100% in taxes for people who earn over 40k euro/ month.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

This is the a real sugestion from the german left party. I couldn't find a a english translation, so you have to use google translate on this sites: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14990865.ab
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/linkspartei-kipping-fordert-100-prozent-reichensteuer-11788075.html
This is one of the most retard thing I have heard from the left party in a long time in Europa. You can't be this stupid. I'm a rightwinger in Sweden, (not nearly as close as the rightwing in US) And I can't think out a way how this would work.

Well it is only crazy, because it will scare away business, but I can sympathize with the ideal.

The basic idea is this: nobody works hard enough to earn 0.5 million per year.

Hard physical labour earns anything between minimum wage and 3000 per month, depending on the sector, skill, experience and a willingness to work 60+ hrs/week.
Does the guy who makes millions do more than the worker? No, his job most likely involves fancy talk and backstabbing. He's got people below him do to all the work and thinking. He's not even responsible for anything and when the company goes belly up, he'll walk away with a golden handshake.

In short, the way we value work is seriously messed up.
Working hard earns crap.
Working smart is better.
Fancy talk gets the most.

I wouldn't shed a single tear for anyone who gets pushed back to "only" 500K per year, but nothing can be fixed right now because the people still believe in the power of position and rank.
Worse, enough people still worship the rich and famous and aspire to be among them, against all likelihood. Until everyone is educated and connected, nothing will improve.

Ah yes.... Die Linke....
I consider myself a leftwinger but I'd never vote them. Why? Because Die Linke is a bunch of communists, socialist and anarchists. They don't even know how their government would look like if they came to power. Nobody sane here in Germany would vote for them. (Sadly some people really vote them.)
100% taxes is just ridiculus. I'd say 60-70% for people who earn 40k/month is okay but not more.

You're surprised that communists are advocating communist policies?

Edit: Also I'd like to point out that from 1944 to 1964 the US operated with an income tax rate which exceeded 90%. The years prior and succeding that it was still above 70%.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

I don't think 100% is a very good idea, maybe something nearer a 90% for very high incomes would be fair, but you have to strike a balance between having wealth redistribution and courting business.

Half a million euros isn't really that much over a year compared to how much the super-rich can earn.

That's... insane...

Just fucking give all of asia our economy why fucking don't you...

So everything that people earn over 40K gets a 100% tax... now... wait just a mo... your retarded. You want aggregate demand to plummet through the floor? You've just achieved that. Yes. You just got the fuck up your own economy achievement. 5 points...

Yeah I study economics... this idea is 100% fucking stupid unless there was only 1 government on the planet and somehow the whole planets Government was in debt... otherwise... you'd just get people running scared, anyone with any sort of skill and any sense of enterprise. It would be the largest brain drain from Europe in History.

If there was only 1 Governments or all Governments did this at the same time then, hell I may just support it... if it wasn't for the fact that Corporations would just pay people 40K and then use the extra money not used in order to embellish themselves and others by taking out ridiculous expenses on behalf of their corporation which would then not come under the gaze of this new 100% tax...

Yes you read that correctly. This is so retarded that it would actually benefit business owners more than it would benefit any person even if applied successfully without the brain drain...

Bloody stupid people.

In other news, fire is hot and water is wet.

Now excuse me while I go put toast in toaster.

Yeah....Die Linke...

In my opinion this party is by far the most detached from reality from all the bigger parties in Germany. They try to live ideas from 60s and 70s completely ignoring that not only did the times change but demand a bit more intricate answers than "People need more money!" or "Those evil rich people!". Couple that with its old DDR connections, sometimes only thinly veiled xenophobia/anti-semitism and blunt populism exemplified by its long-time leader Oskar Lafontaine and you know why I personally abhor this party. I don't see them offering anymore than ideology and populism.

That said, I can sympathize with the underlying idea but can't see how a tax rate of one-hundred percent would do anything but harm.

Oh good. All capital investment coming from the government. That will work out just swell.

Thats a perfect example of people on the far left trying to bring the successful down instead of bringing the downtrodden up. This would destroy their economy in a matter of weeks.

adamtm:
In other news, fire is hot and water is wet.

Now excuse me while I go put toast in toaster.

You put toast in your toaster? Funny, I put bread...

OT: Gotta be one of the more retarded things I've heard, mainly because corporations already have ways around high taxes. Corporate bullshit in regards to taxes requires a huge effort to fix, and there ain't noone that is willing to do it.

Well, not many people are going to earn more than 40k, especially with the new edition coming out. Marines are quite the earner.

...

Seriously, though, how big is this party?

MacNille:
This is the a real sugestion from the german left party. I couldn't find a a english translation, so you have to use google translate on this sites: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14990865.ab
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/linkspartei-kipping-fordert-100-prozent-reichensteuer-11788075.html
This is one of the most retard thing I have heard from the left party in a long time in Europa. You can't be this stupid. I'm a rightwinger in Sweden, (not nearly as close as the rightwing in US) And I can't think out a way how this would work.

Reading the article now, and it's not quite as stupid as I initially thought from the title.

The proposition is that anything over 40000 euro a month gets taxes - i.e. the person still gets their 40000 euro a month, just not any amount over that. I can see there being both good and bad things with this:

Bad:

-It reduces the impetus for higher earners to progress further up the scale
-Will drive people to tax havens in the long term unless it's coupled with anti-haven measures
-Would be quite easy to play the system by encouraging payments in the form of bonds or shares (this is probably a surmountable problem with suitable definition of what constitutes 'income'

Good:

-It raises a hell of a lot of revenue in a small amount of time (but will long term make a loss because of tax havens and emigration)
-It's essentially redistributive, which makes me happy
-It might help reign in stupid bonuses and wage packets - If there's a de facto wage cap, there isn't going to be the same competition between companies to offer 'high fliers' the best wage. It's that competition that's caused the frankly ridiculous bonus culture that we have in the financial sector (on the other hand, it could also drive said high earners to emigrate in order to earn many times the wage for the same job)

Conclusion?

Morally and socially I actually wouldn't have a problem with it (I'm social democratic at heart), but in practicality it would cause brain drain, loss of revenue, and other problems unless you were to use particularly severe legislation to prevent it. It probably isn't worth it, however well-intentioned.

wintercoat:

adamtm:
In other news, fire is hot and water is wet.

Now excuse me while I go put toast in toaster.

You put toast in your toaster? Funny, I put bread...

OT: Gotta be one of the more retarded things I've heard, mainly because corporations already have ways around high taxes. Corporate bullshit in regards to taxes requires a huge effort to fix, and there ain't noone that is willing to do it.

Die Linke: Toast Controversy; Take Away Bread, Redistribute Crumbs.

This is nowhere near far enough. What's the point in maintaining Capitalism in some neutered state? Just get it over with and abolish private property and capitalism altogether.

"Die Linke" is the party left over from the Deutsche Demokratische Republik; essentially a communist party. Is it any surprise, then, that a career politician for that party says something very much in line with communist goals? And let's get something straight here - this isn't the Linke party platform. This is one politician's personal opinion. It'd be like saying "Conservatives in the USA want to ban contraception" after Frothy's statements on the subject.

Unexpected? No, he is a COMMUNIST.

Dumb as all Hell? Yes, you will not have a business nor business owner in the entire country within a day of that passing.

Not G. Ivingname:
Yes, you will not have a business nor business owner in the entire country within a day of that passing.

Guess that's why you couldn't find a shop in the entire US during the 20 year period in which they had a 90>% income tax.

It's also a she.

OT: I won't even discuss whether this would work or not, my only question is; where does all this money the government takes go? Even if you did this "Mindesteinkommen" thing and gave people without work a shit ton more money, you'd still have a lot of tax money left over. What is that going to be used for? Knowing Germany, nothing that makes the world a better place.

What a fucking pity anyway. I remember the old days, when Die Linke weren't THIS out of touch.

Slowly but surely I'm running out of parties to vote for.

thaluikhain:
Seriously, though, how big is this party?

Not very. Averages somewhere between 2-8%.

Even for one in favour in heavy progressive taxes, it's a dumb idea, because you can be certain people will find other ways to get paid above that limit. If you're at a progressive rate with the absurd notion of 100% tax, many people will not care about the money, not find ways to legally evade taxes, and in the end pay more.

MacNille:
This is one of the most retard thing I have heard from the left party in a long time in Europa.

The Socialist Party in the Netherlands wanted to abolish mortgage subsidies overnight at their 2006 campaign. Mortgage subsidies in the Netherlands are to ensure people can ever buy a house, and over time the effects were taken into the prices of housing, which are very high. People rely on mortgage subsidy to be able to live where they are right now.

Most people who own a house can only afford their current mortgage costs due to the subsidy.

That party wanted to abolish them overnight.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Not G. Ivingname:
Yes, you will not have a business nor business owner in the entire country within a day of that passing.

Guess that's why you couldn't find a shop in the entire US during the 20 year period in which they had a 90>% income tax.

It's also a she.

Yes, a lot of them stayed, but it wasn't ALL your income taken, and a lot of big businesses left the country because they could afford to just buy citizenship elsewhere. Germany, on the other hand is suggesting to take ALL the money from the rich (meaning they will lose money being that rich, since they will have no income to feed themselves) and they can completely legally cross the border to any EU country they want, and set shop up there.

Not G. Ivingname:

Yes, a lot of them stayed, but it wasn't ALL your income taken, and a lot of big businesses left the country because they could afford to just buy citizenship elsewhere. Germany, on the other hand is suggesting to take ALL the money from the rich (meaning they will lose money being that rich, since they will have no income to feed themselves) and they can completely legally cross the border to any EU country they want, and set shop up there.

Taxes don't work that way. 100% for above 40k would mean 100% only on whatever passes 40k. Not 100% on everything.

That said, it is a rather silly proposal, though; yes I'm all for progressive taxes, especially ramping them up in times of crisis and then lowering them when the economic climate improves; but 100% is stretching it a bit.

Not G. Ivingname:

Yes, a lot of them stayed, but it wasn't ALL your income taken, and a lot of big businesses left the country because they could afford to just buy citizenship elsewhere. Germany, on the other hand is suggesting to take ALL the money from the rich (meaning they will lose money being that rich, since they will have no income to feed themselves) and they can completely legally cross the border to any EU country they want, and set shop up there.

I hadn't heard about America's corporations fleeing, could you name any?

Istvan:
I hadn't heard about America's corporations fleeing, could you name any?

I doubt there'll be much answer to that. The limited bit I read on it pictured the wartime US as a place where you could make big bucks producing for the war, and where labour shortage was a bigger problem than demand shortage. A commercial enterprise would be foolish to leave the US, that being one of the few countries not affected by the war, and a place where the tightly regulated economy was doing extremely well.

According to Wikipedia, Die Linke polls in the 10% neighborhood. Low enough to consider them pretty well on the fringe of reality.

Also, one of their top people's name is Klaus Ernst, which is the most German name in the history of ever.

Donuthole:
Also, one of their top people's name is Klaus Ernst, which is the most German name in the history of ever.

Both are also found as first names for men in both the Netherlands and Belgium.

Was this a world-wide thing, then I'd support it. No one NEEDS over 500k a year. Really, you don't. Heck, I'd say you don't even need more half that. So basically not allowing wages over 500k a year is a good idea, in my opinion.

HOWEVER, there's a problem. People that earn more than that will just move to another country. This doesn't fix anything. Actually, it would hurt the German economy as anyone earning too much according to this rule would just take all their money and leave. And then there's also always loopholes.

Like I said, if it was a world-wide thing I'd support it. But it's not, so it sucks.

sanquin:
Was this a world-wide thing, then I'd support it. No one NEEDS over 500k a year. Really, you don't. Heck, I'd say you don't even need more half that. So basically not allowing wages over 500k a year is a good idea, in my opinion.

I don't know what real estate costs where you live, but around here, some high class housing costs over a million in euros. You don't afford that with a salary capped at € 500.000, of which you can effectively spend less than € 220.000 after current taxes.

It's not likely you need things like that in the strict sense of the word, but it's not like that's a point where all you have left to spend money on is pure decadence.

Blablahb:

sanquin:
Was this a world-wide thing, then I'd support it. No one NEEDS over 500k a year. Really, you don't. Heck, I'd say you don't even need more half that. So basically not allowing wages over 500k a year is a good idea, in my opinion.

I don't know what real estate costs where you live, but around here, some high class housing costs over a million in euros. You don't afford that with a salary capped at € 500.000, of which you can effectively spend less than € 220.000 after current taxes.

It's not likely you need things like that in the strict sense of the word, but it's not like that's a point where all you have left to spend money on is pure decadence.

Thats not even the problem, someone needs to have capital to move up to create jobs and companies that will sell you shit.

I mean yeah, personally i don't need 100.000$ a year, but other people that actually want to invest in something do.

Those people keep our economy moving.

Inb4, companies can share capital, yes i know, but you would need to change a lot more than just the taxation to make this work.
Die Linke is just doing their polemic bullshit again, they dont have a plan and they never will have one.

Blablahb:
I don't know what real estate costs where you live, but around here, some high class housing costs over a million in euros. You don't afford that with a salary capped at € 500.000, of which you can effectively spend less than € 220.000 after current taxes.

It's not likely you need things like that in the strict sense of the word, but it's not like that's a point where all you have left to spend money on is pure decadence.

I was actually talking about 500k after taxes. Not before. Not counting the taxes automatically included into the price of goods that is. Even so, if you earn 220k a year I think you can afford a mortgage of a house that costs a million... I mean you still have over 10k a month left then. Considering I live off of 1115 euro's a month, that is EASILY doable. (A family of 4 can easily live off of 3k a month after mortgage, for one.)

adamtm:

Thats not even the problem, someone needs to have capital to move up to create jobs and companies that will sell you shit.

I mean yeah, personally i don't need 100.000$ a year, but other people that actually want to invest in something do.

I'm not buying it until I actually see those people, you know, creating jobs. Not buying it until I see a better job availability across the field, and unemployment going down.

Those people should keep our economy moving, but aren't.

I think that is more true to the current situation. It's still the middle and lower class who return most if not all of their money back to the economy.

sanquin:
I was actually talking about 500k after taxes. Not before. Not counting the taxes automatically included into the price of goods that is. Even so, if you earn 220k a year I think you can afford a mortgage of a house that costs a million... I mean you still have over 10k a month left then. Considering I live off of 1115 euro's a month, that is EASILY doable. (A family of 4 can easily live off of 3k a month after mortgage, for one.)

But this isn't about what is possible. I've been able to live off € 600 a month. Does that mean I'm entitled to claim you're overspending with € 1100 and would need heavier taxes? No, of course not.

This discussion not about what is necessary, it's about what is nice to have. If you're talking a measure as draconic as an income cap, you need to place that at a point where there pretty much is nothing sensible left to buy. Below that would be just unfair, that would be building a taxation system on jealousy because your experience of the minimum needed, becomes a standard for other people's maximum allowed.

I mean, I can't buy buying a sports car. Strikes me as a waste of money. But that doesn't mean nobody should be able to buy them. Opinions differ. Someone else in turn could probably find things on my budget they don't see a point in.

adamtm:
In other news, fire is hot and water is wet.

Now excuse me while I go put toast in toaster.

Don't you mean bread? >:D MWHAHAHAHAHA

I favour a progressive tax system, but that is too ridiculous for me. The point of tax progressive tax is to SKIM part off that the person probably doesn't need, that's why higher brackets have higher percentages, but the amount taken should be proportional to the amount earned, to tax at 100% at any bracket is simply nullifying it entirely.

Wait, 100%? As in, "All money you make above X amount goes to the government, regardless of how much that is? So an income cap, basically?

Nope. Just nope.

You can put arbitrary numbers on everything. Saying "anyone can live on $500,000 a year" is true, but it's ignoring a whole hell of a lot. The typical poor or middle class worker would be very happy with that amount, being able to buy a relatively nice place, a nice new car, and pay off all their bills pretty much. If one person can do it, everyone can do it, right?

But if you're trying to start a business? Trying to afford something more than a small house in the city or a standard SUV? That's just not going to cut it. Sales on the top tier of luxury items plummet, since nobody can afford them. People who own large houses or large tracts of land can't sell them, because nobody can afford to buy them. Why take a risk and invest a lot of your money when you can hit your income cap without even taking the risk? It's just a bad idea altogether. If anything, you should give incentives for the rich to invest and help the economy, not give incentives to do as little as possible by taking away all the incentives to do more.

Vegosiux:

adamtm:

Thats not even the problem, someone needs to have capital to move up to create jobs and companies that will sell you shit.

I mean yeah, personally i don't need 100.000$ a year, but other people that actually want to invest in something do.

I'm not buying it until I actually see those people, you know, creating jobs. Not buying it until I see a better job availability across the field, and unemployment going down.

Those people should keep our economy moving, but aren't.

I think that is more true to the current situation. It's still the middle and lower class who return most if not all of their money back to the economy.

Nevertheless you need -some- of them, no matter how shitty a job they are doing right now.

If nobody in the world has more than 100.000$, we have a problem.

Its a different discussion altogether, but its an argument against the "realism" of this proposition.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked