Soaking the Rich

[Space Captain Brian Surgeon]

It's a damned sight more true than saying the last time the US tried it, it contributed to the great depression.

no. Both statements are false.

Besides who ever said that the tax rate is what lead to the depression.

I'm going to go by what was in the tax code at the time.

[Bear Stearns]

A 70% income tax would hit people with high incomes, but people with high income are not necessarily rich, nor do people who are rich necessarily have high incomes. Also last time we tried something like this it was a major contributor to the great depression.

The last time you tried this was the 1950s.

Back then, that tax bracket only applied to like 400 families, and very few of them actually paid the full tax rate. It wasn't really a major thing.

[Ethel mermania]

no. Both statements are false.

Besides who ever said that the tax rate is what lead to the depression.

I'm going to go by what was in the tax code at the time.

Apparently that doesnt count what was deductible at the time, because it hurts your narrative. Whatever dude.

[Space Captain Brian Surgeon]

I'm going to go by what was in the tax code at the time.

Apparently that doesnt count what was deductible at the time, because it hurts your narrative. Whatever dude.

What I said was a true statement, not a false one. We all have our own narratives.

[Great New England Confederation]

this is honestly a bad idea, for a few reasons. One, a few of the people you would be soaking are leaders in industry, who provide advancement in technology, medicine, etc, as well as thousands if not millions of jobs. You would easily be destroying their ability to sustain the companies that they work, as you would likely be taxing said company in the process, as they would be the source of income for these individuals. Most of these individuals also own, operate or provide large amounts of funding to large charity organizations. Two, if you start soaking the rich, then you will simply drive the upper class lower and lower, and this will out those at the bottom even lower as they loose jobs. So could it be done yes, should it be done, no

[Tobleste]

this is honestly a bad idea, for a few reasons. One, a few of the people you would be soaking are leaders in industry, who provide advancement in technology, medicine, etc, as well as thousands if not millions of jobs. You would easily be destroying their ability to sustain the companies that they work, as you would likely be taxing said company in the process, as they would be the source of income for these individuals. Most of these individuals also own, operate or provide large amounts of funding to large charity organizations. Two, if you start soaking the rich, then you will simply drive the upper class lower and lower, and this will out those at the bottom even lower as they loose jobs. So could it be done yes, should it be done, no

They don't single handedly promote that advancement; their companies and employees do. If it was all them, they wouldn't bother with employees.

The company's wealth is also separate from the owner so taxing the owner(s) doesn't damage the company.

They (some of them) operate charity organisations because they have vast income that no individual could ever need. Maybe rather than rely on the generosity of a fraction of the wealthy, they could simply be taxed.

And the upper class are rising higher and higher. Higher taxes on them wouldn't drive them lower, it would simply keep them at their current level or just slow down their enrichment, depending on how much higher they are.

Besides, the working class is suffering as it is. Arguing high taxes for the rich would hurt workers is like arguing the crew of the Titanic abandoning their posts could cause trouble. You're kind of ignoring the problems with the status quo.