I think a high percentage tax on the wealthy is best. A cap would A) never pass and B) discourage competition, business, innovation, etc. So have to say no.
-
-
-
Agreed. Update the AMT, it's really outdated but the concept is sound - make sure everyone pays their fair share.
-
Right now the AMT only seems to hit the moderately wealthy - those getting $300-600k a year. Seems silly to punish them and let the ultra rich get away with 0-15% net tax rates
-
Needs severely updated but a cap is not a good idea. The Mitt Romney's paying 12% effective rate is what should change.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, but laws and loopholes that allow the wealthy to escape taxes the rest of us pay need to be passed/enforced. People of good conscience who are fortunate and creative enough to earn more than that will do good things on their own.
-
The gap is already too big. You would have to tax net worth to remotely close it, I come won’t cut it.
-
Oops! Should have read “income...”
-
Then tax the net income. 70%. They are the 1%. They can scream all they want. We outnumber them.
-
70% on annual income still wouldn’t make much of a dent. Not when they have had decades of wealth accumulation, but yes, there should be a mechanism that shifts wealth back to the society that made their wealth possible.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you need more than $100m to live a nice life there’s something wrong with you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This would be a disincentive for the enginuity the country offers as part of the American dream.
-
I think that’s some Fox News bs akin to you shouldn’t punish success.
-
The person who’s going to want to cure cancer but since he/she can’t buy their third golden shark tank... so they just decide to open a chain of car washes instead. Sounds legit lol. Nikola Tesla died broke.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't begrudge anyone their success. It's the greed at everyone else's expense I have a problem with. Appropriate tax brackets, closing loopholes, and maybe rewarding companies who pay living wages seem to me the way to go.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Absolutely! No one needs that much wealth, humanity needs to take care of each other, not let the greedy hold everything at the expense of everyone else.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes. There should be a maximum income/worth for all people. Without that, our economic system will always revert to producing Gilded Age levels of inequality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Cap on wealth, no. High tax on the wealthy, yes.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I would make the cap considerably lower.
-
I was actually thinking 5 million
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.