Weekend at Bernie's

Sanders has not committed on firm tax bracket numbers, rather he has stated admiration and, something to the affect of, "If I had my way, I'd tax the rich at 90%." But I doubt he would ever be that audacious in reality, because the rich would just leave to go live in more forgiving markets.

Our public school systems crank out graduates who can just about recognise a "walk" light. If you want to assess a person's potential at eighteen years old, you'll have to do a lot to improve the current education system. On the other hand, if you want to start from the current system, you have to give as many eighteen-year-olds as possible the opportunity to "find themselves" education-wise.

And that may take them a few years outside of school to suss out. Or a year or two of traveling around the world (which I always thought was a good idea anyway).Enjoy

You need to learn the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. That and basic economics.What happens when we have a high marginal tax rate? High tax rates do not stifle corporate growth. They stimulate it. How you ask? Instead of paying CEO's 10's or 100's of millions, corporations reinvest it in the workers and capital projects. If a company can pay its CEO $100 million with everything over $5 million is taxed at 70%, they are more likely going to pay him $5 million and invest in their workers and the business. This is an important, necessary and right purpose of government. The purpose of government is not to allow and justify that some people make unlimited income. Corporate America was much more stable and the middle class much stronger with higher tax rates. You are spouting right wing propaganda that the modern robber barons are feeding you.
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

I do know the difference and even supposing you modeled the Capital Gains tax after the Progressive Tax we use for income, you'd still be nowhere near the absurdity of 90%. So you're saying the government won't tax a CEO that reinvests the money in the company but would tax him if he kept the earnings for himself? If so, that's not even remotely true since corporations are taxed as if they are people. Stronger government, perhaps, since government can only exist from the capital the private economy can produce. Then by contrast are you spouting left wing propaganda from the modern socialists and communists?

Not at all what I said.
Why would I company pay anyone an amount taxed at 70% when that money could instead be used to reinvest in the company? Study some economics. Higher tax rates on corporations and people have shown repeatedly to stimulate growth by incentivizing the rich and corporations to reinvest the money in people and capital improvements instead of hoarding it in bank accounts. Though that has nothing to do with what I said, it isn't even true.
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You Actually I am using facts and supported arguments, not propaganda.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.