper so therefore the average annual income is not really that much different. Yes it's ten times the amount from the 50s, but considering things like the house market was at a median $7,500 to own a house. Versus today where it's at $329,000 or exactly 43.8666666667 times that of 70 years ago. Or the average cost of a new vehicle in the 50s was $1,510, as of 2020 the average price of a vehicle is 37,851 or exactly 25.0668874127 percent higher than 70 years ago. And Yes there's smaller essential items that haven't gone up as dramatically since the 50s. But I listed the two most essential things that a vast majority of Americans need. Sure you can say there's public transportation but again a vast majority of Americans don't have the capability of utilizing it without driving somewhere first. And yes apartments and renting a home can be a cheeper alternative depending on where you live. For me it's actually cheaper to own a home then rent. So if anything the cost of living has gone up well over double that of the annual income rate. So do some more research kid on what the actual cost of living is over the past 70 years before speaking, because if You did you'd have realized that in reality it's flipped in reverse from what you said about us being richer now than 70 years ago.
No no no you missing the point entirely. Sure the wealth of average people has stagnated or even declined over the years but that is not the case for the ultra rich. They have exploded in wealth and most of the increase in GDP has actually been their growth, not the rest of the country.As such both the number of people who would apply for the 91% tax rate and the amount of wealth it would apply for since they are much wealthier than they used to is much higher. In other words their effective tax rate under the same tax laws as the "good ol days" would be much much higher than it was back then and as it is today.
I could admit I'm a democrat when the reality is I'm a republican. He only donated 3% of his campaign earnings to charity. When a true socialist would have given it all away.
I don’t support him at all. Socialism is bad.
Agreed, the only thing it's good at is full economic collapse of a nation in just a matter of years.
Yep. Capitalism is the only thing that works