Taxes apply any time money changes hands. The existence of taxes is not the thing that should cause revolution. The hoarding of wealth by the wealthy is. They don’t get taxed because their money doesn’t change hands, and for many other reasons, not least of which is corruption and bribery.
Taxes in USA are progressive, meaning the higher your income, the higher your taxes. The 1%, controlling 30% of USA’s wealth, should pay much more than 40%, the 99% shouldn’t pay 60% of taxes because their income is much lower on average.
You don’t really tax individuals, you tax the wealth regardless of who owns it. So 90% tax on unused wealth, the ‘hoarded’ excess of wealth that no individual needs and which could benefit others. Progressive taxation means you tax someone’s wealth less up to a certain point, let’s say 10 million, and you tax more on any wealth above that.
90% is probably still low, it should really be at whatever percentage wealth can’t accumulate.
Its income tax, right? They get money from ownership, dividenda from investments and stuff like that, not paychecks, not income. None of that is taxed at a reasonable rate, so they don’t get taxed on that.
Taxes apply any time money changes hands. The existence of taxes is not the thing that should cause revolution. The hoarding of wealth by the wealthy is. They don’t get taxed because their money doesn’t change hands, and for many other reasons, not least of which is corruption and bribery.
I thought the wealthy (top 1%) paid 40% of all collected taxes in the US?
Taxes in USA are progressive, meaning the higher your income, the higher your taxes. The 1%, controlling 30% of USA’s wealth, should pay much more than 40%, the 99% shouldn’t pay 60% of taxes because their income is much lower on average.
How much more
99.999%
I don’t know, 60%? 80%? 91.645%? What a random question, what is your point?
I’m not making a point just asking what you think lmao. I’m not your enemy and I’m not trying to debate you.
In the 40s it was as much as 90%, and that caused the boom in the 50s
90% tax on the top 1%?
You don’t really tax individuals, you tax the wealth regardless of who owns it. So 90% tax on unused wealth, the ‘hoarded’ excess of wealth that no individual needs and which could benefit others. Progressive taxation means you tax someone’s wealth less up to a certain point, let’s say 10 million, and you tax more on any wealth above that.
90% is probably still low, it should really be at whatever percentage wealth can’t accumulate.
And the fact that 40% of all taxes represents less than 20% of their income should tell you how much money they’re really holding onto.
Weird
Its income tax, right? They get money from ownership, dividenda from investments and stuff like that, not paychecks, not income. None of that is taxed at a reasonable rate, so they don’t get taxed on that.
Guess why