I've already talked about banking in the economy.
Mustve missed it. Like in any argument, people take one side and refuse to compromise. Obviously, the take the everything from the rich approach isn't going to solve problems by itself, but forcing wealthy people to reinvest in the country by taxing them at higher rates isn't unreasonable and should be part of the solution as well.
How and how? IBM WANTED Microsoft to have full ownership of the software as they didn't have the legal chops to deal with all the litigious issues surrounding writing software. Computer consumers didn't have to buy IBMs or Windows computers- I have 4 computers in my house and only 1 runs Windows. And if lowering one's tax exposure through legal means = exploitation then anyone who ever filed for a deduction or collected a tax refund is "exploiting".
Like I've said a million times before, rich people already pay crazy high taxes, and far higher tax rates than the average American. And what good is collecting more taxes, if we aren't holding the govt that spends it accountable to spend it in the country's best interests? You collect more taxes, all that will happen is more corporate tax breaks and military growth. We could do much of what people want to do now with no tax hikes and a huge simplification of the tax code. But again, people are more interested in applying punitive measures to what they feel is "obscene" wealth, while candy coating their anger with feigned concern for the poor. Why should rich people have to give everything away if the people who want them to aren't poor and aren't giving everything away first?
Agree with a lot of this, but I just don't see it as punitive to take, lets just say for arguments sake, 3% more from someone making over $1 million a year. You aren't compromising their lifestyle in any significant way. Like I said before, it doesn't have to be one solution. You can simplify the tax code, attempt to make spending more efficient and also raise rates on the wealthy.
Someone making $1M a year pays anywhere from 30-60% of their income to taxes, when it's all said and done. How much more should they pay, when the average person is getting back 10-15% for choosing to have kids and own a home?
That doesn't mean there was exploitation. How exactly was the exploiting done? Break it down step by step.
No it didn't. For starters computers were wildly expensive then and well beyond the reach of "the exploitable". Only buyers of computers were rich geeks and institutions like laboratories, big business and universities. Second of all there was plenty of choice in the 70s and 80s... it wasn't until the late 80s that DOS/Windows really took hold of the market. In the 70s there were a ton of startups and no clear leaders. And again, IBM wanted Microsoft to handle and own all the software to avoid lawsuits... so who exactly was being exploited and what were the mechanisms of exploitation?
A 60% effective tax rate is unchecked prosperity? Lol.
Those tax rates do sound quite high when you're allowed to make them up
