I have watched many interviews with Melinda Gates and she speaks frequently on how they do try to help with contraception in other countries. I am not suggesting that they cease to do all the marvelous things they do. I would like the possibility of free contraception that women can hide (just like they developed for women in countries that want to prevent women from using any contraception) because this country is turning into a fascist hell hole and Planned Parenthood can’t do it alone. Yes, the Gates foundation helped fund vaccine development....so did Dolly Parton and so did a crap load of people across the planet. I get that you know the Gates and I’m sure they are truly great people (unlike the other assholes) to know in person. I don’t often say this...but dear god, lighten up, the tumbrels aren’t coming for Bill and Melinda. I’m super sorry that they have the Q-anon insanity constantly landing on them...so does Tom Hanks, Nancy Pelosi and a host of others...And no one has had more shit and for far longer than HRC. What they say about Bill PALES to the vile spew that is on constant repeat about HRC. Personal attacks on fellow Wonkers is extremely rude and an unnecessary distraction to why we come to this site. And is a violation to the only rule on this site....don’t be a dick.
What makes you think the zotta-rich aren't investing yet?
Also, since investing is a net positive for the investors, forcing them to invest would make them richer instead of poorer, so it would increase the wealth gap instead of reducing it.
Nice to know...do they give to a particular state’s PP or do they just give a giant donation to the national organization? I am more interested that every single woman who wants contraception can get it for free (Yeah, I’m past worrying about rich people getting free stuff) and I’m particularly interested in the kind that the Gates Foundation developed that allows the woman to be able to keep it hidden because it is so small (they are once a month injectors, I think) and they are stable so they don’t need to be refrigerated or anything like that and they can get 6 months or more at a time so it is not suspicious that they are going to a planned parenthood clinic. I wish we could hand them out at street corners. And if people are worried about safety (besides the fact they have been doin this for years in other countries) we have the worst maternal outcomes of any “developed” country in the world.
No. During the 1950s until about Reagan, the marginal tax rate on the top top earners was up to 90 percent. Seemed to work just fine. In fact, we had the greatest expansion of the middle class ever and lots of great new infrastructure. Economists have looked at this over and over. So no.
No to what? The marginal tax rate you cite was on income, not wealth. AFAIK the US has never had a wealth tax, unless inheritance tax counts, and it is not quite the same thing. For whatever it might be worth I agree the marginal Federal tax rate for very high incomes is unjustifiably low (as do Gates and Buffet). That said, the economy of the immediate post WWII period was not at all typical. US factories were operating almost without foreign competition as many of those in Europe and Asia were off line (or destroyed) due to the war. So while 90 percent might have flown in that period (we really don't know, since even then nobody actually paid those rates) it does not follow that the same rate would work as well now.
Of course they are investing, and that is a good thing. This bill makes no distinction between wealth which is a yacht and wealth which is a factory. Moreover, it does not take into account the economic effect of selling assets like factories or businesses in order to pay the tax. The text of the bill is here:
and by my reading it is not a serious proposal that would pass in either the Senate or the House, but is instead an exercise in political posturing. (Are round numbers like 2% and 3% derived from economic theory? Of course not, they just sound good.) Sorry to be a political realist, but since Joe Manchin would never vote for this, that is the end of the story for at least the next two years.
That period of time showed quite clearly that high taxes on the very wealthy resulted in a much more equitable society. And I don't understand why you don't think anyone ever paid the top 90 percent marginal tax rate. There were still plenty of very wealthy people.
At this point, our extreme inequality not only is immoral and unfair, but will ultimately destabilize society, as has happened elsewhere.
As for not taxing money that is "productively invested," what exactly is that? The super-wealthy invest their money into lots of things, many of them worthless, who is to say that the money is being used right?
It's not "soak the rich," it's investing in a country that desperately needs help. There was a time when households could exist on only one income, college was affordable, health insurance wasn't a big scam, and people weren't one paycheck away from disaster.
Your future costing is based on the idea that their wealth would remain static and consist of just one pool of money earned in year one. It wouldn't. The income they have in year one is not the same income as in year two. They will earn new money in year two and so on. The cut would remain at 2% per annum.
The wealth is added to cumulatively because they make far more money than they spend. It would not remain static either. That's how they got wealthy, by adding money every year and then making money off that money. I myself like the money transaction tax because it would tax the markets and apply to all money, no matter where it's owner lives or nationality he holds.
The fact of the matter is that all of this wealth accumulation is directly attributable to the infrastructure that all of the little people pay for, including schools, the courts, the military, the highway system, etc. etc. etc. It is only logical to redirect excessive wealth back into that effort.
From I gathered they give to both the national org and the Washington state chapter.
I have watched many interviews with Melinda Gates and she speaks frequently on how they do try to help with contraception in other countries. I am not suggesting that they cease to do all the marvelous things they do. I would like the possibility of free contraception that women can hide (just like they developed for women in countries that want to prevent women from using any contraception) because this country is turning into a fascist hell hole and Planned Parenthood can’t do it alone. Yes, the Gates foundation helped fund vaccine development....so did Dolly Parton and so did a crap load of people across the planet. I get that you know the Gates and I’m sure they are truly great people (unlike the other assholes) to know in person. I don’t often say this...but dear god, lighten up, the tumbrels aren’t coming for Bill and Melinda. I’m super sorry that they have the Q-anon insanity constantly landing on them...so does Tom Hanks, Nancy Pelosi and a host of others...And no one has had more shit and for far longer than HRC. What they say about Bill PALES to the vile spew that is on constant repeat about HRC. Personal attacks on fellow Wonkers is extremely rude and an unnecessary distraction to why we come to this site. And is a violation to the only rule on this site....don’t be a dick.
What difference would it make where they hoard their wealth?
Yes, the Gates Foundation does give money to Planned Parenthood for family planning services.
What makes you think the zotta-rich aren't investing yet?
Also, since investing is a net positive for the investors, forcing them to invest would make them richer instead of poorer, so it would increase the wealth gap instead of reducing it.
Nice to know...do they give to a particular state’s PP or do they just give a giant donation to the national organization? I am more interested that every single woman who wants contraception can get it for free (Yeah, I’m past worrying about rich people getting free stuff) and I’m particularly interested in the kind that the Gates Foundation developed that allows the woman to be able to keep it hidden because it is so small (they are once a month injectors, I think) and they are stable so they don’t need to be refrigerated or anything like that and they can get 6 months or more at a time so it is not suspicious that they are going to a planned parenthood clinic. I wish we could hand them out at street corners. And if people are worried about safety (besides the fact they have been doin this for years in other countries) we have the worst maternal outcomes of any “developed” country in the world.
Frankly, most billionaires could find the money in their couch cushions.
No. During the 1950s until about Reagan, the marginal tax rate on the top top earners was up to 90 percent. Seemed to work just fine. In fact, we had the greatest expansion of the middle class ever and lots of great new infrastructure. Economists have looked at this over and over. So no.
No to what? The marginal tax rate you cite was on income, not wealth. AFAIK the US has never had a wealth tax, unless inheritance tax counts, and it is not quite the same thing. For whatever it might be worth I agree the marginal Federal tax rate for very high incomes is unjustifiably low (as do Gates and Buffet). That said, the economy of the immediate post WWII period was not at all typical. US factories were operating almost without foreign competition as many of those in Europe and Asia were off line (or destroyed) due to the war. So while 90 percent might have flown in that period (we really don't know, since even then nobody actually paid those rates) it does not follow that the same rate would work as well now.
Possibly. But facebook ain't it. Arguably we already have a digital commons.
Of course they are investing, and that is a good thing. This bill makes no distinction between wealth which is a yacht and wealth which is a factory. Moreover, it does not take into account the economic effect of selling assets like factories or businesses in order to pay the tax. The text of the bill is here:
https://www.warren.senate.g...
and by my reading it is not a serious proposal that would pass in either the Senate or the House, but is instead an exercise in political posturing. (Are round numbers like 2% and 3% derived from economic theory? Of course not, they just sound good.) Sorry to be a political realist, but since Joe Manchin would never vote for this, that is the end of the story for at least the next two years.
That period of time showed quite clearly that high taxes on the very wealthy resulted in a much more equitable society. And I don't understand why you don't think anyone ever paid the top 90 percent marginal tax rate. There were still plenty of very wealthy people.
At this point, our extreme inequality not only is immoral and unfair, but will ultimately destabilize society, as has happened elsewhere.
As for not taxing money that is "productively invested," what exactly is that? The super-wealthy invest their money into lots of things, many of them worthless, who is to say that the money is being used right?
It's not "soak the rich," it's investing in a country that desperately needs help. There was a time when households could exist on only one income, college was affordable, health insurance wasn't a big scam, and people weren't one paycheck away from disaster.
Your future costing is based on the idea that their wealth would remain static and consist of just one pool of money earned in year one. It wouldn't. The income they have in year one is not the same income as in year two. They will earn new money in year two and so on. The cut would remain at 2% per annum.
The wealth is added to cumulatively because they make far more money than they spend. It would not remain static either. That's how they got wealthy, by adding money every year and then making money off that money. I myself like the money transaction tax because it would tax the markets and apply to all money, no matter where it's owner lives or nationality he holds.
Perhaps we should go the Buffett route and just raise marginal taxes on the super wealthy instead of giving them tax cuts.
The fact of the matter is that all of this wealth accumulation is directly attributable to the infrastructure that all of the little people pay for, including schools, the courts, the military, the highway system, etc. etc. etc. It is only logical to redirect excessive wealth back into that effort.